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.”

Students clearly using AI.

There were multiple scripts that had the hallmarks of AI writing. It is crucial that teachers are aware of what AI writing looks like as well as ensuring there is adequate scrutiny over the drafting/planning process to avoid these really obvious markers.

Binaries within sentences: usually these are marked by the use of “rather/in contrast/yet/not X but Y etc”.

Vacuous figurative language: phrases like “a tapestry of experiences,” “a double-edged sword,” “navigating the complex landscape of,” “resonates deeply,” “speaks to the human condition”; all are technically accurate but completely empty of analytical content.

Overused pseudo-academic verbs: “renders,” “operationalise,” “grounds X in Y”; these are typical AI phrases that sound rigorous but add nothing.

Unearned sensory claims: “vivid imagery,” “powerful metaphors,” “evocative language”; often AI announces an effect without ever deconstructing to show how that effect is achieved. This is bad analysis too, but is a go-to of AI style writing.

Fragmented short paragraphs: frequent line breaks that create the look of analytical momentum but actually break logical flow and hide underdevelopment. Each “paragraph” is often one or two sentences only because that is the most AI can cope with.

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.

Doing very oversaturated texts and using the same LOIs that have been ‘done to death’ makes it even harder to show unique/interesting implications.

It would behove the teacher/school to expose their students to a wider range of texts/concepts in order to provoke more unique and interesting ideas and arguments especially as the PRL is virtually limitless (and we have free choice too).

Note: this is also a problem with AI/academic honesty as these essays are so easy to find.

The cliched literary texts were quite disheartening to see. Given the variety of texts that the IB encourages/demands, and the almost limitless set of Literary Texts in the PRL, it was just so disappointing to see the same texts being taught in identical ways/with identical conceptual foci.

Use the PRL to offer students REAL choice of the multitude of literary texts. There are so many more literary texts to choose from than the traditional/oversaturated texts.

Choosing more unique/interesting texts would also minimise the Academic Integrity issues of students relying on sources from the internet/AI etc.

HL Essays should be incredibly unique, insightful essays that closely analyse a variety of texts. So: when we see the exact same ideas/focus/style of essay being written by multiple students over and over again, it evinces the fact that something is not quite working in how these are being taught.

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.

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.

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.

AI-style language was often overly elaborate yet vacuous; binaries within sentences (e.g., “X not Y”, “A rather than B”); figurative language such as “blurs the line”.

Fawning, review-style writing is inappropriate (hyperbolic praise, etc.) - these essays often read more like a review than a Language & Literature analysis.

Ensure students understand the register of academic writing - again the AI markers are important to avoid because not only are they clearly AI, they are really inappropriate for academic essays (often far too figurative/hyperbolic).