IB English A Lit External Assessment Example: Text written on:… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB English A Lit HL External Assessment Example

Text written on: Convenience Store Woman by Sayaka Murata How does Sayaka Murata utilize narrative voice and perspective in Convenience Store Woman to explore the theme of conformity, mainly by contrasting Keiko’s first-person perspective and the societal expectations embodied by minor characters?HL

Official IB Result

16/20

General feedback

16/20

No overall summary is available for this report.

5.1·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

This external definition interrupts the literary analysis and is only loosely necessary to the argument. The student should explain more directly how Miho’s language functions in the novel itself, rather than relying on a glossary-style explanation to carry the point.

5.2·Question

Page 3• Click to view

What does the insistence on a label reveal about Miho’s own assumptions about identity and normality? A more precise answer to that question would deepen the comparison between Keiko’s perspective and the society around her.

Criteria A: Knowledge, Understanding and Interpretation

4/5

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Knowledge and understanding of the work/text

Good

A.2Use of references and textual support

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student shows solid knowledge of Keiko’s character, her work, and the novel’s social pressures.
The student's quotations are relevant and usually support their points well.
The student does sustain an interpretive argument about conformity and individuality.

The student's discussion sometimes becomes more general than the question requires.
The comparison with minor characters is not maintained consistently throughout.
Some claims about society are broader than the textual evidence fully proves.

1.1·Weakness

Page 2• Click to view

The line of inquiry promises a contrast between Keiko and minor characters, but this sentence broadens into general social pressure without naming the specific perspectives that will be compared. The student should keep returning to the set up in the question so the argument does not drift into a general essay about conformity.

1.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The opening establishes a clear line of inquiry and immediately links Keiko’s perspective to broader social expectations. This helps the essay stay conceptually focused and gives the reader a strong framework for understanding the argument that follows.

1.3·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

The student effectively uses Miho’s reaction to show how other characters try to impose labels on Keiko. This is a strong interpretive move because it demonstrates the social pressure the novel critiques rather than simply summarizing the exchange.

Criteria B: Analysis and Evaluation

3/5

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Analysis of textual features and author's choices

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student identifies several meaningful textual choices, including first-person narration, repetition, and simple syntax.
The student often connects technique to Keiko’s detached worldview and the novel’s critique of conformity.
Some of the student's close reading, especially on syntax and characterisation, is convincing.

At times the analysis becomes descriptive rather than evaluative.
Some observations are a little overstated or imprecise.
The student could explore more deeply how the narrative voice shapes and complicates the reader’s judgement.

2.1·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

The student notices how the blunt phrasing shapes the moment’s meaning, which is a strong analytical step. Connecting the declaration to Keiko’s detached worldview shows how textual choices can reveal character perspective.

2.2·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

This reading of punctuation is somewhat overdetermined. The student should be careful not to treat the colon as decisive evidence by itself; instead, the analysis would be stronger if it linked the punctuation to the surrounding syntax and voice.

2.3·Weakness

Page 4• Click to view

The term “Furtherly” weakens the precision of the analysis, and the claim itself would be stronger with more textual proof. The student should replace vague evaluative phrasing with a sharper explanation of how this reaction is shown in Murata’s wording.

2.4·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

This is a convincing example of close analysis because the student links syntax to characterisation. The explanation shows how Murata’s style itself helps construct Keiko’s unusual relation to social norms.

2.5·Suggestion

Page 4• Click to view

Consider pushing this idea one step further by exploring the tension between performance and identity. That would let the essay evaluate whether the novel presents Keiko’s “mask” as liberation, limitation, or both.

2.6·Question

Page 5• Click to view

Does the first-person perspective simply invite sympathy, or does it also limit what the reader can understand about Keiko? Considering that tension would make the evaluation of narrative voice more nuanced.

2.7·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

This is a solid observation, but it remains largely descriptive. The student should go further by explaining how the clinical tone shapes the reader’s judgement of Keiko and complicates sympathy rather than just identifying the contrast.

Criteria C: Focus, Organization and Development

4/5

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Organization and development of ideas

Good

C.2Integration of supporting examples

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student's introduction sets up a clear direction for the essay.
The student's quotations are usually integrated into sentences rather than dropped in mechanically.
The essay has a recognizable progression from one idea to the next.

The argument narrows after the opening and does not keep the comparative focus equally well.
Some paragraphs revisit similar ideas instead of developing the line of inquiry further.
The conclusion largely repeats earlier points rather than synthesizing them into a sharper final insight.

3.1·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The paragraph begins to introduce a contrasting character rather than remaining entirely on Keiko, which is exactly what the question requires. This is an effective organisational choice because it shows the essay attempting to build comparison rather than summary.

3.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The introduction signals the essay’s direction clearly and returns to a central conceptual claim at the end. This creates a coherent opening frame and helps establish the essay’s overall purpose.

3.3·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

This sentence moves away from analysis into broad conclusion, which slows the paragraph’s development. The student should use this space to deepen the comparison with other characters instead of restating the effect on readers.

3.4·Weakness

Page 6• Click to view

The closing idea is promising, but the sentence is awkwardly built and the final claim is not fully integrated into the essay’s line of inquiry. The student should revise this into a clearer concluding statement that synthesizes the argument about perspective and conformity.

3.5·Suggestion

Page 6• Click to view

A more developed conclusion could briefly name the most important contrasts the essay has established, rather than restating the thesis in general terms. Summarising the strongest comparative insight would give the ending more intellectual closure.

Criteria D: Language

5/5

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Language clarity and accuracy

Excellent

D.2Register and style appropriateness

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student's writing is clear, readable, and consistently formal in tone.
The student uses appropriate literary vocabulary that suits the task.
The student's style generally supports the argument without distracting errors.

A few expressions are awkward or non-idiomatic.
Some phrasing is repetitive and could be more varied.
There are occasional grammatical slips that reduce precision.

4.1·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The register remains formal and academic, and the phrasing fits literary analysis well. The student consistently maintains a serious, controlled tone appropriate to HL essay writing.

4.2·Weakness

Page 4• Click to view

“Furtherly” is not idiomatic in academic English and weakens the sentence’s authority. The student should use simpler linking language such as “further” or “in addition” to keep the register polished and natural.

4.3·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

The student’s language here is precise and appropriately analytical. Terms such as “repetition,” “simple sentence structure,” and “pragmatic thought process” suit the task well and help make the argument clear.

4.4·Suggestion

Page 5• Click to view

Consider varying sentence openings and reducing repeated formulae such as “This highlights” in order to make the prose more dynamic. The argument is clear, so stylistic variety would be a refinement rather than a correction.

4.5·Weakness

Page 6• Click to view

This sentence contains a grammatical slip that obscures the final point. The student should revise the clause structure so the conclusion reads cleanly and the closing insight lands with confidence.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

16/20

General feedback

16/20

No overall summary is available for this report.

5.1·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

5.2·Question

Page 3• Click to view

Criteria A: Knowledge, Understanding and Interpretation

4/5

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Knowledge and understanding of the work/text

Good

A.2Use of references and textual support

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student shows solid knowledge of Keiko’s character, her work, and the novel’s social pressures.
The student's quotations are relevant and usually support their points well.
The student does sustain an interpretive argument about conformity and individuality.

The student's discussion sometimes becomes more general than the question requires.
The comparison with minor characters is not maintained consistently throughout.
Some claims about society are broader than the textual evidence fully proves.

1.1·Weakness

Page 2• Click to view

1.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

1.3·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

Criteria B: Analysis and Evaluation

3/5

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Analysis of textual features and author's choices

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student identifies several meaningful textual choices, including first-person narration, repetition, and simple syntax.
The student often connects technique to Keiko’s detached worldview and the novel’s critique of conformity.
Some of the student's close reading, especially on syntax and characterisation, is convincing.

At times the analysis becomes descriptive rather than evaluative.
Some observations are a little overstated or imprecise.
The student could explore more deeply how the narrative voice shapes and complicates the reader’s judgement.

2.1·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

2.2·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

2.3·Weakness

Page 4• Click to view

2.4·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

2.5·Suggestion

Page 4• Click to view

2.6·Question

Page 5• Click to view

2.7·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

Criteria C: Focus, Organization and Development

4/5

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Organization and development of ideas

Good

C.2Integration of supporting examples

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student's introduction sets up a clear direction for the essay.
The student's quotations are usually integrated into sentences rather than dropped in mechanically.
The essay has a recognizable progression from one idea to the next.

The argument narrows after the opening and does not keep the comparative focus equally well.
Some paragraphs revisit similar ideas instead of developing the line of inquiry further.
The conclusion largely repeats earlier points rather than synthesizing them into a sharper final insight.

3.1·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

3.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The introduction signals the essay’s direction clearly and returns to a central conceptual claim at the end. This creates a coherent opening frame and helps establish the essay’s overall purpose.

3.3·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

3.4·Weakness

Page 6• Click to view

3.5·Suggestion

Page 6• Click to view

Criteria D: Language

5/5

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Language clarity and accuracy

Excellent

D.2Register and style appropriateness

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student's writing is clear, readable, and consistently formal in tone.
The student uses appropriate literary vocabulary that suits the task.
The student's style generally supports the argument without distracting errors.

A few expressions are awkward or non-idiomatic.
Some phrasing is repetitive and could be more varied.
There are occasional grammatical slips that reduce precision.

4.1·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The register remains formal and academic, and the phrasing fits literary analysis well. The student consistently maintains a serious, controlled tone appropriate to HL essay writing.

4.2·Weakness

Page 4• Click to view

4.3·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

4.4·Suggestion

Page 5• Click to view

4.5·Weakness

Page 6• Click to view

This sentence contains a grammatical slip that obscures the final point. The student should revise the clause structure so the conclusion reads cleanly and the closing insight lands with confidence.