u/GeneralBig4945

I posted this on FB so thought I'd put it here too: There are a bunch of Paper 1 patterns I have seen (even back to the old course) that still show up in far too many responses, and I honestly don't understand why/who is teaching students to do these things (both Nov and May; old course and new; different TZs):

1. No one is changing the GQ - I have seen maybe like..5 kids out of the 3000+ I've read since the new course started. That would be fine, but then often they don't even answer the GQ given, but instead go on to basically just annotate the text.
2. Crit A - No engagement with IDEAS: so often the students never actually explain much about the concepts/ideas in the texts - even though lots of these can be simple, again students tend to forget that and just do AC listing.
3. Crit B - Turf ethos/logos/pathos: these are so rarely actually analysed but instead just mentioned. And often not accurately (it is a HUGE bugbear of mine when kids say creators "use" them, as opposed to create a sense of them). But more importantly, they never deconstruct anything in them so just say: statistics = logos; an award = ethos.
4. Crit B - Likewise, colour analysis is so weak: probably one of the more frustrating things because these are DP2 kids but they often say things like: blue = calm AND peace AND adventure AND sadness AND safety; or red = danger, which I am pretty certain they knew when they were 4 years old.
5. Crit B/D - Ban nonsense analytical phrases: At my school we call them the banned, fake analytical phrases but they still show up everywhere, which makes me think kids are somehow getting rewarded for them at their schools: "captures attention", "draws the reader in", "paints a picture", "makes the reader read on."
6. Crit B - Structural "analysis" becomes description only: this is often kids just saying what they see: first is a header; then is a column with this; then this; then this. Same with fonts and other "webpage" elements.
7. Crit D - Academic register is crucial: This may be more my background, but the register is really inappropriate in lots of responses. Often it is the hyperbolic overwriting ("ingeniously", "immaculately", "wonderfully", and my least favourite for some reason "cleverly"). Similarly, figurative language like "delves into", "shines a light on" or "grabs the reader's attention" just takes away from formal analysis.

Anyway regardless, we keep on trucking I suppose!

Hey guys,

I'm an IB Team Leader/examiner, and I've been building something to take that experience and make it useful for teachers/students alike: self-contained, interactive Paper 1 activities that students can work through independently.

Each activity page is built around a real past paper I have examined and uses some of the techniques I have developed over those 11 years of examining:
• Crit A: DICE/PACT analysis, Stages of IDEAs tree, elaboration writing
• Crit B: Cloze tasks, annotation practice, timed EA writing
• Crit C: Essay planning

The idea is that students target weak criteria, do the tasks, and self-assess against the bands. You don't mark anything unless you want to.

I'm looking for teachers willing to test one with a class (or just click through themselves) and tell me what's confusing or missing.

I am going to make a longer video going through how I imagine it works, but haven't quite gotten to that part yet.

So yesterday I put some of my thoughts and a few people asked for more specifics, so I figured I’d put together my Top 10 Tips based on my examining experience in L&L.

These are the patterns I see every exam session, and to be honest, they actually really frustrate me, because they keep showing up.

1. Retire those "classic" texts and the clichéd analysis that comes with them: Gatsby’s roaring 20s, R&J’s love vs. hate, Persepolis's religion vs freedom. These are great texts, but studying them in an IB context so often kills originality and with AI, makes it super easy to, at worst, cheat and at best, come up with incredibly derivative response. The PRL is enormous and there are so many interesting, and crucially, unique/non-saturated texts out there.
2. Spot AI slop: Check the process, not just the product. Look for those fake binaries (“not X but Y”), vacuous figurative language (“a tapestry of experience”), those pseudo‑academic verbs that mean absolutely nothing, and those short, disjointed paragraphs that scream AI. Note: I've started seeing these in Paper 1s, which is even more disappointing.
3. Teach non‑lit like you teach lit: The IB is clear: non‑literary texts are not self‑study options so they need structured whole‑class inquiry, just like your literary texts.
4. L&L responses succeed by ADDING to the literal: Students need to add implications (Criterion A), connotations (Criterion B), and an actual argument (Criterion C). Without those three, they’re just describing which stops them around 2 or at best 3 out of 5.
5. Skip secondary sources and other people’s analysis: Unless it’s an EE, students need to build their own arguments about the text. “According to Foucault…” adds nothing and drowns out the student’s own voice.
6. Essays are about IDEAs, not authorial choices: Topic sentences that name a technique are so disappointing to read. The concept leads; the AC follows. If your students are starting paragraphs with “The writer uses metaphors…”, they’re already capped.
7. Crit A – Elaborate on IDEAs: Even a student doesn't just use an AC in their Topic Sentences, often they simply name the idea and then analyse ACs. Instead they need to actually break down the IDEAs to show implications: Explain why the IDEA matters, how it develops; what the different elements of the IDEA are. The Stages of IDEAs give students that structure, otherwise they skip straight to evidence and never build a real claim.
8. Crit B – Evaluation means deconstruction, not identification: So many students stop at “the writer uses a heading to create emphasis” and then they're stuck at 2/5, best case scenario. Instead they need to: Identify the choice, deconstruct its specific connotations, link it to an idea. The 3‑Step Technique (What, How, Why) is the simplest way to teach this.
9. Crit C – Form actual arguments: Again so many students don't actually have anything they are arguing about their texts. Often they either list ACs or just follow the structure of the text, without adding their own perspective. DDM instead: Deconstruct one key term from the question into one strong connotation, Dichotomise it, Merge that into a thesis. It takes an unseen question and actually gives students something to say.
10. Rule of thumb - if they could have said it in Year 6, cut it in Year 12: If a point is that basic, it’s not analysis. Blue = sad; bolding = emphasises the word
11. Extra one - phrases I just can't stomach anymore: paints a picture in the reader's head; vivid imagery; creates interests; makes the reader read on; draws attention; reduces the gap between the reader and the writer.

I’m going to make something longer about more of these, because it frustrates me every exam cycle. If you want to see how I teach any of these, let me know.

I have been an examiner for over 10 years now, Team Leader for Paper 1 and the HL Essay, and I lead a three‑language L&L department.

After a decade of marking, the same problems show up every exam session. Three things I tell every teacher who asks:

1. The rubric is the only voice that matters.
It doesn’t matter what I think makes a good essay. What matters is what the standardisation session says. The hardest thing for new examiners is letting go of their own preferences. Once you internalise the IB’s descriptors, consistency follows.

2. Most essays stay mid‑mark because students describe, not argue.
They list techniques. They write “the writer uses metaphors to show trauma.” That’s not an idea. That’s a label. The Elaboration stage in TEEAL is where the marks are won or lost, and most students skip it entirely.

3. Whole‑text analysis is the skill most students are missing.
They can close‑read an extract. They fall apart when they have to track a Broader AC across the whole work. The Plane Method and the Islands Method both fix that, but they have to be taught explicitly.

What is the one skill your students struggle with most at the moment?