How to structure your IOC

EE Criterion B: Knowledge & Understanding (6pts)

"Criterion B assesses the extent to which the research relates to the subject area/discipline used to explore the research question, or in the case of the world studies extended essay, the issue addressed and the two disciplinary perspectives applied, and additionally the way in which this knowledge and understanding is demonstrated through the use of appropriate terminology and concepts.” (IBO 2016:102)

• For all three categories of essay, supporting source materials should be chosen appropriately and used effectively and purposefully to demonstrate an understanding of the wider issues involved.

• Clarity and precision of communication in a studies in language and literature essay includes the correct use of language. Students should be able to convey their ideas fluently and articulately. They should also be able to use subject-specific terminology appropriate to the discipline and apply it to their chosen topic with discernment.

• For categories 1 and 2 literature essays, the context should be established succinctly and should not be an excuse for padding out an essay with a lengthy account of the historical or biographical context of a literary text: the quality of the student’s understanding of the primary text is the main concern. The use of secondary source materials is helpful in terms of establishing a wider framework for the discussion; however,s this should not replace the student’s personal engagement with the primary text(s).

• For category 3 language essays, the introduction of the essay should focus on the chosen topic and how it relates to existing knowledge of that subject and/or why it is of special interest to the target language and/or culture. The text(s) should be explored and understood through a critical consideration of their specific cultural and/or linguistic background. The student’s personal experience or personal opinion should only be included if relevant to a discussion of, for example, the target audience for the text, and not as unsupported assertion.

How to do a TOK presentation

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.