The Subject Report system has changed from May 2023 onwards. There are now two subject reports for each exam session, since IB exams are now produced with separate papers for different Time Zones - Timezone 1 is Asia Pacific; and Timezone 2 is Europe and America. (Note that there will soon be three time zones, zone 3 being America, separated from Europe - probably from May 2025.) This is, of course, to prevent the possibility of students who take an exam early in the 'global day' passing on details to students who take the exam later in the 'global day'.

Accordingly, this review will cover the two subject reports available, labelled 'Timezone1' and 'Timezone 2'.

As always, I would recommend that it is well worth downloading the whole Report relevant to your area or zone, and at least skimming through it. The Report is a comprehensive and detailed study of student performance, and so you can use it as a checklist to be sure that you are teaching as well as possible.

What follows on this page is a personal review, not a precise and detailed summary: I have simply selected those elements of the two Reports which seem to me to be particularly significant and useful, and added personal comments and suggestions.

Grade boundaries

I have spent some time analysing and comparing the grade boundaries for the two timezones, as shown in pages 3-4 in each report.

It should be noted that, ideally, the IB would wish the grade boundaries for each timezone to be the same. However, it is recognised that exam papers may vary slightly between session and session - despite serious efforts to achieve consistency, one paper may be slightly more or less challenging. This is the reason for the long-standing procedure of Grade Award meetings, in which senior examiners consider the final marks and decide exactly where grade boundaries should be placed, so as to maintain fairness and consistency across different sessions... and now, across different Timezones.

On the basis of my analysis, I would make the following observations:

Overall standards

• the overall grade boundaries of Timezone 1 (TZ1) are marginally higher than those of Timezone 2 (TZ2). For example -

HL grade 7 in TZ1 = 90-100, whereas grade 7 in TZ2 = 89-100

SL grade 7 in TZ1 = 88 -100, whereas grade 7 in TZ2 = 87 -100

This one mark difference is transmitted into lower grades.

• the cause of this difference appears to be that Paper 1 in TZ1 was marked slightly more strictly than Paper 2 in TZ2. For example -

HL grade 7 in TZ1 = 28-30, whereas grade 7 in TZ2 = 27-30

SL grade 7 in TZ1 = 25-30, whereas grade 7 in TZ2 = 24-30

• all the other grade boundaries across the two Timezones are more or less comparable, with only very slight variations.

HL & SL components

The two sets of grade boundaries give a general impression of differences in marking between Higher level and Standard level. Obviously, marking criteria are different in Paper 1; and paper-setting expectations and instructions are different for Paper 2 - but a survey of the raw statistics of marks gives some vague idea of relative standards in a broad sense. I would note the following -

Oral IA - Grade boundaries are fixed, and do not vary from session to session - this is because the assessment procedure is the same every session, and so cannot affect performance variations. One significant pattern is that SL boundaries are rather more generous for grades 5 and below; for instance -

HL grade 5 = 18-21 ... whereas SL grade 5 = 16-21

Paper 1 Writing - In general, SL grade boundaries are more generous than HL boundaries, from grade 3 to grade 7. For example, as noted above -

HL grade 7 in TZ1 = 28-30, whereas grade 7 in TZ2 = 27-30

SL grade 7 in TZ1 = 25-30, whereas grade 7 in TZ2 = 24-30

Paper 2 Listening & Reading - There is little difference between the two Timezones in the boundaries, apart from the following -

SL Listening is slightly more generous than HL in the boundaries from grade 1 to grade 4

SL Reading is slightly more strict than HL in the boundaries from grade 1 to grade 5

Oral internal assessment

The report text for Oral IA is standardised, and it appears that it is repeated in every session (and now for each Timezone). It expresses collected good practice about handling the interview at bth HL and SL (pages 5-6) - this is well worth reading as a checklist of what to do.

It also provides general overall descriptions of typical performances which earn "higher marks" and "lower marks", under each of the Criteria, at HL (pages 7-9) and at SL (pages 9-12). These descriptions help to flesh out the wording of the marking criteria with recognisable indicators. To illustrate, in use of language, 'higher marks' at HL are described as "...skilful and imaginative use of a wide and expressive range of vocabulary and structures..."; while 'higher marks' at SL are described as "...solid linguistic competence and fluency, with few errors..."

Finally, the 'Recomendations' section (pages 12-14) provides excellent practical advice about good practice both in teaching oral skills and in handling the interview.

Paper 1 Writing

The reports from both TZ1 and TZ2, at both HL and SL are reasonably positive, but they do point out areas of weakness and concern. I would highlight the following:

Criterion A Language - at SL, both TZ1 and TZ2 mention significant weaknesses in the handling of basic grammar (e.g.agreements, use of tenses) ... and such weaknesses regularly hampered the efficient communication of ideas

Criterion B Message - Several different points are raised:

• at HL, both TZ1 and TZ2 comment that some students lost marks for failing to deal adequately with all the required content points - they might deal with two of three, and then merely mention in passing the third
• at SL, TZ2 notes that some students failed to pay attention to plurals in the requirements of the task - for instance, if the task requires comments on "concerns", there needs to be more than one 'concern'
• at SL, TZ1 mentions in particular poor paragraphing, thus failing to convey clear stucture to the text

Criterion C Conceptual understanding - both Timezones, at both levels, noted some weakness in the handling of the 'Email' text type - lack of proper headings, such as 'Subject'. Teachers are recommended to consult the IB document "Text types for Paper 1 task options (first assessment 2020)" - and to make sure that all students are familiar with the basic conventions required for all text types

Handwriting - both Timezones, at both levels, indicate that a small but significant minority of scripts were illegible at times, due to poor handwriting. This evidently cost marks.

Finally, it is worth having a look at the 'Recommendations' section of both reports, at both levels. These are much the same as such Recommendations in previous sessions, but they are a useful checklist for ideas about basic good practice.

Paper 1 Listening

The reports for TZ1 and TZ2 are identical - which, interestingly, indicates that the Listening component was the same for both Timezones, and at both levels.

HL

The overall comment on the exam states that the choice of texts and questions was considered "suitable", and that the paper was "generally accesible to the majority of students".

The main concern about questions which students found difficult was related to short answer questions - mainly because some short answers were poorly phrased, or simply had incomplete grammar which rendered the actual wording unclear.

The most useful section of the report is the 'Recommendations' section (pages 22-23). I particularly note -

• practising note-taking in class ... so as to be better at extracting key points when listening
• use the preparation time productively ... study the questions carefully, so as to have some idea of exactly what to listen out for
• write precisely and concisely ... write only the exact detail required, and don't add extra or irrelevant information: in fact, where possible, write simply the exact words used in the recording.

SL

The paper was generally considered suitable - topics of the texts were "of interest and relevance"; the language level was "appropriate"; and the questions "... discriminated the ability of students well...".

In terms of student performance, as at HL, the SL report mentions short answer questions as posing difficulties - basic spelling errors or incomplete phrases costing marks even when the student clearly had roughly the right idea.

The Recommendations section (pages 25-26)  covers the same fundamental points as mentioned under HL above, but I also note exam-technique ideas ...

• write answers clearly - even if it is just a single letter (as in MCQ questions)
• make any corrections evident - cross out the rejected answer, then write to new answer clearly next to the box
• try to quote directly from the recording - summaries or paraphrases may be acceptable, but they run the risk of being imprecise (see comments about short answer questions) ... if you use the words from the recording, you can't explain wrongly

Paper 2 Reading

The reports for TZ1 and TZ2 are identical - which, as for Listening, indicates that the Reading component was the same for both Timezones, and at both levels.

HL

Comments on the paper indicate that it was considered "appropriate", and "... of a similar level of difficulty to previous years ...", although a few examiners felt that it was slightly easier. Texts were considered "approachable", and the questions were "manageable".

Questions that some students had difficulty with were "... Q13-16 (true/false with justification questions), Q28-32 (complete sentence using words from the text), and Q37-40 (structural features/reference style questions) ..." . See below...

The 'Recommendations' section (pages 29-30) has some useful advice for students. I particularly note -

• do exactly what the question asks ... e.g. if it asks for a 'word', write only a single word, don't add on the rest of the sentence
• it is always best to quote directly from the text, if this is possible - giving the answer in your own words is likely to be dangerous unless your are specifically asked to do so: your phrasing may be inaccurate
• in True/False + justification questions, the above remarks are particularly true - (i) always quote words that appear in the text; and (ii) always quote only the words that are relevant .
• In other words, do not * quote whole sentences (which may include irrelevant phrases), or *use ellipsis (lines of dots ...) to show the relevant sentence e.g. "The sentence... meaning", which may point to the relevant phrase i.e. "...shows the important ...", but you haven't actually quoted the important phrase.

SL

Overall, the paper was considered "accessible"; and 65% of teachers considered that the paper was of a similar level of difficulty to last year, although 18% considered it more difficult.

Overall, the report notes that many students lost marks unnecessarily because they failed to quote directly and accurately from the text. See more detailed remarks below...

The 'Recommendations' section (page 33) has useful advice for students concerning specific question types -

In T/F + justification questions, the answer must be a direct quote from the text - and this must be concise i.e. only the words which are directly relevant as justification

In reference questions (e.g. "to what does 'it' refer to?"), the answer must again be a direct, concise quotation, without extra, surrounding words

In 'Complete the sentence' questions, " students must complete the statements with exact wording from the text"

Legibility - (i) if a student changes an answer, the original should be clearly crossed out, and the new answer written close to the space or box provided; (ii) students should write as clearly as possible - particularly when writing single letters for e.g. MCQ answers