IB Docs (2) Team
2022 Paper 1: Sample Response 1 (First Dog on the Moon)
Reading the subject reports for specific examinations is highly recommended! You can find them on My IB, in the DP Language and Literature section of the site, more specifically under the “Assessment” column. Click on “subject reports” and find the exact exam session you need. These subject reports contain so much helpful information and a lot of the advice we provide comes from them. This is how the IB tells us what to do and what not to do when it comes to assessments!
The November 2022 Subject Report, in relation to Paper 1, focused heavily on the introduction and the overall organization or structure of the response. Here are a few of the “gems” from that report.
What the IB Says About Using the Guiding Question
“A fair number [of students] did not effectively thread [the guiding question] throughout to create cohesive responses by using effective topic sentences and transitions.”
“Actually employing [the guiding question] explicitly as a cohesive device throughout the remainder of the response” is recommended.
What the IB Says About the Overall Organization/Structure of the Paper 1 Response
“Clear focus and effective organisation continue to be the areas in which most candidates need more support and practice throughout the course.”
What the IB Says About Introductions
What to do: In the introduction, “form [a] cogent thesis statement in response to” the guiding question…."thread arguments throughout (i.e. continually reference the language of guiding question/thesis statement in topic sentences and analysis).”
What not to do: Do not have students write an introduction that “addresses audience, purpose, and context. In most cases, this is tangential information unrelated to the guiding question which leads to unnecessarily lengthy introductions or even superfluous body paragraphs.” In other words, “unless specifically related to the guiding question, it is unnecessary to address audience, context, and purpose.”
What the IB Says About Scoring Well in Criterion A and B
“Candidates whose referencing was more precise, thorough, and well-integrated tended to achieve higher marks” in Criterion A. “Candidates whose analyses were especially successful [in Criterion B] were able to synthesize how features/choices worked together and/or built upon one another in order to achieve the author’s desired effect."
Source Material - Examination Text
The exemplar below analyzes Text A from the November 2022 Paper 1 exam, taken from the “First Dog on the Moon” cartoon series published in The Guardian Australia. The particular extract is titled “First Dog on the Moon on… garbage gyres.” The guiding question was: “Discuss how visual features are used in this text to underline a serious message.”
Sample Guided Textual Analysis
2022 Paper 1 Sample Response 1 (First Dog on the Moon)
Guiding question: Discuss how visual features are used in this text to underline a serious message
Teacher's Comments
Criterion A: Understanding and interpretation (5 marks)
- To what extent does the student show an understanding of the text? What inferences can the student reasonably make?
- To what extent does the student support their claims with references to the text?
4 out of 5: The student “gets” the “message” about plastic pollution even if one contests that term, that a text can relay a message. There is a solid understanding of the text, of what’s happening and why. As well, strong interpretation exists throughout. It’s not yet “perceptive” or “insightful,” words used in the highest band. But it is also better than “satisfactory interpretation” of “some implications” of the text, words used in the lower band of this criterion.
Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)
- How well does the student does the student evaluate the ways in which language and style establish meaning and effect?
4 out of 5: Simply put, more discussion of the effect of the author’s visual choices is needed. This is especially true after examples and quotations. For example, there can be a further, more nuanced discussion of the effect of the features/techniques mentioned in the response. As well, the first body paragraph is too heavy on description before the analysis in the 2nd half of the paragraph. Quicker analysis of the features, with less paraphrase, is needed to score higher. And yet, the discussion and analysis of the effect of the visual progression of the panels, what it symbolizes, the animals and what they represent, the color, the facial expressions, the language used in the speech bubbles, and more is enough to award a 4 in this band. In other words, there is more than “occasional insights,” language used to describe a 3 in this band.
Criterion C: Focus and organisation (5 marks)
- How effectively does the student structure and present their ideas?
- How balanced and focused is the response?
4 out of 5: The response is “well-organized and mostly coherent.” Better connectives and transitions could be used to build the argument though.
Criterion D: Language (5 marks)
- How clear, varied, and accurate is the student’s language?
- To what extent is the student’s choice of register, style, and terminology appropriate?
4 out of 5: There is a slight repetitiveness to the analysis in the word choice (“demonstrates,” for example) and more precise language could be used throughout. While coming close to achieving top marks, it just misses the mark as it is not yet “precise” “very clear” and “effective.” Instead, “clear” and “consistently appropriate” more accurately describes this response.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn