From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner advice for Paper 2 (Eng A: Language & Literature)

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for teachers and students for each type of assessment.  These can be turned into a useful guide what to do and NOT do on exams.

What appeared difficult for candidates

• Not answering the specifics of the question was a problem for some candidates. For example, some candidates were able to identify examples of “foreshadowing” without really discussing the effect of such “foreshadowing”. 

• Structuring essays also continues to be an issue for many candidates and, while some of this is no doubt due to time pressure in an examination, terms are often lacking clear definition and a thesis statement is absent or submerged in a rambling introduction. This is linked to the way candidates frequently do not answer the questions as asked, often falling back on learned discussion of themes that clouds the task at hand.

• Some candidates appeared to have a “set/prepared” question in mind and attempted to force the question to fit that prepared response with limited success leading to vague generalizations without evidence.

• Some are still struggling to use the appropriate diction for the discussion of Poetry, Prose and Drama. Many do not see a difference created by these genre choices and plays are at times called novels and acts are called chapters etc.

• There was a very high prevalence of answers that appeared to have been prepared in outline prior to the exam where candidates were almost waiting for a question to “lock” onto that would allow them to use this material. As one examiner put it: “ [I received] many responses that were almost a stock response with little individuality or personal response to either book - a sense that notes and essay plans were learned rather than reading and discussing books.”   Formulaic responses lack the sense of real engagement and in particular the presentation of a reading of the text based on evidence selected by the candidates.

Where candidates appeared well-prepared

• Many candidates wrote very good responses that highlighted literary features and more importantly their effects on the reader. Specifically, these discussions led to a perceptive analysis of stylistic features and narrative structures, including poetic forms, points of view, symbolism, metaphor etc. The better essays were also able to discuss stylistic features that were specific to the genre of the work (visual imagery in Persepolis, or the use of stage directions in A Doll’s House).

• A large number of responses showed that candidates had been admirably well prepared using excellent language skills, giving detailed accounts of the texts and integrating the analysis of literary style so that it was relevant to their argument.

• Knowledge of context was also good though integrating this into the answer less assured. Most candidates were able to structure their essays though at times conclusions were often absent or very thin.

Recommendations to candidates

• Candidates should to be encouraged constantly to provide evidence for their ideas. There is still a tendency to generalize and assume.

• The excellent attention to the specific stylistic aspects of graphic novels should also be applied to drama and the prose works. 

• Candidates need to be more comfortable with the lexicon for discussing the different genres. 

• While it is important to have the appropriate vocabulary, candidates also need to be aware of the effect of authorial choices on the reader/audience.

• Candidates need to define (explain) the terms/topic/approach used in their question (preferably in the introduction or at least early on in the paper). Many lost focus because there was no clear direction established in the introduction and the conclusions were often only tacked on. 

• A good introduction and conclusion can give structure to an essay which otherwise may “drift”. A greater emphasis must be made to have candidates address literary conventions/ stylistic features in their responses (with specific focus on the effects these features have on the audience/reader) especially if the question does not specifically ask for it.

• More time must be spent on deconstructing/unpacking previous paper 2 essay questions, focusing on what aspects/features of the literary works are relevant to the chosen question. Often candidates begin the essay well enough but end up resorting to plot summary and whatever they can remember about the works they have allegedly studied. This can lead to a problem in developing the argument. Having candidates practice using cohesive phrases such as ‘in addition’, ‘however’, ‘consequently’ and ‘in conclusion’ would indicate to the examiner that the essay has a structure and a direction.

• Structuring responses could also be looked at with candidates, encouraging close focus on the nuances of the question, defining terminology clearly and structuring the flow of the essay so that the knowledge of the texts can serve the development of the argument, not vice versa.

Need practice for the Paper 2 exam? Contact us.