Language A: Literature – Curriculum Review Report
Earlier this month (February 2026), the second curriculum review report was published for Language A: Literature. You can find it on MyIB.
Two things are worth stressing immediately: (i) The report reflects the curriculum review for Language A: Literature. Language A: Language and Literature is on a different review timeline which has not yet entered the development phase; (ii) The review is not finalised. Thus, exact details of changes to course design remain unsettled.
It is, nevertheless, useful to read this well-written and detailed curriculum report. It provides insight into the directions of change that are likely in the literature course and suggests ways that the language and literature course could also change.
Early in the report, it is asserted that ‘the research phase concluded that no aspect of the existing curriculum or assessment model needed urgent attention or immediate repair, nor did the course need major adjustment’ (p.7). An obvious implication of this is that assessment tasks may be modified, but they will probably not change in any far-reaching way. Consequently, if there are aspects of assessment that you find problematic – the Individual Oral and/or Higher Level essay, say – it seems unlikely these tasks will be radically revised or substituted for alternative assessment tasks.
The report breaks down the details of three development meetings: Development meeting 1 (January 2025), meeting 2 (June 2025), and meeting 3 (September 2025).
Development meeting 1
Areas of exploration are highlighted, with the report suggesting that these will be retained but that they should ‘serve as conceptual lenses and tools, not as prescriptive units’ (p.10). This has always been my own preferred understanding of the ‘areas of exploration’, finding them to be helpful if rather self-evident ways of structuring and framing literary study. Close readers of the current Language A: Language and Literature guide will no doubt notice the reasonably detailed and clear prescriptions relating to literary study, but the looser guidelines that pertain to the selection of non-literary texts and bodies of work. Areas of exploration are, of course, useful lenses through which to interrogate all text types – the so-called literary and non-literary – and it would be helpful to see in a future course study guide greater clarity about how these can transcend the course as a purposeful cohesive force.
The first development meeting covers considerable ground (see, in particular, pages 10-11) and much, understandably, is returned to in subsequent meetings. It is worth noting that ‘global issue’ is discussed in this part of the report. It makes the point that the term ‘issue’ is problematic, and a number of alternative appellations are suggested, including ‘theme’, ‘topic’, and ‘question’ (p.10). Currently, in the language and literature course, the notion of ‘global issue’ is wedded to the Individual Oral, but seems detached from the rest of the course. This, it can be argued, is unsatisfactory. The report from the first development meeting suggests that ‘global issue’ (or what replaces the term) be reframed as ‘a tool for comparison and analysis, not as a requirement to ‘find the right issue’’ (p.10). I like that the report underscores this. Presumably, the notion of a ‘global issue’ was always intended as a tool for analysis (if not, explicitly, comparison), but it seems to me that the wording around the Individual Oral, including the marking criteria, will require modification if the apparent requirement to ‘find the right issue’ is to be consigned to the past. At any rate, the report goes on to say that, ‘global issues (should be) integrated throughout the course, not just in assessment tasks’ (p.11). This is sensible. However, you may notice, as I do, that there are a number of ways in which teachers and students are encouraged to cohere and connect in the course, including through concepts, areas of exploration, and global issues. You may wonder how exactly these frameworks or lenses intersect and overlap. What takes precedence and when? The report from the first development meeting recommends that teachers ‘connect concepts both to areas of exploration and to global issues’ (p.10). Some further guidance, perhaps in a TSM, would help teachers, particularly teachers new to the course, who may feel understandably overwhelmed by the range of cohesive frameworks that (could) undergird course structuration and classroom teaching. In addition, it is helpful to make more obvious the links between cohering lenses, assessment tasks, and marking criteria.
Development meeting 2
AI raises its head. Interestingly, AI is not discussed explicitly in terms of its challenge to current assessment methods and academic integrity. Instead, the report affirms that, ‘in an era increasingly shaped by AI, the study of literature offers a critical counterpoint’ (p.12). Well said. The report then argues that ‘learners (should) see themselves not as passive recipients of meaning, but as active co-constructors, whose interpretations matter and evolve in relation to the works they encounter’ (p.12). Few, I suspect, would argue otherwise and it is surely better to evoke a personal response to a literary work rather than interrogate the specious sagacity of ChatGPT. The following page (p.13) of the report builds on these ideas, and considers the challenges of responding to literature in the age of AI. Readers of the report should decide for themselves, but it is worth asking if the individual self (I, me, my) is (now) prioritised too far. Certainly, it seems reasonable to ask how this emphasis on reader response is to be meaningfully reflected in examination marking criteria.
There are several additional, positive takeaways from pages 13-14: (i) The areas of exploration, it is suggested, are to be called readers, writers, texts (unchanged), time and space (unchanged), and frameworks and connections (changed). Removing the label intertextuality from the areas of exploration is a good decision, concentrating instead on the utility of the lens in supporting students to make connections; (ii) The report argues that ‘a focus on active, literary-rich concepts could provide meaningful ways for achieving the aims of the course and offer greater disciplinary precision and reflective depth than broad, generic terms’ (p.13). While we are unlikely to collectively agree to what these concepts should be (p.13 offers suggestions), the shift from generic to discipline-specific concepts is eminently sensible. As to whether any concept should be considered universal and timeless is a separate issue – but one worth thinking about as concept-based inquiry assumes a central role in discourses of teaching and learning; (iii) The Prescribed Reading List (PRL) is renamed to something else such as the Suggested List of Authors (SLA?), reflecting changes to ways in which authorship is understood, and allowing greater flexibility and autonomy for teachers and their students in selecting literature that is appropriate to local contexts.
The second development meeting makes additional recommendations in respect to the Higher Level essay and the Individual Oral: There is a suggestion that the Higher Level essay should ‘make clear the position of the reader’ and that there be an ‘assessment of the writing process´ (p.15). For the Individual Oral, there are two particularly striking assertions: (i) ‘change ‘global issue’ to ‘global topic’ with the following definition: experienced by a large number of people; impact is felt within specific local/individual experiences; must be expressed as a statement, not a single word’; (ii) ‘remove fields of inquiry. They do not serve a specific function that cannot be filled with other course components (such as areas of exploration or course concepts)’ (p.15). Both changes are to be welcomed, in my view. While I agree that the global topic (since it is to be maintained, now with a new label) should be expressed as a statement, further explanation and direction is (eventually) required. After all, the global topic could be expressed as an interrogative and the Individual Oral would, in turn, become an engagement in inquiry. This idea seems to emerge in the third meeting (see below). As to the fields of inquiry, they are problematic at several levels and obfuscate, adding levels of complexity where none is needed.
Development meeting 3
The third meeting involved further work on the Individual Oral and the Higher Level essay. Several modifications are suggested for the Individual Oral, including students bringing in a number of supporting quotations to the assessment. This, I think, requires clarification. What, for example, constitutes a ‘quotation’? In regard to the Higher Level essay, the process-driven requirements are further revealed. One suggestion is that ‘the current criterion D (language) will be replaced by a criterion assessing students’ engagement with the process and feedback as evidenced by the record and reflection form’ (p.17). Probably, many teachers will welcome a more structured approach to the Higher Level essay, including a period of supervised writing (working in good faith that academic integrity is a concern for all). I suspect, however, that some (or many) teachers, even in an age of AI, will have some concerns about the absence of any language emphasis.
I started this blog post with caution and caveat. It is where I will conclude. A curriculum review report – and this is a good one – suggests a direction of travel, but it does not fully describe the destination. Having taught, at the time of writing, the IB Diploma for 27 years, I have experienced many curriculum reviews, witnessed change, and seen a few constants. The outcome of a curriculum review tends not to please everyone all of the time. That, anyway, seems an unrealistic expectation. The curriculum development team have many concerns to contend with, some competing, working in a complex global educational system. Intellectually curious teachers with a concern for education and their students will, I think, always find aspects of curricula they like, and things they like less. So it goes. We roll with it.
David (and Tim)