IB Language A language and literature first assessment 2021; English focus. This supplemental reference covers only the listed preparation outcomes. School selections, full-guide procedures and required live or recorded performance are separate.
Analyse audience, purpose, register 语域 and multimodal choices
Support interpretations of a non-literary text with precise evidence 证据
Prerequisites: Text type; audience and purpose; distinguish intended and measured effects.
Explain and choose the method
Identify text type, audience and purpose, then analyse how choices construct meaning.
Visual hierarchy 视觉层级, diction 措辞, framing and register can guide attention and position the reader.
Visual hierarchy makes some information prominent.
The large invitation draws attention; the smaller safety limit narrows the promise.
Link a visible choice to a possible reader response using “may” or “invites”.
Do not claim an actual booking increase without response data. Analyse the supplied image as well as its words.
Original diagram of the worked relationship; read the full wording and qualifications.
Existing worked example: Only three days left combines a restrictive word with a time limit; the large countdown makes urgency visible. Explain how this could prompt quick action, while acknowledging that different readers may resist the message.
Complete original context
Original non-literary stimulus — Library repair session notice. Use the actual supplied notice image with this text.
Large heading: “A second life for a small object”.
Main visual: a broken line becomes an unbroken line beside a lamp symbol.
Prominent instruction: “Book a place by Friday”.
Smaller text: “Saturday, 10:00–12:00. Library meeting room. Bring one battery-powered object. No damaged batteries. Inspection does not guarantee repair.”
Footer: “Need help booking? Ask at the library desk.”
The notice is an original classroom design, not a real event announcement. Its audience is local library users who may have a small broken object. Its purpose is to encourage a booking while communicating limits. A reader's actual response has not been measured.
Independent practice and checked reasoning
Transfer 1
Analyse how heading, visual and booking instruction work together. Include two precise details and one qualification about audience response.
Reasoning: The heading's “second life” frames repair as renewal, while the broken-to-unbroken line beside the lamp gives that change a visual form. “Book a place by Friday” converts interest into a specific action and deadline. These choices may prompt users with broken objects to book, but no response data establishes that every reader will do so.
Transfer 2
Explain the relationship between the invitation and the smaller limitations. Does “Inspection does not guarantee repair” contradict the notice's purpose?
Reasoning: The invitation encourages participation, while the battery and repair limits define eligibility and avoid an unlimited promise. The qualification can support informed participation rather than cancel the purpose. Analyse its smaller prominence as a tension in how readily readers may notice it, without assuming they all miss it.
Transfer 3
Compare a reader comfortable booking online with one who needs help. Which visible feature broadens access, and what additional evidence would test its effect?
Reasoning: The desk-help footer gives a route for readers needing assistance. Its effect could be tested by observing enquiries and bookings or asking readers whether they noticed and understood it. The notice alone supplies an invitation, not measured inclusion.
Limits and next use
Do not list techniques without their function or assume an effect occurs for every reader. HL analyses both unseen texts in Paper 1; SL chooses one. Practise complete analysis rather than doubling an SL answer.
All tasks here are public original practice with authored guidance. They are not official questions or fresh diagnostics. Existing protected tests and mocks remain separate.
IB Language A language and literature first assessment 2021; English focus. This supplemental reference covers only the listed preparation outcomes. School selections, full-guide procedures and required live or recorded performance are separate.
Compare authorial choices across two selected literary works
Explain how contexts shape meaning without reducing a work to biography
Prerequisites: Close reading 细读; comparative claim; context versus biography.
Explain and choose the method
Paper 2 compares two studied literary works in response to a question.
Use topic-led comparison: connect a specific choice in one work to a related or contrasting choice in the other.
A comparative argument 论证 比较论证 explains a relationship through both texts.
Use a shared question, then analyse a distinct choice in each text.
“Both concern belonging” is a start, not a developed comparison.
The original classroom context supplies no biography; analyse wording before suggesting a broader interpretation.
Original diagram of the worked relationship; read the full wording and qualifications.
Existing worked example: One narrator may withhold a character's motives while another presents interior thought. Compare how these choices position readers to judge exclusion. Select precise evidence 证据 from the school's texts and connect it to your thesis.
Complete original context
Original classroom texts, written for this supplement. They are not school-selected assessed works.
Text A — The label
Every morning I polished the brass plate beside the door. It carried my father's name, and visitors asked for him even after I took charge of the shop. I answered their questions, found the parts, and wrapped each purchase. Still, at the door, they thanked the name on the plate. One afternoon I put a small card below it: “Ask for Leila.” The next visitor read the card aloud, hesitated, and then asked me where the hinges were. I left the brass plate shining. The card stayed too.
Text B — A space on the shelf (original poem)
I cleared a place beside the cup,
not where the cup had been.
The shelf kept its old circle;
the new wood still looked clean.
By evening, two rings darkened it.
I did not rub them out.
Context supplied for this exercise: both texts are contemporary original classroom writing in English. No author biography, translation 翻译 history or evidence about a real society is supplied. Compare what the wording permits; do not invent historical facts. A real course comparison must use the school's eligible studied works.
Independent practice and checked reasoning
Transfer 1
Compare how both texts represent making a place for a new identity. Write a complete comparative paragraph with quotations.
Reasoning: Both texts make identity visible through a small addition rather than complete replacement. In A, “Ask for Leila” gives the worker a public name beside the inherited brass plate, turning unnamed labour into recognition. In B, “beside” rather than “where” preserves the old cup's place while creating another. A's hesitation before a visitor speaks Leila's name stages a social adjustment; B's two darkened rings make coexistence visible without a visitor. The difference is between recognition through language and belonging through shared space, not a simple opposition between keeping and destroying the past.
Transfer 2
Identify one contrasting reading that complicates a wholly optimistic interpretation of A, without inventing biography.
Reasoning: Leila must add a request to be recognised, and the visitor hesitates, so recognition is not automatic. Keeping the shining plate may suggest respect, but could also show the inherited name retains authority. Both readings need the supplied details and should remain interpretations, not claims about the author's family.
Transfer 3
Explain how you would transfer this method to two actual studied works and what must be verified before making historical-context claims.
Reasoning: Choose a question-led comparison, select precise scenes and authorial choices from both works, and test a counter-reading. Verify editions, eligible works, reliable contextual evidence and the relevance 相关性 of that context to textual details. A general biography cannot replace analysis.
Limits and next use
Do not compare one literary and one non-literary text for Paper 2. Context informs an interpretation but cannot replace close reading or prove a single fixed meaning.
All tasks here are public original practice with authored guidance. They are not official questions or fresh diagnostics. Existing protected tests and mocks remain separate.
IB Language A language and literature first assessment 2021; English focus. This supplemental reference covers only the listed preparation outcomes. School selections, full-guide procedures and required live or recorded performance are separate.
Form a focused global issue 全球性问题 and select relevant extracts
Balance extract analysis with whole-work or body-of-work discussion
Prerequisites: Close reading 细读; distinguish literary work and non-literary body of work.
Explain and choose the method
The global issue should have wider significance and operate in local contexts.
For this course, connect a literary work and a non-literary body of work; explain how choices construct the issue in extracts and beyond them.
A global issue must be focused enough to trace through specific choices.
“Recognition of inherited and emerging identities” is more focused than “identity”.
In Language and Literature, the assessed oral connects one eligible literary work with one eligible non-literary body of work.
An original story and one classroom notice can rehearse links, but do not become the school's assessed pairing or a complete body of work.
Original diagram of the worked relationship; read the full wording and qualifications.
Existing worked example: Select an extract where labels shape a character's treatment and a related text from an approved non-literary body of work. Compare how diction 措辞 and framing operate, then show where the pattern continues or changes across each work.
Complete original context
Original classroom texts, written for this supplement. They are not school-selected assessed works.
Text A — The label
Every morning I polished the brass plate beside the door. It carried my father's name, and visitors asked for him even after I took charge of the shop. I answered their questions, found the parts, and wrapped each purchase. Still, at the door, they thanked the name on the plate. One afternoon I put a small card below it: “Ask for Leila.” The next visitor read the card aloud, hesitated, and then asked me where the hinges were. I left the brass plate shining. The card stayed too.
Text B — A space on the shelf (original poem)
I cleared a place beside the cup,
not where the cup had been.
The shelf kept its old circle;
the new wood still looked clean.
By evening, two rings darkened it.
I did not rub them out.
Context supplied for this exercise: both texts are contemporary original classroom writing in English. No author biography, translation 翻译 history or evidence 证据 about a real society is supplied. Compare what the wording permits; do not invent historical facts. A real course comparison must use the school's eligible studied works.
Independent practice and checked reasoning
Transfer 1
Form a focused issue from Text A, and give an extract-level observation plus a whole-text connection.
Reasoning: “How inherited names affect recognition of a new worker” is focused. At extract level, visitors thank the plate rather than Leila; the card makes her name visible. Across the whole short text, the movement from polishing the inherited name to keeping both labels complicates a simple rejection of inheritance. For a real oral, make whole-work connections across the actual studied work rather than treating this short story as the full qualification's reading.
Transfer 2
Using the repair notice from sheet 1 as a rehearsal 排练, propose a cautious connection to access and recognition. Explain why one notice is insufficient to claim an assessed body of work.
Reasoning: The desk-help footer recognises readers who cannot independently book; its prominence can be compared with who is named and addressed in the story. The connection needs a clearly stated issue and evidence rather than asserting identical situations. A body of work and its eligibility require school selection and fuller source context; one original classroom notice cannot establish that requirement.
Transfer 3
Outline a balanced oral rehearsal and two follow-up questions. Separate what can be checked in writing from live evidence still needed.
Reasoning: Introduce the issue; analyse the literary extract and wider work; analyse the non-literary extract and wider body; compare and qualify the findings. Ask “Which detail 细节 challenges your reading?” and “Where else does this issue change in the work?” Written planning can check focus and references. Teacher-led interaction, eligible sources, permitted notes and actual recorded performance remain required.
Limits and next use
The oral is supervised spoken assessment, not an essay submitted in its place. Teacher verifies text eligibility, extract limits, notes and scheduling against the guide.
All tasks here are public original practice with authored guidance. They are not official questions or fresh diagnostics. Existing protected tests and mocks remain separate.
IB Language A language and literature first assessment 2021; English focus. This supplemental reference covers only the listed preparation outcomes. School selections, full-guide procedures and required live or recorded performance are separate.
Develop a focused line of inquiry 探究线索 into a selected work or body of work
Revise a 1200–1500-word analytical argument 论证 with accurate citation
Prerequisites: Evidence 证据-based paragraphs; line of inquiry; citations and counter-reading.
Explain and choose the method
The HL essay develops an independent line of inquiry using studied material and detailed analysis.
Choose evidence that advances the argument and acknowledge complications rather than repeating a thesis 论点.
A line of inquiry connects several choices to an interpretation that develops across a work.
For the complete original short story “The label”, ask: “How do labels and acts of naming complicate Leila's attempt to claim a place in the shop?”
Plan the opening inherited label, the mismatch between labour and thanks, the new card and hesitation, then the retained plate.
Test a counter-reading: preserving the plate may express continuity, but can also preserve unequal recognition.
The full model in the companion is a classroom analytical essay, not an assessed essay on a school-approved work. Never submit or count it as personal coursework.
Original diagram of the worked relationship; read the full wording and qualifications.
Existing worked example: Ask how a recurrent contrast constructs belonging across a selected work. Trace changes in the pattern and analyse moments that resist the initial reading. Revise topic sentences so each contributes a distinct step in the argument.
Complete original context
Original classroom texts, written for this supplement. They are not school-selected assessed works.
Text A — The label
Every morning I polished the brass plate beside the door. It carried my father's name, and visitors asked for him even after I took charge of the shop. I answered their questions, found the parts, and wrapped each purchase. Still, at the door, they thanked the name on the plate. One afternoon I put a small card below it: “Ask for Leila.” The next visitor read the card aloud, hesitated, and then asked me where the hinges were. I left the brass plate shining. The card stayed too.
Text B — A space on the shelf (original poem)
I cleared a place beside the cup,
not where the cup had been.
The shelf kept its old circle;
the new wood still looked clean.
By evening, two rings darkened it.
I did not rub them out.
Context supplied for this exercise: both texts are contemporary original classroom writing in English. No author biography, translation 翻译 history or evidence about a real society is supplied. Compare what the wording permits; do not invent historical facts. A real course comparison must use the school's eligible studied works.
Independent practice and checked reasoning
Transfer 1
Develop a thesis and paragraph sequence that answers the supplied inquiry, including a counter-reading rather than merely listing images.
Reasoning: Thesis: labels make authority visible but not inevitable; the new card seeks recognition without erasing inheritance, leaving a qualified coexistence. Sequence: inherited name and recurring polish; labour versus misdirected thanks; the card's direct address and visitor hesitation; the retained shining plate and a counter-reading of continued hierarchy. Each paragraph must explain a change in meaning and its relation to the inquiry.
Transfer 2
Explain why counting every name is weaker than tracing naming's changing function. Identify one detail 细节 that tests a claim of complete liberation.
Reasoning: A count does not distinguish inherited authority, misrecognition and self-assertion. The plate remains shining and the visitor hesitates, so complete liberation is too strong. The argument should explain both change and continuing dependence.
Transfer 3
Use the complete model as a method example, then state the exact steps needed for a personal 1200–1500-word HL essay on an eligible studied work.
Reasoning: Choose a school-approved work or permitted body, agree a focused inquiry 聚焦探究, gather precise evidence across it, draft independently, cite quotations and interpretations, verify assessment-reuse and authenticity rules, revise counter-readings, and count final words. The original classroom model demonstrates a sustained line but cannot supply the student's personal assessed work or missing school selection.
In the original short story “The label”, taking charge of a shop does not immediately give Leila public recognition. She carries out its work, but the name displayed beside the door continues to direct visitors' gratitude toward her father. The story makes this problem visible through two small texts: a polished brass plate and a new card. Its question is not simply whether Leila can replace an older generation. Instead, acts of naming expose the difference between doing a job and being recognised as its keeper. The card changes that relationship without removing the inherited plate, so the ending offers a qualified coexistence rather than a complete break. The sequence of polishing, misplaced thanks, self-naming and continued display develops that tension across the whole story.
The opening turns an ordinary maintenance action into a repeated encounter with inherited authority. “Every morning” makes polishing a habit rather than a single sentimental gesture. Leila cares for the object carrying her father's name even after she has taken charge. This creates an important distinction: operational responsibility has changed, while the sign of responsibility remains attached to someone else. Brass also gives the plate a durable material presence. The reader need not assume a universal symbolism for that material to notice its contrast with the later small card. The plate is established, regularly maintained and already positioned at the threshold where visitors decide whom to seek. Before Leila speaks, the shop presents another person's identity. Naming thus operates through space as well as through language.
The visitors' requests show that the plate has practical consequences. They “asked for him” although Leila now performs the keeper's work. The pronoun keeps her father present through other people's expectations, while Leila's first-person narration reveals the mismatch those visitors may not notice. Her account of answering questions, finding parts and wrapping purchases forms a series of concrete actions. These are not abstract claims that she deserves authority; they show her fulfilling the role. The sequence also suggests a complete transaction, from enquiry to departure. Yet carrying the work through to its conclusion does not ensure that gratitude reaches the worker. The story separates competence from acknowledgement, allowing the reader to see an inequality that the visitor may reproduce without deliberate hostility.
That separation becomes sharpest when visitors “thanked the name on the plate”. A name cannot literally receive gratitude, so the phrase makes the sign stand for the absent person. It also presents the direction of thanks as almost automatic: the plate's established identity outweighs the visible worker's actions. The narration does not report an argument in which someone explicitly denies Leila's ability. Instead, misrecognition occurs through an apparently polite habit. This matters because it prevents an easy solution based only on performing more work or behaving more helpfully. Leila has already completed those actions. Her difficulty concerns the way people interpret the shop's public signs. The story therefore prepares a response that changes the available information, rather than adding another demonstration of competence that might again be credited elsewhere.
The card answers that problem through unusually direct wording. “Ask for Leila” is an instruction, not a description of her father's absence or an accusation against visitors. Its verb invites a new act from the reader: address the person now doing the work. By choosing her name, Leila also becomes visible as an individual rather than only as the child of the person already named. The card is small, however, and sits “below” the brass plate. Those details complicate an account of sudden triumph. The addition can be read as a practical correction fitted into an existing arrangement, but its subordinate position may also suggest that the inherited identity remains more prominent. Both possibilities depend on the actual spatial relationship. Neither requires inventing a history of conflict outside the story.
The first response to the card makes change perceptible without making it effortless. The visitor reads the new name aloud and “hesitated” before asking Leila for the hinges. Reading aloud gives her name a public sound that contrasts with the earlier requests for “him”. The following question is also a practical acknowledgement: the visitor directs the shop enquiry to her. Yet the hesitation interrupts any smooth transition 衔接词. It may suggest uncertainty, a revision of expectation or simply the moment needed to process unfamiliar information. The narration does not choose among those private motives. A careful interpretation can identify recognition beginning in the changed address while retaining uncertainty about the visitor's attitude. Claiming either complete approval or contempt would exceed the available evidence.
The ending returns to the brass plate rather than allowing the new card to become the sole sign. Leila leaves it “shining”, continuing the care established in the opening. This repetition gives the final arrangement continuity with her earlier practice, but its meaning has changed because another name is now displayed beside the inherited one. The last statement, “The card stayed too”, is brief and firm. Too is crucial: it adds rather than replaces. The story does not end with a declared reconciliation, a removal, or a promise that all later visitors will respond correctly. It ends with two signs remaining together. The material arrangement carries the conclusion, leaving the reader to weigh how much recognition the addition has achieved and how much inherited authority it still accommodates.
The first-person form also affects how this conflict is presented. Leila reports what she does and what visitors say, but she does not quote an explanation of her father's wishes. That absence matters: maintaining the plate cannot be treated as proof that he ordered her to preserve it. Nor does the visitor's hesitation reveal a settled judgement. The reader encounters these signs through a worker who notices where gratitude goes. This perspective makes the problem immediate while keeping other people's motives uncertain. It supports an analysis of recognition in the scene, rather than a confident diagnosis of every relationship outside it.
A counter-reading tests the apparent optimism of that coexistence. Keeping the polished plate could show affection and a refusal to treat independence as erasure. However, it could also preserve a hierarchy in which Leila must ask for recognition beneath a more established name. The visitor's hesitation supports that second possibility by showing that the new arrangement has not become entirely natural. Conversely, an interpretation of total submission must account for Leila's deliberate instruction and the visitor's changed address. She does act, and that action produces a visible response. The strongest reading therefore holds continuity and inequality in tension rather than treating one as cancelled. The story's restraint invites that qualified judgement: it offers no final access to the father's view or every visitor's future behaviour.
Across the story, labels move from inherited description to contested social action. The plate initially directs requests and thanks away from the present worker; the card then asks readers to revise whom they recognise. Concrete labour establishes Leila's role, but naming makes that role legible to others. Her response is modest in size and direct in purpose, and its first result is real but limited. By retaining the shining plate and the card together, the ending resists a simple choice between obedience and replacement. Leila claims a place within an inherited setting while leaving its unresolved pressures visible. The analysis of naming therefore leads to a changing relationship, not merely a count of names: authority is maintained, questioned and partly redistributed through the signs that remain at the door.
Classroom model: 1237 words. Complete source is supplied in ib_focus.yaml; inquiry and thesis; opening/work/thanks/card/response/ending sequence; precise quotations; counter-reading; qualified conclusion. Classroom model only, not approved-work coverage or personal coursework.
Limits and next use
Do not recycle the oral or Paper 2 material without checking assessment reuse rules with the teacher. The essay is coursework with supervision and authenticity checks, not an invented timed paper.
All tasks here are public original practice with authored guidance. They are not official questions or fresh diagnostics. Existing protected tests and mocks remain separate.
