Subject Reports: Read All About It

Thursday 16 September 2021

Subject reports for first examinations, May 2021, are now available to read on MyIB. There are in fact two subject reports, one for timezone 1, and the other for timezone 2. The content of both subject reports is almost identical, but the difference reflects the separate Paper 1 examinations in each of the two time zones. In timezone 1, one of the texts was a BuzzFeed article. In timezone 2, one of the texts was a New York Times Magazine article on tandoori cooking. We suggest that you read the report for the time zone relevant to you, but also read the Paper 1 report in the other time zone.

Subject reports reflect the ‘collected wisdom’ of the examination session, and they are essential reading for teachers. In many or most cases, your reading of subject reports is likely to reflect the fact that you are ‘getting it right’, and that your classroom practices, activities, and advice to students requires little modification; you are doing what you can, and you are doing it well. Subject reports may sometimes seem banal, evoking a “do I really need to be told that?” response, but at other times, they can offer insight or advice that helps teachers modify and improve their teaching, or consider alternative approaches to their current teaching practice. It is sometimes the case that subject reports are ambiguous, contradictory, and/or plain wrong. Error, of course, should not occur, but ambiguity and contradiction, approached with a positive frame of mind, provide an opportunity for critical reflection.

From my own reading of the M21 subject report, I notice all of the above – contradiction, ambiguity, error – but mainly sound advice, confirming, for this year at least, that my own understanding of the course and assessment practice requires little modification.

Error seems apparent in page 4 of the subject report (accessed 10 September 21) where, referring to the suitability of works submitted for the Higher Level Essay, readers are told that “the range of non-literary texts was also wide, with many candidates submitting work on song lyrics, films, and paintings.” This is, at best, misleading, since for the purpose of course construction, films and paintings should be regarded as non-literary, but song lyrics should be regarded as literary. Further down the same page, still discussing the suitability of works submitted for the Higher Level Essay, we read that, “there were also a few examples of totally inappropriate choices of text type, or candidates who strayed into areas of focus other than the Language A subject guide, such as group 6 subjects”. At this point, part of me wants to cheer. I lack understanding of Gothic architecture, Neoclassical ballet, and Fauvism. I also worry about the nature of our subject; the very territory of language and literature seems to have simultaneously expanded and blurred, and I’m not comfortable with that. Here, you might divaricate from my conservative predilection. If so, no problem. But, if Banksy’s graffiti and Nextflix productions are good to go, what isn’t, how do I know, and who is to say? For an oldster like me, conventional in my ways, this kind of question is immaterial. If, however, you wonder, IB Answers is probably the place to seek counsel.

In the report for timezone 1, the discussion of Paper 1 is lengthier than that for timezone 2. Both reports highlight the shift from the broad commentary writing of the ‘old course’ Paper 1 to the focused and guided textual analysis of the present course, and both offer sound advice concerning the implications of the change. For example, it should be reasonably obvious that HL students must balance their time well in the exam, and the report draws attention to the unfortunate consequences of those who do not. You will be aware of the somewhat timeworn axiom involving horses and water, but it is nonetheless helpful to be reminded of what constitutes successful exam practice. The apparently vexed issue of ‘to use the guiding question or not to use’ causes me no vexation whatsoever. My advice to students is to always use the guiding question given. The writer of timezone 1’s report seems to be in my camp, whereas the writer of timezone 2’s report is more ambivalent. No matter; subject reports need to be read judiciously and, in this instance, my professional experience reinforces my sense that the advice I’m giving to my students is germane. Some teachers – perhaps most especially less experienced IB teachers – may prefer less equivocation and more definite clarity. That’s understandable, but explicit prescription is not always likely, and it is, like it or not, necessary to tolerate a degree of ambiguity.

I rather liked the old Paper 1 exam. The new Paper 1 exam is mainly fine, but I like it less. This sense was reinforced in the (timezone 1) subject report, where you can read that “many candidates tended to write a commentary, mentioning irrelevant contextual elements, as well as tangential aspects relating to audience and purpose”. Further down the next page, readers learn that, “contextual elements such as audience, purpose, text type, and platform should not be mentioned at all, unless the candidate explicitly relates them to the guiding question”.  This seems like reasonable advice, but only in part. After all, the guiding questions for both texts in the timezone 2 exam fundamentally spoke to the idea of ‘purpose’ (that’s right) which is difficult to meaningfully address without consideration of audience and text type. If this sounds critical, I prefer to think of it as reading the subject report critically; criticism for the sake of criticism is, I think, without merit.

You too should read the subject reports, I suggest with careful consideration. Like me, you may find things to disagree with, but this is likely to be outweighed by the benefit to be had from reading mainly astute observation and solid, reliable advice. I haven’t yet mentioned the Individual Oral, and this section of the subject report is packed with first rate guidance.

Feel free to leave your own thoughts and comments on the subject guide – we’re happy to discuss. Just keep in mind that InThinking is not the IB, and that neither Tim nor I had any hand in the writing of the subject report. Teacher to teacher discussion is all we can offer.

dmc