From the Horse's Mouth

English A: Extended Essay

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for teachers and students for each type of assessment. Please note that this report is specific to essays written in English A; essays in English B are discussed elsewhere.

Note: Although this report is from the M15 publication, all points are immediately relevant to students writing in 2018

The range and suitability of the work submitted

The large majority of the essays were submitted in Category 1 and thus comprised a straightforward analysis of a literary text or texts. Category 2 essays were less popular.

Category 3 essays are slowly growing in popularity and schools could usefully revisit the possibilities with this option, especially for students studying the Language and Literature course.

This year in all three categories examiners saw a number of outstanding essays from students who had made fresh and original choices of texts and topic. However, there are still a very large number of essays on ‘well-worn’ themes: Fitzgerald’s ‘The Great Gatsby’ (American Dream); Salinger’s ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ (adolescence/character-based), Atwood’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ (dystopian/feminist); Orwell’s ‘1984’/ Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ (dystopian), and Khomeini’s ‘The Kite Runner’ and ‘A Thousand Splendid Suns’ (cultural/feminist.)

In such cases, as many examiners pointed out, an innovative approach and some recourse to secondary sources, as well as a genuine attempt to set the work in its literary context, is required to offer something beyond the ordinary.

There is also a trend towards a set of favourite topics emerging for Category 3 essays, (perhaps influenced by course units in textbooks?) e.g. the “Dove for Real Beauty” and Benetton campaigns.

Topics based on young adult fiction, or fiction which has been adapted for film or television, remain popular (George RR Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’; Stephenie Meyer’s ‘Twilight’ series) but here, as always, students need to be circumspect about the literary merit of the works.

Other texts in this category included ‘Matched’ by Ally Condie (the Matched trilogy), ‘Rapture’ by Lauren Kate (the ‘Fallen’ series), ‘Beautiful Disaster’ by Jamie McGuire and ‘The Giver’ by Lois Lowry, where the novels simply did not support a discussion of a sufficiently academic nature.

Some texts chosen for comparison in Category 2 were too disparate and again, the discussion did not work (e.g. ‘The Great Gatsby’ with ‘Gilgamesh’).

However, it was refreshing to see some new texts, or a popular text viewed from a fresh perspective or compared with a ‘new’ text.

Examples of research questions which lead to successful analysis included ‘How does Eliza Haywood represent female voice and agency in her books ‘Love in Excess’ and ‘Fantomina’?’; ‘How, in similar and different ways, do the two poets Jalal ad-Din Rumi and Joy Harjo present the motif of the divine in their poems?’; ‘How is a nature / nurture tension used to create a complex characterisation of the protagonist in the novel ‘Ed King’ by David Guterson?’ and ‘How are the protagonists from ‘Wit’ by Margaret Edson and ‘Proof’ by David Auburn analogous in the challenges they face?’

Other titles and topics which examiners particularly enjoyed included the use of outside works in John Green’s ‘Paper Towns’ and ‘The Fault in our Stars’ (focusing on ‘Leaves of Grass’ and ‘An Imperial Affliction’ by Peter van Houten); the intrusive narrative voice in E.M. Forster; ; an exploration of racial identity in Nella Larsen’s ‘Passing’, Vikas Swarup’s employment of structure in ‘Q & A’, and essays on ‘Love and Information’ by Caryl Churchill and ‘Americanah’ by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.

For category 3 essays, there needs to be a clear sense of a “text” and a discussion of the language elements at play in the “text”. Three titles which offered the scope to do this are offered as examples: ‘How do Margaret Thatcher and Barack Obama use pathos, ethos and logos to reach out to their audiences?’ (Using ‘This lady’s not for turning’ from 1980 and Obama’s 2009 inauguration speech); ‘To what extent do the language choices in the Nike World Cup TV advertisement appeal to the target audience?’ and ‘How has the portrayal of the LGBT community in stand-up comedy evolved from late 80s to the present day?’

Category 3 essays should be based on primary material that the candidates have had to analyse themselves. Essays where the candidates have merely gathered information from secondary sources and ‘patched it together’, so to speak, are not successful. Basing Category 3 essays only on questionnaires which have been completed by fellow students at the school is also inadvisable; as one examiner pointed out, creating a suitable questionnaire is a skilled task for which the candidate needs training.

As always, a few essays exceeded the word limit or dealt only with works in translation and candidates need to be aware of the penalties incurred in these cases.

It should be noted that for Category 3 essays also, texts chosen should be originally written in English.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A: research question

The new Extended Essay Guide will place increased emphasis on the selection of a research question; and after 2016, the research question is required to be posed as a question, rather than expressed as a title or statement. This is a strategy which candidates could usefully adopt with immediate effect: as the draft TSM points out, “a properly-formulated research question enables students to maintain their focus more easily throughout the essay and to make a judgment as to whether they have responded to the research question.” It is also evident that the most successfully focused work invariably has a simply worded and tightly focused question as its starting-point.

Candidates should be reminded that overly broad topics (such as how different authors deal with the topic of racism in literature) rarely work because of a lack of focus and a lack of detailed treatment within the confines of the word count.

Very obvious or ‘well-worn’ topics (such as the portrayal of war in Owen’s poetry or Remarque’s ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, or the social background in ‘Pride & Prejudice’) rarely offer new insights.

Other essays omitted to frame the research question to give the investigation a literary focus rather than one which was sociological, psychological, or historical in nature.

It is important to stress the importance of a closely-studied text or texts at the heart of a Category 3 essay, and in this category also, some research questions, and responses, were overly general and uncritical in focus. As mentioned again below, these tended to encourage students to simply write about their ideas and opinions without doing research or providing evidence for their statements.

Research questions often varied between the cover, the title page, the abstract and the introduction; consistency is required here.

Criterion B: introduction

Introductions often included irrelevant biographical material but failed to deal with the context and significance of the chosen topic.

Some candidates still needed to delineate the introduction more clearly.

Criterion C: investigation

Candidates need to consider the quality of secondary sources versus the quantity of sources chosen to support their treatment of the topic, and how these sources can be used to further the discussion and analysis in the essay. As one examiner pointed out, “many candidates appeared not to have really understood why they are used and what they might be able to do – and indeed how they might harm a personal perspective”.

Advice was almost unanimous: students need to get to grips with the primary source and use secondary sources (if any) of high quality, offering their own response to those sources.

Students need to be able to evaluate internet sources (see further comments below). Reliance on Schmoop. Wikipedia, Sparknotes etc. should be avoided. At the same time, candidates writing on established authors such as Bronte, Poe or Shakespeare should be expected to be familiar with, and make some use of, the volume of secondary criticism available.

Criterion D: knowledge and understanding of the topic studied

While most examiners felt that there was good knowledge and reasonable understanding, some essays lacked sufficient use of material from the texts (along with analysis and interpretation).

In Categories 1 and 2 there were many essays in which candidates clearly found difficulty in moving much beyond paraphrase/narrative, with a good deal of secondary material, often simply added for extra “weight” and rarely explored or considered in any meaningful way. Those candidates who chose more demanding texts tended to write with greater critical confidence.

Essays where candidates compared very disparate texts, those with vague topics, and those where there was no real comparison of the two texts, were also of poor quality.

Category 3 essays, also, had a tendency for the discussion of the text to lead to generalizations, assumptions and stereotypes resulting in fairly shallow understanding and analysis.

Students who scored highly on this criterion were able to demonstrate a confident knowledge of their text(s) and a genuine engagement with their chosen topic.

Criterion E: reasoned argument

In many essays, plot narration, descriptions, or mere biographical or contextual information remained the primary focus of the essay. Candidates often found it difficult to remain strictly relevant to the research question. Many candidates simply repeated the views found in secondary sources, as a substitute for their own analysis; few were able to use this critical reading to challenge, or to support their own argument in the essay.

Weaker candidates did not use the primary text at all but merely retold the story in a very general manner; as one examiner pointed out, “plot paraphrase does not demonstrate understanding and insight.”

A coherent and convincing argument was also hampered in some cases when candidates opted to discuss only a limited selection of examples from their texts, or to provide quotations without giving any background or context.


Where Category 3 essays took their examples out of textbooks or from a website, these were often less effective because of a failure to investigate and provide the original context necessary for the serious study of the word and/or image.

Criterion F: application of analytical and evaluative skills

This seemed to be a key discriminator.

Once again the single most important failing under this criterion was the tendency for candidates to describe, narrate, summarize, or explain instead of analysing.

Criterion G: use of language appropriate to the subject:

Candidates should aim at least to express themselves in language which is “sometimes clear and appropriate”. They literary terminology for Category 1 and 2 essays and appropriate media terminology for Category 3.

Criterion H: conclusion

The conclusion should offer a new synthesis in response to the research question and not merely summarise what has been said in the essay.

Criterion I: formal presentation

Candidates are strongly advised to consult the IB document ‘Effective citing and referencing’ for guidance.

URL addresses for websites, dates of accessing, etc., were often insufficiently cited in bibliographies and/or footnotes. More than a few examiners pointed out that footnote references tended to be unwieldy, with complete provenance stated every time, instead of ‘ibid’ or ‘op.cit.’

Marks were also lost for omitting citations, the table of contents or page numbers for the essay.
It would be helpful if students could include copies of the work(s) as an appendix if they are writing about poetry or unusual short stories. This would also be useful in many Category 3 essays where advertisements or speeches are taken from unusual sources, especially those not available on the internet.

As stated in the DPCNs, schools are also reminded that “footnotes and endnotes are not an essential part of the extended essay and examiners will not read them, or use any information contained within in the assessment of the essay. Students must take care to ensure that all information with direct relevance to the analysis, discussion and evaluation of their essay is contained in the main body of it. An essay that attempts to evade the word limit by including important material in footnotes or endnotes risks losing marks under several criteria.”

The organisation of the essay should also be given careful thought. For many literary topics, sub-headings can enhance, but more often detract from, the fluency of the essay.

A final proof-read is essential.

Criterion J: abstract

There is still a tendency for candidates to write the abstract as though it is some sort of introduction. It should be written after the completion of the essay and written in the past tense

Criterion K: holistic judgement
Demonstrated a sophisticated level of understanding and research and genuine engagement with the topic.

It was difficult to award more than a “2” for essays on ‘well-worn’ topics, particularly those which did not acknowledge established criticism.

For help and guidance with any aspect of your extended essay, contact us.

From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner Advice for Paper 1 (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.

The article begins with standard level, then continues with remarks for higher level.

Standard Level

Criterion A

Candidates must deal with the whole text - not just part - it is important to see it in its overall context. They must keep close focus on the passage throughout and be specific and detailed; all comments should only be applicable to this passage and should not be general in nature.The need for close referencing to support all comments and ideas presented; the deconstruction of visual texts, especially the use of visual metaphor and the need to connect responses to the context must occur to score more highly for criterion A. Candidates are also advised to be more specific in their explanation of target audience as this seemed to be a weak area in this session in relation to both texts. More time may need to be spent on helping candidates be more specific in identifying audience and context. Teachers should also remind candidates of what context of a text entails and to ensure a discussion regarding audience and how this is influenced by the context.

Criterion B

Candidates must understand and articulate the effects of stylistic features beyond the generic, for example; to grab the reader's attention, to entertain, to inform etc. This is a major concern and over the last few years had seemed to improve but this year the analysis of stylistic effects was not done well.

Candidates must avoid device spotting and teachers need to help candidates understand what is expected by "the effects on the audience" for criteria B. Candidates should not only know stylistic features, but they should be able to explain their purpose in the given text.

Candidates must avoid vague, descriptive analysis and try to be as specific as possible in their explanation of stylistic features and their effects. They must analyse and not describe. Candidates also seemed to fall back on explaining technical terms before giving an example and this is not an efficient use of words and is not needed. When a text has both visuals and words the visual aspects should not be focused on at the expense of textual analysis


Criterion C 

This year many candidates spent too long planning and writing drafts and did not leave enough time to write adequate commentaries. Candidates need help to have more time management as part of planning in an examination setting. Candidates also need help to develop a strategy and provide a framework for their argument or approach to analysis. They need to develop and present a clear thesis statement under exam conditions in order to provide a basic direction for the argument of the response. They should try to have some thread that holds the answer together. Teachers should continue to work on explaining the need for an overarching argument that ties the commentary together. Formulaic organization should be discouraged. It is clear that some candidates arrive at the exam with a template into which they simply inject content. It makes their responses much weaker than they would otherwise be. Transitional phrases are often used without a clear understanding of their meaning. For example, "Firstly, secondly, thirdly...in conclusion" when the ideas explored are not lists and the conclusion does not conclude.

Criterion D 

Candidates have improved in this area with many in the 3-4 range but there are still repeated errors that teachers should work on in preparing their students for the examination:

Help candidates not to describe but to analyze. Attention to technical accuracy with particular attention to correct sentence structure, use of apostrophes and semi-colons.

Teach candidates to proof-read work for errors before submission in order to correct basic errors such as: tense and number agreement, spelling, article use, informal register.

Higher Level

Criterion A and B

For both texts, candidates appeared to have difficulty identifying and being concise about the target audience and context. Candidates also had difficulty backing up their assertions with evidence. Examiners reported "vague, unspecific answers that were not adequately supported by reference to the text". For text 1, for example, examiners reported that the audience was often given as "anyone interested in science", and for text 2, many candidates identified the audience erroneously as children, as a result of the cartoons. The identification of the target audience was often either very narrow or very broad.

Many candidates also struggled with identifying purpose, which tended to be very generic, basically to inform and/or entertain, and context, which was probably the most overlooked element in the texts. Some candidates wrote solely about purpose for their entire commentary.

A significant percentage of scripts reached low levels of achievement, especially in Criteria B. Though candidates could identify stylistic features, they exhibited difficulty in exploring effects. Tone and mood appeared problematic, with some candidates confusing tone with style. Some candidates wrote about the writer's choice of adjectives, verbs, etc. but were not able to link those to the main devices like personification, metaphor, irony, etc. There was also a tendency to summarize the texts or to give simple explanations instead of analyzing them. There was also difficulty identifying the more detailed purpose and effects of stylistic features, with examiners looking for more than candidates' over-simplistic (and often repeated) comments about "engaging the reader". Surprisingly, candidates did struggle with reading and interpreting visual texts was an issue.


Criterion C

A significant proportion of students applied one of a range of over-structured, formulaic approaches regardless of the appropriateness of the approach to the text tackled. Misuse of linguistic and literary terminology was apparent. Similar to last year many candidates still struggle to write a strong introduction that leads the reader through their argument. There is a lack of focus on developing and keeping a strong analytical thread that links stylistic features to effect and thence to audience and purpose. Construction of a cohesive and persuasive argument within the response also presented challenges. Some candidates randomly assign connectives such as "moreover, consequently, furthermore" at the beginning of sentences/paragraphs without having clear logical links between the ideas presented.

Some candidates spent too long writing involved plans (some complete drafts) and left little time for writing and developing the commentary to an appropriate length, consequently affecting criterion C scores.


Criterion D

The use of language by candidates fell largely in the 3 to 4 range and there were not so many weak writers this year but we also did not see the sophistication of the 5 band. Although language was generally appropriate candidates do need to be reminded to use punctuation!

From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner advice for WT (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.

(Taken from the 2013 IB Subject Report for SL/HL.)

The range and suitability of the work submitted

The common ingredient that often made these productions so successful was ‘emulation’; of a writer’s sensibility and style, whether literary, journalistic or promotional. The ingredients for such excellence are surely to be found in a candidate’s preliminary work on purpose, audience and context combined with research into the characteristics and conventions of a type of text that had been judiciously chosen to suit the objectives of the task. That the task should be – must be – clearly linked to the literary texts or language topics or aspects studied is a requirement that, unfortunately, far too many candidates ignored.

In the Written Task, whether of the media type (HL Task 1 and SL Task) or the critical response type (HL Task 2), context is a significant feature of preparing for and producing tasks. Again here, not enough candidates have yet grasped the importance context has. Students need to understand better the connection between text and context and guide them to see the ways in which context shapes meaning.

Clarification: Short literary texts may be used to complement the study of a topic in parts 1 and 2. Thus a written task exploring an aspect studied in those parts may also include some reference to these short literary texts, but they should not form the basis of the candidate’s investigation.

It is unsuitable to base a written task on stylistic imitation alone. An editorial, a speech or an advertisement, for example, is not a topic, it is a text type. An editorial – or any other type of text chosen by the candidate – needs to deal with a language and culture topic not just be used as a vehicle to show the candidate’s ability to use that particular form. A candidate may produce a highly accomplished advertisement, the content of which may be consistently appropriate to the task chosen and demonstrate excellent understanding of the conventions, but absolutely cannot be awarded high marks for understanding of an appropriate topic or text if it is an advert, say, for a shampoo.

Some media tasks, advertisements, DVD covers or graphic novels, for example, were very short. While there is of course no penalty for this, they are not always easy for the examiner to assess. Some candidates are compensating for short tasks by including an additional explanation or analysis as part of the task. This is not appropriate; the task itself needs to stand alone, the rationale offering a brief explanation of its objectives.

It can be observed that the more inauthentic a task is, the more unsuitable it is. A speech by Osama Bin Laden in English to members of Al-Qaeda on prime-time television should have struck even the candidate as being highly implausible and thus an inappropriate choice. One does not want to discourage students from casting the net wide in the search for interesting and relevant topics to write about but there were a fair number of examples of tasks based on media sources that cannot have been part of the candidate’s programme, for they were not in English. Some candidates wrote articles or letters aimed at non-English speaking audiences, yet in English.

Please note that candidates must present no more than one text type. However, it is acceptable to produce more than one text, as long as the text type is the same (for example, an exchange of letters, and a series of diary entries or of advertisements.)

Characteristics and conventions of certain text types

It was evident that many candidates were not very familiar with the form, style or conventions of the text types they had chosen. It is essential once choice of task and text type have been made (in agreement with the teacher) for the candidate to find examples to emulate.
Candidates frequently lost marks as a result not only of choosing an unsuitable text type to fulfil their objectives (for example a private diary entry is hardly the best way of drawing the attention of the world to burning issues) but also because they assumed they were familiar with the conventions of a type when, actually, they were not.

Some specific comments about certain text types

‘newspaper article’ or ‘magazine article’: this is not precise enough. What kind of article: news, opinion, feature, editorial? Each of these has its particular characteristics and purposes. Note that many candidates submitted ‘articles’ that were to all intents and purposes formal essays that, typically, demonstrated little more than superficial familiarity with media styles. It cannot be stressed enough that the formal essay – naked or disguised – is not an acceptable text type for the Written Task 1.

‘editorial’, ‘letter to the editor’: the conventions of these two are quite distinct as should be evident to the candidate who has read and studied examples of both forms.

‘blog’, the blog was quite a common choice of text type. When done well it proved an effective alternative to writing a more conventional media task. There were those candidates who interactively tried to engage a target audience, laying out the blog as it would appear on a screen. The more a task takes on the layout features of the type of text emulated, the more the candidate shows an awareness of the full range of the text type’s conventions. If the conventions of the text type cannot be reproduced for technical reasons, significant aspects of those conventions should be referred to in the rationale. At the other end of the scale, there were blogs that distinguished themselves little, or not at all, from similar forms, such as opinion or feature articles and where format and layout had been given little thought.

‘speech’: there was often a problem of authenticity here. To write an effective one as a task, it is very important to establish clearly who the speaker is, what his or her qualifications for speaking on a subject are, which audience is being targeted and in what particular context. Once again, the topic of the speech must be linked to a topic or aspect studied.

diaries, letters, memoirs, etc. were usually more suitable and effective when done in relation to literary works – as long as they did not confine themselves merely to summarizing plot. A word about the diary: as mentioned above, it is not a very suitable format for dealing with issues that would normally be aired in the media. Diaries are sometimes written with publication in mind but, for the most part, and in the first instance at least, they are not written for the eyes of others. Thus they are most appropriate to reveal events that others do not know about or unspoken thoughts and feelings of a more or less intimate nature. A diary entry has a date, usually refers principally to what has happened that particular day and does not bother to tell the diarist things s/he already knows about her/himself or others. Furthermore, a diary is not a letter. Candidates should be aware that while some adolescents adopt the ‘Dear diary’ form of address, the vast majority of adults do not. The candidate who chooses to write the diary entry of an adult should be encouraged to read some diaries or at least an anthology of diary entries rather than make assumptions about this type of text.

pastiche: a popular choice and done brilliantly in certain cases. Some outstandingly imaginative examples that come to mind are pastiches of Carol Ann Duffy’s ‘world’s wife’ poems, an introductory pamphlet for new recruits in the employ of a European company operating in the Congo (Heart of Darkness) and the voice of The Fish from Elizabeth Bishop’s poem. However, candidates should be discouraged from taking on stylistic or poetic forms and language that are hard to master. Shakespeare was a predictable stumbling block for many.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A – Rationale

It is worth drawing attention to what is required of a rationale (Subject Guide 41). It should explain:

Which part of the course (text or topic) the task is linked to: 
Surprisingly, this requirement was entirely or partly ignored by many candidates, leaving the examiner to scrutinize the programme summary in search of illumination.

How the task intends to explore particular aspects of what has been studied and the nature of the task chosen: Here it is a question of showing the suitability of the choice of text type as a means of meeting the candidate’s objectives. The formal conventions of the text type should be referred to and how they relate to the aims of the task. On the whole, this requirement was not thoroughly done.

Information about audience, purpose and context: Particularly important for media tasks, these aspects were frequently ignored by candidates despite being the ABC of effective communication.

Criterion B – Task and Content

Obviously the task carried out should now correspond to what has been explained in the rationale. If there is no deviation from this plan, there can be few reasons to lose marks on this, the weightiest of the criteria in terms of points awarded. Both content and ability to replicate the text type are being assessed here. The candidate needs to do both well in order to score high marks.

Criterion C – Organization

Most of the written tasks submitted were at least ‘organized’, often ‘well organized’, so candidates often scored good marks on this criterion. 2 marks are taken off the score for this criterion if the task exceeds the 1000 word limit, even by one word.

Criterion D – Language and Style

Language was generally clear and effective, often with a good or very good degree of accuracy. Register and style were often generally appropriate or appropriate. ‘Confident and effective’ often went hand-in-hand with manifest familiarity with the characteristics and conventions of the text type chosen.

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. 

From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner advice for Paper 2 (English A: Literature)

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

(Combined and adapted from the 2015-16 IB Subject Reports for SL/HL.)

General Comments

The study of a text is not the memorization of information (easily found on Wikipedia or in Sparknotes) about a text, not the isolated study of literary conventions, not the isolated study of particular contextual elements, nor the memorization of responses to possible questions, but consistent engagement of what and how a text means and how this might be significant. The best questions in paper 2 are authentic, interesting problems of literary study and the best responses in paper 2 seem to have a subtext that says, “what a surprising, interesting question that is even more interesting in relation to some of the particular complexities I have seen in the novels I have studied.” Examiners in this session remarked on a number of qualities in the responses of candidates. While there were many, and many types of, good responses, the best all shared qualities of being holistic, thorough responses attentive to the particulars of the question and the particulars of the works studied.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the candidates

Overall, the candidates are well prepared for the expectations of the exam. The candidates have clearly studied the works and they understand the expectations of the paper in relation to the criteria. Candidates have clearly received direct instruction in organization, comparison, evaluation and approaches to generic conventions. 

But here is where the candidates run into difficulty. 

Candidates struggle at times to approach the question and the task in an authentic way. In other words, some candidates have "learned" the texts so well that they are not able to approach the question itself. They spend most of the time struggling to fit set ideas into a new question (the American Dream in A Streetcar Named Desire into "flight"). Learning a variety of interpretations of a work does not necessarily lead to the ability to produce interpretations in relation to a question.  This is a similar problem with evaluation-- good evaluation amounts to evaluative interpretation, to getting at why the question actually matters to the works and to literature, to understanding why the problem might shed insight into the works. Since candidates have learned they must evaluate, some are reduced to the notion of "author x does this better than author y." This arises again with comparison. Candidates throw in words like "similar" when there is only a faint similarity, or "on the other hand" when the subsequent idea does not seem to be another hand. The same might be said for generic conventions. Candidates who have memorized a few key generic conventions struggle to fit these into an authentic answer to a text. What results is some sort of tortuous thesis that says "Williams shows us the exciting force in "Death of a Salesman" through diction, imagery and interesting set design in order to show the false promise of the American Dream" instead of getting at the question at hand ("In Death of a Salesman the return of Biff sets into motion...that not only shows tension between the characters but indicates that family itself... "). In much the same vein, a strict structure of organization, while sometimes helpful to students as a scaffold while learning, may not always serve them well in an exam and may take the candidates away from the "content" (the question) at hand. Another issue in terms of meaning and effect is the tendency for students to talk about the "relatability" of characters. This is an issue with some examiners (and literary critics). While we won't argue the use of the word relatability one way or the other, suffice it to say that many candidates begin and end their discussion of the effect of a generic convention or the meaning of a text with the fact that it somehow "affects" the reader and makes them closer to the character or situation. An opening, for example, might draw us in. A character going through hardship is "relatable" and the audience sympathizes with her. While we may recognize and forgive this sentiment or notion, it can only be a starting point. If sympathy is created we must wonder why and to what ends.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well prepared

In general, candidates are aware of the demands of the task and are well versed on their works, especially in relation to plot and character. Many candidates have an impressive array of textual detail at their disposal to use in response to the question. Once again, stronger responses use this detail in a flexible way in relation to the demands of the question while weaker responses tend to ineffectually force material—perhaps less well understood—to a question. The best responses have introductions that give evidence of significant thought in relation to question and a particular focus in relation to the texts themselves. These responses often read as if the candidate does not have nearly enough time to get at their thoughts on the complexities of the question or the nuances in comparison.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

• Students should practise handwriting so that their scripts are legible.

• Focus on the work at hand is the most important element in preparation for paper 2. Students should be responding frequently to interesting, ambiguous and difficult elements of a work as opposed to learning accepted readings of a text.

• While literary conventions need to be studied, they should be considered as part of a discussion of what a text means and how meaning is generated rather than as isolated elements with a narrow range of effects.

• Structure is important in an essay but a particular structure is not mandated and the best essays read as reasonable arguments that consider necessary detail rather than as narrow discussions that follow formula. Formulaic introductions, reduction to three key themes or elements, quick tags to the question and broad or grand conclusions often seem empty as compared to essays in which form simply follows a desire to communicate an idea through a beginning, a middle and an end.

From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner Advice for the IOC (English A: Literature).

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for each exam and assessment type. The reports typically offer recommendations to candidates and teachers on how to improve and what to avoid.  What follows is advice for candidates preparing for this oral exam.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A:

As in the past, candidates who demonstrated a genuine sense of engagement with the poem as a literary text performed very well. They explored the content and form of the piece, showing how the two contribute to its meaning (s). They avoided the temptation to see the poem a springboard to talk about matters of biographical, cultural or social context; and they avoided the temptation to lapse into paraphrase and description in place of analysis and interpretation. As one moderator reports, ‘candidates who gave a convincing overview of the poem from the outset and proceeded to elaborate on this overview, examining the text and subtext of the piece normally conveyed their knowledge and understanding more convincingly.’ However, many candidates continue to deliver pre-learned biographical introductions; these are always unhelpful. Moderators are also concerned that although ‘context’ is no longer discretely rewarded, teachers’ subsequent questions continue to focus on this aspect instead of the poem itself.


Criterion B:

Candidates who showed a clear awareness of the poet’s techniques and their effect in shaping and giving meaning to the poem or extract tended to do very well. Overall, however, this remains the most problematic criterion with moderators and teachers disagreeing sharply in their marking. Some candidates tended to see the demands of the criterion as best served through reference to as many literary features as possible. As one senior moderator put it, “Selecting the few that generate the most impact, or play the most significant role, and wrestling with them in some detail, is a key way in which the sense of independent critical response can be generated.” In addition, many moderators observed that too often candidates relied on paraphrase coupled with reader response, rather than a clear awareness of techniques and their effects. In some cases, the teacher’s subsequent questions failed to focus the candidate on missing details in the analysis. In other cases, some candidates damaged their cause by making judgments that were vague, unsupportable or speculative, as exemplified by statements like “this helps the reader to visualise the scene” and “the colour red is usually associated with passion.”

Criterion C

There was a wide range in the organizational quality of the commentary. Excellent analyses demonstrated careful arrangement of points or ideas, with candidates progressing through each point with carefully integrated textual evidence to support their interpretations. Such candidates had very effective introductions in which they announced the intended focus of the analysis and they brought the commentary to a meaningful end through a concluding statement, however brief. This independent control of material was further evidenced in the ‘body’ of the analysis in which candidates produced a deliberate and persuasive response to the poem. However, many commentaries tended to rely on the kind of linear approach that easily invited paraphrase and ‘explanation’ in place of analysis and interpretation. To paraphrase one senior moderator’s report, candidates who organized their ideas around 3-4 broad concepts and who stuck to them were the ones who typically scored higher marks in this criterion.


Criterion D

Most candidates demonstrated adequate knowledge of the work. They knew the plot and characters and discussed them at length; however, many did not explore the implications of the work. As a result, they lost marks for not showing enough ‘understanding’ of the text. Responses which showed a good understanding of the conventions of the work tended to do well. Still, very often, the quality of the candidate’s response very much depended on the kind of questions asked by the teacher. For example, candidates who were simply confined to ‘interviews’ about the work did not score high marks. Similarly, weak responses were elicited by vague and unhelpful questions like ‘What can you tell me about this work?’ or equally inappropriate questions, like ‘Who was your favorite character?’ or ‘Which character would you like to hang out (sic) with?’ or ‘How enthusiastic were you about the beginning of the play?’ and so on. In some cases, candidates merely reproduced taught material as prompted by questions like “In class we discussed the underlying reasons why Myrtle (in The Great Gatsby) feels compelled to buy a dog. What are those reasons?” Answers to such questions hardly showed the candidate’s insights into the work.

Criterion E

Once again, candidate performance in this criterion very much depended on the teacher’s questions. Candidates who were engaged in a dynamic and spontaneous discussion about the work as a literary artefact, with the teachers asking pertinent and probing questions performed very well. Their answers were often independent, thoughtful and lively. As one moderator observes, it was unfortunate that teachers’ questions often led candidates’ responses into “territory that is speculative (e.g. ‘What would have happened if Okonkwo had not accidentally killed his kinsman in Things Fall Apart?’), unhelpfully personal or subjective or irrelevant (e.g. ‘As a person of color, how do you respond to Othello’s tribulations in this play?’).” Even weaker responses were those that talked about the characters in the works as if they were real people.

Criterion F

Most of the performances ranged from adequate to excellent. The most successful were candidates who expressed themselves clearly, cogently and fluently. However, many candidates seemed unaware that they were sitting an examination, which by definition is a formal undertaking. Consequently, the quality of their expression was dampened by the ubiquitous use of ‘like’ and equivalent fillers, resulting in loss of points.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

As stressed in previous subject reports, teaching close analysis of short texts including poems throughout the diploma course has immense benefits for the student. Special emphasis needs to be placed on examining the different literary features of the text, how they collectively contribute to the meaning of the text and its effects on the reader. To quote one moderator, “Students should be encouraged to delve into elements of the poem that for them are the most significant , not to see them as a formulaic walk through a series of pre-determined check list of points – nor to think they have to cover everything.” Equally important is practising doing the oral commentary, with the teacher crafting suitable guiding questions for each text. In the latter case, one question should address the content of the text (e.g. theme) and the other some aspect of the language (e.g. a stylistic feature). For some teachers, it is also useful to remember that pre-set subsequent questions hardly ever help the candidate’s commentary. Please note that the Subject Guide requires the candidate to speak for 8 minutes, at which point the teacher should step in - even if the analysis is incomplete - and ask the subsequent questions. Moderators are instructed to take no account of any points made after the 10 minutes have elapsed, however strong.

It is important to distinguish between an interview and a discussion. Whereas it is acceptable to use some of the questions suggested in the subject guide and TSM, using them mechanically tends to limit the candidate’s ability to display their own insights into the work. Teachers who are always alert and interested in the response, asking pertinent follow-up questions, enable the candidate to reveal their strengths. To quote one moderator, “Understanding how to make the discussion work for the benefit of the student is particularly important. Questions should be appropriate, responses nurtured carefully and ideally developed, new topics brought up when a particular line of enquiry has been more or less exhausted.” Questions which focus on the ways in which people, events, settings and themes are presented in the work and which encourage students to make reference to the literary elements of the text help to produce quality responses. It is therefore important to avoid questions that invite speculation, generalization or simply memorized taught detail. Also, teachers are advised to refrain from asking whether a student was ‘satisfied’ with the ending of a work; instead, the teacher could ask about the extent to which things are resolved at the end so as to gauge the nature of the student’s understanding of the work. Further, it is never a good idea to lead students into discussion about politics or race relations. As one veteran moderator says,  ” Doing so removes focus from the text and encourages comments for which no marks can be awarded.”

From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner advice for IOC (Eng A: Language and Literature)

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for teachers and students for each assessment, providing detailed observations on student performance in each criterion. These can be turned into a useful guide what to do and NOT do on exams.

Comments by Criterion

Criterion A: 

• Candidates still fail sometimes to situate their extracts, or to indicate the significance of the extract to the work as a whole. This was particularly true for candidates with poems. Some candidates simply made comments that indicated that they expected the listener to know these points. Candidates need to be reminded that their commentaries are addressed to moderators as well as the teacher, and that the moderator has not been in the classroom

• The weakest candidates struggled to make sense of any part of their extract or fell to discussing the work in general and ignoring what was in front of them; the weaker candidates offered paraphrases or summaries of the extract.

• Adequate candidates showed satisfactory understanding of most of the extract and were able to see the significance of that extract in the larger work, e.g. that this scene is early in the work and the writer is just beginning to introduce the characters or to establish the setting, etc. and is able to discuss the lines of the extract in that light.

• The good candidates showed a clear understanding of almost the entire extract and were able to make comments based on a clear knowledge of the work.

• The excellent candidates were fully comfortable in their understanding of the extract and often brought more than one interpretation to bear, showing their understanding and appreciation for ambiguities or subtleties of the extract and for the extract in relation to the larger work.

Criterion B:

• As usual, moderators point to this criterion as the one least likely for the candidates to fulfill. A full array of responses occurred in this criterion, from no awareness of literary features at all, to incorrect spotting of devices or misinterpretation of them, to spotting of devices but failing to see their effects, to a full awareness of the presence of numerous authorial techniques and a discussion of their relevance in the shaping of meaning in the extract.

Criterion C:

• Some candidates were very clear in their introductions as to how they were going to approach the oral, offering three or four steps and then following that pattern.

• The choices as to what to cover and in what order varied in their effectiveness. Some decisions regarding topics led to the candidates failing to discuss several portions of the extract, thus impacting their knowledge and understanding mark. Some candidates clearly saw the key significance of the extract and developed their orals around ways in which this significance was borne out, offering a conclusion that effectively encapsulated the commentary.

• As always there were introductions that were much too long and offered too much information that was extraneous to the extract itself, such as irrelevant biographical or historical material.

• Fortunately, most candidates took this time to concisely situate the extract within the larger work, to establish why the extract was significant and to point out how they were going to address the extract. Conclusions, however, were more rare. Many candidates just stopped; and others offered a long repetition of what they had just said.

• In terms of the body of the response, many candidates simply chose to go through the extract line by line, which is acceptable and can even be effective, providing that the candidate ties the discussion to the significance of the extract and remains analytical. Unfortunately, too many candidates use this form of organization simply to paraphrase the extract.

• Almost all the moderators commented that careful signposting of topics or arguments during the body of the response was most helpful to the listener.

Criterion D

• Most moderators reported that the language was generally clear and the register appropriate.

• There was concern, however, that the language of literature has weakened. As this is a literary commentary, it is to be expected that the candidates have a vocabulary suited to the discussion of literature. A Shakespearian play should not be referred to as a novel, or stanzas as paragraphs. A firm understanding of terms such as irony, motif, symbol, image, metaphor, simile, theme, monologue, dialogue, soliloquy, rhyme, meter, etc. should be in place. Candidates might also be reminded that though their extract may be written in a casual register, their analysis of it should still be formal.

Recommendations for future candidates

• Many candidates seem to show the need for further practice in delivering a timed commentary.

• Teachers need to help candidates with the organization of their commentaries so that they know how to make effective choices that enable them to show a full understanding of the extract and its literary features.

• Candidates must discover the works for themselves, drawing their own insights and conclusions, and thus have "ownership" of the material that will give them confidence when discussing it.

Moderators also commented that a number of candidates failed to situate their extracts, or to indicate the significance of the extract to the work as a whole. This was particularly true for candidates with poems. Some candidates simply made comments that indicated that they expected the listener to know these points.

From the Horse's Mouth

Examiner Advice for Paper 1 (English A: Literature).

Every year, the IBO releases examiner reports which offer valuable insights for each exam and assessment type. The reports typically offer recommendations to candidates and teachers on how to improve and what to avoid.  What follows will be of interest to candidates preparing the A: Literature, Paper 1.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the candidate

The biggest difficulty that many candidates had was analysing the stylistic devices and linking them to overall effect. Many could identify these features but lost marks for simply not commenting on them sufficiently. For example, detailed analysis of imagery and its effect and linking it with overall meaning was often lacking. Structural features such as sentence length was often identified, but analysis often got lost in summaries of the general situation. Some candidates offered analysis of stylistic features without substantiating their comments with direct references.

Candidates appeared to find it difficult to integrate into the commentary responses to the guiding questions. Too many either structured their answer into a) and b) sections, some actually writing a) and b) in the margin. Others seemed to ignore the guiding questions completely. Many candidates' scripts lacked organisation. Essays had obviously not been planned sufficiently, introductions were lacking, there was no sense of a logical sequence of points. 

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well prepared

Candidates who had been taught the importance of planning were at an advantage. Good, clear introductions gave them a helpful lead into the commentary and many were able to establish a good understanding with insightful comments here. Indeed, the overall structure of the responses seemed better this year, with a competent use of paragraphs and linking devices, and clear conclusions. Some candidates had clearly been taught to read and annotate the text carefully, and these commentaries showed insight and a confidence in ranging over the text to gather references and ideas to support points.The better candidates linked stylistic features to effect and wrote fluent, cogent commentaries. Their responses suggest that they have been taught the value of a very careful reading of the text.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual questions

PROSE

Weaknesses: There was a tendency to paraphrase/explain events rather than analyse/appreciate stylistic features. Often, focus on individual words and their effect was lacking. Although many picked up on the discomfort/ awkwardness at the beginning of the passage, many missed elements such as the "looking back in time" idea or the sense of foreboding in the repeated "regret what it started" idea. Relatively few picked up on the idea of time travel and, of those who did, few developed it. Candidates often failed to link the narrator's changing perception of his father directly to events, as specified in guiding question a). Some candidates seemed to be limited by the guiding questions, failing to go beyond them to investigate more subtle elements of the extract.

Strengths: Many candidates had a good grasp of the situation, the relationship between the father and the narrator and were able to identify the narrator's tone and analyse how it developed. Many candidates were able to explore the significance of the descriptive language in the first section.


POETRY

Weaknesses: Candidates tried to make ideas jigsaw together when the poem did not necessarily lend itself to such "linking". Many candidates failed to understand what the term "tone" meant. Some candidates had difficulty connecting "physical beauty" with the "beauty" in the second half of the text. A surprising number mistook Banff, Alberta for the writer's name.

Strengths: Many candidates saw the link between the two "beauties" and dealt with it very well. Generally, stronger candidates gave excellent interpretations which were fully supported by relevant references, convincingly linking stylistic effects with meaning.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Candidates need to be taught how to plan – too many scripts had no plan whatsoever. They should be taught to allocate time to reading, annotating and planning before they start writing. The importance of a clear and focused introduction and a logical sequence of points supported by cohesive devices needs also to be emphasised.  

The idea of analysis of devices and how they are created to craft meaning needs to be reinforced; too many candidates just label features without analysing their effects or linking them to overall meaning.

They need to be warned not to narrate or simply explain what is happening in the text. Too many candidates tend to fall into a narrative overview of events.

The importance of directly referring to the text should be emphasised; some otherwise good analysis of stylistic features were spoilt by no substantiation with specific examples at all, while other weaker candidates simply did not make any direct references but gave vague generalisations.

Candidates need to be taught how to integrate quotes into the body of the commentary; many seemed to have no idea how to do this.

Candidates need to be taught how to manage their time more effectively. Some good scripts lost marks for not being complete or including a conclusion.

Teachers should make a point of advising candidates how to deal with the guiding questions, and how important it is to include focus on them in the commentary but not to structure it into two parts or include a) and b) in the margin.

More work should be done on the importance of punctuation for the cohesion and coherence of the commentary; the apostrophe for possession was frequently omitted.