.

The key phrase of HL Criterion B1, in my view, is the term 'make use'. The 1-2 markband states "makes superficial use"; the 3-4 markband states "makes competent use"; and the 5-6 markband states "makes effective use". Now, we certainly need to clarify what is meant by 'superficial', 'competent' and 'effective', but we can only do that if we agree on the main verb 'make use'.

So, what do we understand about 'make use' in the context of the HL Oral presentation about an extract from a literary work?

The analysis in this page is provided in two ways - a detailed commentary intended for teachers; and secondly, a summary of ideas relevant to students, in a powerpoint to be shown through Presentation Mode

• The section 'Make use', explored, below, contains a detailed analysis of what is involved in the term, leading to suggestions about (i) how Criterion B1 can be marked; and (ii) what advice can be given to students so that they can perform as well as possible.

• The section 'Advice to students', at the end of this page, provides a powerpoint presentation with a concise explanation of suggestions made in the analysis - a checklist of ideas for students to absorb and use.

'Make use', explored

Basics

If you 'make use' of something, you do something: in other words, it is...

• an active action - you intervene, rather than simply being or responding passively
• a transitive action - you do something with or to the raw material
• a constructive action - in making, you devise or invent or organise something out of the raw material, for a purpose or 'use'

If we accept all of these implications of the term, this will mean that Criterion B1 expects the student's presentation to be consciously organised, for a conscious purpose or argument.

This purpose or argument is further developed by the Criterion's descriptors as "observations and opinions". In short, then, the student is expected to take an 'angle' on the extract - i.e. develop a point of view which will involve interpretations and explanations.

In addition, the "observations and opinions" should be "supported" by "reference to the extract" - and such 'reference' presumably includes both direct, specific quotation and summary of details of the message of the extract.

Finally, it is worth noting that the phrasing of the descriptors does not indicate that the presentation should be (1) 'complete', in the sense of covering everything in the extract (surely impossible in 4 minutes); nor (2) 'correct', whatever that might mean in terms of commentary in this context. It follows that a good Part 1 presentation will select what aspects of the extract the student decides are worth talking about.

Key indicators

If we agree on the unpacking of the basic meaning of the Criterion presented above, what indicators should we be looking out for in assessing how well the student has handled the presentation?

I suggest three key elements to indicate the quality of the presentation: Approach, Support and Structure.

Approach

By 'approach', I wish to indicate the student's 'project' in the presentation: what the student appears to have set out to achieve, whether this is stated explicitly or can simply be inferred from the ideas that are actually delivered.

We can decide what the student's approach might be by forming a broad-brush summary of what has been said, and the main ideas communicated. I suggest the following main types of approach:-

Complex thesis ... 2 or more key aspects, related ... based on imaginatively selected quotes… extended to overall themes of the work

Single thesis ... 1 key aspect, developed in detail ... based on detailed interpretation of selected quotes ... may extrapolate to an overall theme of the work

Read-through ... step-by-step interpretation, following the sequence of the text ... regular reference to meaning of text, with some detailed quotation ... (but a bit passive? – although some sense of response & engagement = ‘use’?)

** Note that this approach is the most reliable in terms of achieving high marks under Criterion B1.

Simple summary ... overall generalisations about the extract ... more superficial reference to the text rather than detailed quotation ... (more passive – stating the obvious?)

Arbitrary aspects ... of extract OR the work as a whole ... based mainly on associations suggested by a few elements or phrases in the text ... relevance to the extract may be doubtful: the presentation mainly consists of digression from the extract itself

** These types of approach have been ranked in descending order of quality - the highest-marked at the top and the lowest-marked at the bottom.

The types in this list are neat and clear, for identification purposes - but in practice they may not be either pure or consistent. For instance, a student may set out to provide a Single Thesis, but lose track somewhat and end up providing various Arbitrary Aspects!

Another way of looking at approach is to classify according to the type of thinking apparent. We can apply this to the types of approach already identified like this -

Active argument (or 'Thematic')

Complex thesis  +  Single thesis ... the student has thought about the extract imaginatively, and used it to construct a coherent argument or theory

** Able students may attempt these approaches, but should be very careful to link their ideas explicitly to the extract, through constant detailed reference to the wording of the text

Passive response (or 'Read-through')

Read-through  +  Simple summary ... the student has read the extract (more or less) methodically, and reports how it works in (more or less) detail

Random reactions

Arbitrary aspects ... the student has understood a few elements of the extract, which suggest some (more or less) relevant associations

This gives us a broad-brush way of classifying types of thinking, which may point to the three markbands - always depending on how effectively and consistently each type of thinking is carried out.

Support

Just as we may identify the student's approach, so also can we identify types of support - i.e. what sort of evidence the student chooses to back up the argument, and how it is deployed (or not).

We can analyse the type(s) of support the student uses by identifying and classifying the references that the student makes to the extract, which typically will be of the following:

Precise quotes – interpreted and contextualized

Simple quotes – mentioned + generalisations

References – to phrases, sections, events in extract (which may be more, or less, precise)

Generalisations about extract (without clear & specific references)

Generalisations about literary work as a whole (minor vague links to extract itself)

** These types of approach have been ranked in descending order of quality - the highest-marked at the top and the lowest-marked at the bottom.

Again, real student performances may actually involve blends of these types - for instance, a couple of Precise Quotes, well deployed, may be mixed up with a lot of vague Generalisations about extract.

Structure

The concept of 'making use' is extended by the use of the word "developed" in the 3-4 and 5-6 markbands. It is worth noting that 'developed' is replaced by "generalised, simplistic" in the 1-2 markband.

So what do we understand by 'developed', and what indicators do we expect to find?

Fundamentally, a student's presentation will be 'developed' when we feel that the ideas put forward have been thought through, organised and focused. How exactly we detect those qualities will depend on the individual ideas in each individual case - but, I suggest, all such 'developed' presentations will display the following common features, to some extent at least:-

evident structure ... most easily detected in a stated plan or 'map', but it may also be evident in the clear, overall explanation of the argument which moves from #1 proposed thesis > #2 detailed reasoning > #3 thesis revisited / concluded

effective articulation ... most likely detected in the lucid and helpful use of cohesive devices, but should also be apparent in the step-by-step logic which link stages of the argument together

consistent coherence ... the extent to which the main thread of the argument is clear throughout, without digression or irrelevance

Note that these general features of a properly developed and structured presentation are all compatible, and indeed should all be present, working to reinforce each other. On the other hand, a less well developed presentation may present weaknesses in one or more - for instance, there might be an evident structure (stated at the beginning, and even carried out), but may lack effective articulation since cohesive devices are poorly used.

It is worth bearing in mind that there may be different fundamental design principles underlying structure - that coherence may be achieved by different ways of thinking. Consider the following:-

Logical sequence ... in which causes and consequences based on logical argument are explained / emphasized  (most commonly in the ‘active argument’ types of approach)

Associations … in which the sequence of ideas may be based not so much on logical steps, but rather on connections between images or emotions or literary effects - which may be described clearly or just implied subtly (not very common, but may well occur with the more imaginative 'active argument' types of approach)

Summary … in which the sequence of ideas follows the given structure of the extract  (typical of the ‘passive response’ types of approach)

Random … in which the sequence of ideas does not have any evident rationale (so, evidently not a deliberately chosen design principle, but nonetheless a consistent result of a certain type of thinking which has little clear structure)

Identifying indications of these different types of design principle may help decide which markband to award.

.