IB Team Leader Thoughts & Advice

Teach students to annotate their texts carefully and to avoid just listing ACs or translating the text. One technique: get them to check the IB information, for example, publication dates.

Very few students recognised that the text was from 2011; consequently, anachronistic references to AI and other contemporary technologies appeared - this usually wasn't hugely problematic, but it shows that students aren't 'data mining' all the information that the IB gives them (including publishing details).

This was newer, but hypothetical analysis started creeping in: “if it were X, people would feel Y” was starting to replace actual analysis. Candidates should instead state what is present and explain its effect.

Timing between the two was often an issue, so organisation of the 2 hours 15 is important.

As this was the second text though, unfortunately some responses appeared rushed, despite the text offering abundant material for high marks.

Using PACT - there is nothing that says students must include this, but IF they do, they need to actually link it to the texts' concepts/IDEAs, not just assert it in the introduction.

Where students use PACT, they must be trained to link it directly to the texts' concepts and ideas, not simply assert it in the introduction.

Remind students explicitly that they can change the guiding question. As noted in Sections 1 and 3, no candidates did so in this session, and across five years of the new Paper 1 fewer than five students have been observed doing this.

Students very often failed to explain much about the concepts and ideas in the texts. Even where these ideas were relatively simple, students tended to forget to address them and instead just performed analytical checklisting (AC listing).

Teaching should prioritise conceptual understanding over the mere identification of analytical choices even for Paper 1 texts.

Stronger responses were CONCEPTUAL and accessed students' understanding of the IB to show the importance of immersive, real world, experiential learning.

Text 2 was much more successful because most students DID actually address the concept/idea about the profession itself, rather than just listing ACs or moving chronologically through.

The range of responses did demonstrate the full spectrum from weaker plot summary to high end implications about the IDEAs and strong deconstruction.

Using PACT - there is nothing that says students must include this, but IF they do, they need to actually link it to the texts' concepts/IDEAs, not just assert it in the introduction.

Where students use PACT, they must be trained to link it directly to the texts' concepts and ideas, not simply assert it in the introduction.

The question asked about images but only focusing on them became very self-limiting given how homogeneous or simple many of those images were. Stronger students tethered the visuals TO the text.

Literal understanding is improving - there were no major issues with understanding.

However these texts DID allow for strong, conceptually based arguments that deconstructed evidence.

Overuse of evaluative adjectives such as “cleverly,” “meticulously,” and “brilliantly” without supporting analysis. Again it feels that teachers are misunderstanding what “evaluation” means and think that it is about undue praise rather than deconstruction of elements. Note: for what it is worth, I think using the term “deconstruction” is much clearer and more precise than “evaluation” or “unpacking” (which has been used a lot).

Replace hyperbolic evaluative adjectives (“cleverly,” “meticulously,” “brilliantly”) with actual deconstruction of the evidence. This means looking at the specific elements, making inferences around their connotations and then linking to key ideas.

Frequent but superficial reference to pathos, logos, and ethos, almost always descriptive rather than evaluative. For example, stating that “the number creates logos” or “the phone number creates ethos” without deconstructing how or why.

Colour analysis is particularly weak. Claims such as “blue means both peace and adventure” were internally contradictory, and “blue means safety” was asserted without evidence or context.

Structural “analysis” was often just candidates saying what they see: first a header; then a column with this; then this; then this. The same pattern appeared with fonts and other webpage elements. There was little to no explanation of function or effect.

Personally I would and do avoid teaching pathos/logos/ethos but as teachers tend to like it, they need to get students to move past descriptive naming. Students must explain how and why an appeal works, not just state that a number “automatically” creates logos or a phone number “automatically” creates ethos.

Colour analysis requires textual justification. Universal claims (blue as peace, adventure, sadness, and safety simultaneously) are contradictory and unsubstantiated.

Structural and font analysis should explain function and effect, not merely catalogue elements in sequence.

There is STILL a reliance on generic, transferable phrases that could apply to any text, including “captures attention”, “makes the reader read on”, “interests the reader” and the use of vague terms such as “the message” and “persuasion” without specific textual grounding.

Eliminate generic, transferable phrases that could apply to any text. Phrases such as “captures attention” and “makes the reader read on” lack specific textual grounding, as do vague terms like “the message” and “persuasion.”

Actually forming an ARGUMENT was not always evident - students often went chronologically through the text which usually resulted in lots of repetition; or they had TSs that only focused on ACs with little regard to the concepts/ideas those ACs needed to prove.

While students can move chronologically through the text, most of the time this results in repetition. Teaching should emphasise argument-driven organisation, with topic sentences focused on the concepts and ideas that analytical choices serve to prove.

Maintaining register was difficult. Often it was because of the hyperbolic praise mentioned earlier, but also using cliches and idioms and figurative writing were common (“last but not least”, “paints a picture in the reader’s mind”).

Maintain formal register. Avoid hyperbolic praise, cliches, idioms, and figurative writing such as “paints a picture in the reader’s mind” or “delves into.”

Keep your classwork, annotations, selected evidence, planning and revisions. They should explain how you reached the claims in your essay.

The argument and analysis should reflect your own understanding of the studied text. Check the source of individual sentences as well as complete paragraphs when reviewing authenticity.

Repeated forced binaries, polished abstractions, figurative analytical verbs and vague references to “this” can conceal missing explanation. Diagnose the exact writing problem and supply the relevant textual detail.

Changes in register or reasoning can prompt a teacher to discuss the process with the student. These features alone do not establish AI authorship.

Teachers should review the relationship between classwork, planning and final writing. A difference from examination writing is a reason for discussion, not a conclusive authorship test.

Use the AI for focused preparation within this guide’s limits. Follow your teacher’s instructions and applicable acknowledgement requirements for any material you use.

These were probably the most problematic HL Essays I have marked since the change to the new task (and even going back to the old WT too). There seemed to be significant misunderstandings from teachers/centres about what the task is and what the teacher's responsibility and role are in the creation of these essays.

Mistaking this for a research essay ala EE - uniquely this year, there was an unfortunate mass of essays that used secondary sources. Incorporating these secondary sources rarely offered anything useful but in fact detracted from the actual students' analysis (especially when they just parroted some other theorists' view).

Teachers need to make sure that they understand the demands of the task - it isn't a research task; AI checking is super important; ensuring that these are conceptual and not AC based essays.

Choose from the literary works or non-literary bodies of work studied in class, with your teacher’s approval. A wider class selection can give students more opportunities to develop different, supported enquiries.

A familiar text can support an individual interpretation. The concern is repeated combinations of the same LOI, evidence, analytical sequence and wording.

Familiar starting topics include “reclaiming voice” in The World’s Wife and “ambition” in Macbeth. Explain the precise claim your chosen evidence allows you to make; a broad topic alone does not establish your enquiry.

Begin with your strongest IDEAs and deconstructed evidence, combine them into a thesis, then formulate the LOI that this argument answers. Avoid adopting a question or interpretation from an online exemplar.

Different students can study the same work and develop different arguments from their own class enquiries. An unusual title alone does not establish originality or strong analysis.

Reminding schools that Non-lit are NOT SELF STUDIED texts - it was clear that some of these texts were clearly not taught to the whole class/were not treated as a class text in the same way as the literary texts were. Teachers SHOULD allow for choice and student interest but should structure inquiry like for a literary text.

Non-lit were much more interesting than the literary texts because of how varied and unique some of them were. However, it is important that teachers are teaching these to the class and not just allowing them to be self studied.

Again the rule of thumb of treating the inquiry whole class analysis of non-literary in the same way as that of literary analysis would serve students well.

Note: when doing artworks it is important that the analysis is L&L and NOT Art History/art technique analysis. The easiest way to know is to frame everything around concepts/ideas and NOT just techniques.

Teach all non-lit texts as you would literary texts.

Positioning of evidence is important: too many students assumed the reader knew the texts, so didn't explain the basics: When does the quote occur? Who are the characters and what is their relationship? What exactly are the key ideas within the quote?

In the LOI, ACs were often self-limiting: they restricted implications (Crit A), limited the range of deconstruction/analysis (Crit B), and became repetitive (Crit C).

Listing ACs anywhere wasted time: teachers need reminders that IB essays are conceptual and should be organised around ideas, not ACs.

Stronger students deconstructed the connotations of specific words/images/elements and linked them to specific ideas.

Explain the next further broken-down stage of the IDEA: what specific relationships, circumstances, causes or consequences does the creator present in this work? Continue to more specific claims supported by the text.

Assume an interested examiner who may not know the work. Position evidence by identifying the speaker or character, the relevant relationship, when the moment occurs and why that context matters to this IDEA. Include the detail needed to understand the analysis.

Generic effects not linked to ideas: e.g., “created disgust in the audience” as opposed to “created disgust about X” (where X = a specific idea).

Generic effects like “vivid imagery” are meaningless (again very AI like).

Stronger students deconstructed the connotations of specific words/images/elements and linked them to specific ideas.

In the LOI, ACs were often self-limiting: they restricted implications (Crit A), limited the range of deconstruction/analysis (Crit B), and became repetitive (Crit C).

Listing ACs anywhere wasted time: teachers need reminders that IB essays are conceptual and should be organised around ideas, not ACs.

Evaluation requires deconstruction of specific connotations and constructed details. Identify exactly what creates the stated effect and what that effect demonstrates about the IDEA.

Use single-work PLANE to deconstruct relevant moments in a character construction, motif, setting, narrative structure, voice or another broader choice. Close 3-Step analysis can contribute where precise quotation or visual details serve the same IDEA.

Do not count boxes or impose a universal number of moments. Judge whether the chosen details and their relationships establish the construction and develop the argument.

Answer the question in the introduction: do not merely reiterate or literally re-ask the question without indicating what the essay's argument will be.

Major reminder for teachers: teach students what an introduction does conceptually. It is not a list of ACs or a place for unnecessary secondary sources; it frames the essay, presents a thesis, and gives an indication of how the thesis will be proven (argument outline).

One idea per paragraph was hard for students, particularly when ACs dominated/were the basis of the Topic Sentence.

Short paragraphs smacked of AI assistance and resulted in disjointed, underdeveloped ideas/arguments.

The thesis should explain how the paragraph IDEAs combine to make a clear claim. Each TEEAL develops one connected part of that argument.

An LOI organised around techniques can encourage description. Formulate the question from the supported conceptual argument; naming an authorial choice in the LOI alone does not determine the quality of the essay.

Use precise academic language and explain the meaning of your claims through details of the work. Forced binaries, hyperbolic praise and figurative analytical wording often obscure the reasoning.

Terms such as “collapse”, “grounds”, “anchors”, “embodies”, “reframes”, “dismantles” and “renders visible” require a clear explanation of the action or relationship claimed in this context.

Replace a vague “this” with its precise referent when that referent is unclear. Then explain the link between the identified detail and the IDEA.

The issue is the missing analytical explanation. A single expression or several stylistic similarities do not establish who wrote the response.

In “This positioning displaces agency”, identify the positioning, whose agency is affected and which action demonstrates the loss of choice. In “This fragmentation reinforces the protagonist’s dehumanised identity”, identify what fragments and which specific detail supports the claim.

A phrase such as “the collapse of established certainties” needs the relevant belief, event and consequence explained. Sophisticated terminology earns its place through the reasoning attached to it.