English A: Literature Internal Assessment: what criteria are configured?
The table below is the 4-criterion, 20-mark model currently configured in iBacalao. Treat it as a reference until the subject-specific evidence pack has been reviewed.
| Criterion | Name | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| Understanding and Interpretation | Understanding and Interpretation | 5 |
| Analysis and Evaluation | Analysis and Evaluation | 5 |
| Focus and Organization | Focus and Organization | 5 |
| Language | Language | 5 |
| Total | 20 | |
How do English A: Literature IA criteria work?
Each criterion describes a different part of the assessment, and its mark-band descriptors explain what evidence and reasoning earn credit.
Understanding and Interpretation
Understanding and Interpretation
What this criterion assesses
A thorough understanding of the literal meaning of the text, with a convincing and insightful interpretation of its larger implications and subtleties. Ideas supported by well-chosen references to the text.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion A: Understanding and interpretation (0–5): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1: The response demonstrates little understanding of the literal meaning of the text. References to the text are infrequent or are rarely appropriate. - 2: The response demonstrates some understanding of the literal meaning of the text. References to the text are at times appropriate. - 3: The response demonstrates an understanding of the literal meaning of the text. There is a satisfactory interpretation of some implications of the text. References to the text are generally relevant and mostly support the candidate's ideas. - 4: The response demonstrates a thorough understanding of the literal meaning of the text. There is a convincing interpretation of many implications of the text. References to the text are relevant and support the candidate's ideas. - 5: The response demonstrates a thorough and perceptive understanding of the literal meaning of the text. There is a convincing and insightful interpretation of larger implications and subtleties of the text. References to the text are well-chosen and effectively support the candidate's ideas.
Common mistakes
- Staying at the literal/surface level without exploring implications
- Claims made without quoting or referencing the text
- References included but never tied to an interpretation
- Misreading the literal meaning of the text
Analysis and Evaluation
Analysis and Evaluation
What this criterion assesses
Analysis and evaluation of how textual features and/or authorial choices shape meaning — moving beyond description to evaluate the effect of the writer's choices.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (0–5): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1: The response is descriptive and/or demonstrates little relevant analysis of textual features and/or authorial choices. - 2: The response demonstrates some appropriate analysis of textual features and/or authorial choices, but is reliant on description. - 3: The response demonstrates a generally appropriate analysis of textual features and/or authorial choices. - 4: The response demonstrates an appropriate and at times insightful analysis of textual features and/or authorial choices. There is a good evaluation of how such features and/or choices shape meaning. - 5: The response demonstrates an insightful and convincing analysis of textual features and/or authorial choices. There is a very good evaluation of how such features and/or choices shape meaning.
Common mistakes
- Describing or paraphrasing the text instead of analysing it
- Device-spotting without evaluating the effect on meaning
- Treating features in isolation from purpose and audience
- Drifting away from the guiding question
Focus and Organization
Focus and Organization
What this criterion assesses
An effectively organized and coherent presentation of ideas, with the analysis staying well focused throughout.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion C: Focus and organization (0–5): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1: Little organization is apparent in the presentation of ideas. No discernible focus is apparent in the analysis. - 2: Some organization is apparent in the presentation of ideas. There is little focus in the analysis. - 3: The presentation of ideas is adequately organized in a generally coherent manner. There is some focus in the analysis. - 4: The presentation of ideas is well organized and mostly coherent. The analysis is adequately focused. - 5: The presentation of ideas is effectively organized and coherent. The analysis is well focused.
Common mistakes
- Line-by-line commentary with no overall structure
- Paragraphs that drift from the focus of the analysis
- No clear introduction or thesis for the analysis
- Ideas presented in an arbitrary order
Language
Language
What this criterion assesses
Clear, varied and accurate language. Register and style appropriate to an academic essay: suitable vocabulary, tone, sentence structure and literary/linguistic terminology.
Mark band descriptors
Criterion D: Language (0–5): - 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. - 1: Language is rarely clear and appropriate; there are many errors in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction and little sense of register and style. - 2: Language is sometimes clear and carefully chosen; grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction are fairly accurate, although errors and inconsistencies are apparent; the register and style are to some extent appropriate to the task. - 3: Language is clear and carefully chosen with an adequate degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction despite some lapses; register and style are mostly appropriate to the task. - 4: Language is clear and carefully chosen, with a good degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are consistently appropriate to the task. - 5: Language is very clear, effective, carefully chosen and precise, with a high degree of accuracy in grammar, vocabulary and sentence construction; register and style are effective and appropriate to the task.
Common mistakes
- Informal register or conversational tone
- Grammar, vocabulary or sentence-construction errors that obscure meaning
- Overlong, tangled sentences instead of clear, varied ones
- Literary terminology used imprecisely or incorrectly
Sources & verification
Primary-source references used to verify key assessment facts on this page. Last source check: September 22, 2026.
The exact subject guide for English A: Literature is the authority for the task, criteria and limits. Some IB subject guides do not have a stable public URL, so this page names the configured assessment session and links the official IB update hubs instead of fabricating a direct source link.
- IB - Diploma Programme assessment and examsOfficial overview of criterion-related assessment and internal assessment in the Diploma Programme.
- IB - current curriculum updatesOfficial update hub for subject and first-assessment changes. Use it to confirm that your exam session matches the criteria shown here.
Ready to review your English A: Literature HL Essay?
Use the dedicated review workflow to check your draft against the configured English A: Literature criteria for this assessment session.
Review English A: Literature draft →