IO Playbook
Deliver a controlled, insight-rich oral analysis with clear structure under time pressure.
Use this rehearsal-first framework to prepare your extracts, manage pacing, and keep interpretation precise during delivery.
English Literature IO
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How well the oral shows knowledge of both extracts and their wider works, and interprets what they say about the global issue.
Stronger evidence
Excellent knowledge and a persuasive interpretation of the global issue; references are well chosen and strongly support the points.
Early-stage evidence
Little knowledge of the extracts and works in relation to the global issue; references are rare or poorly chosen.
How well the oral analyses and evaluates the authorial choices that present the global issue in each text.
Stronger evidence
Relevant, insightful analysis and evaluation; you show a thorough, nuanced grasp of how authorial choices present the global issue.
Early-stage evidence
Mostly description; authorial choices are rarely identified or are misunderstood.
How focused, balanced, and logically connected the oral is.
Stronger evidence
A clear, sustained focus; well-balanced treatment of both texts and a logical, convincing development of ideas.
Early-stage evidence
Rarely on task, with few links between ideas.
How clear, accurate, varied, and suitable your spoken language is for literary analysis.
Stronger evidence
Language is clear, accurate, and varied; vocabulary and syntax create effect and style strengthens the oral.
Early-stage evidence
Language is rarely clear or accurate and errors often block meaning; vocabulary, syntax, and style are poorly suited to the task.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Little knowledge of the extracts and works in relation to the global issue; references are rare or poorly chosen. |
| 3-4 | Some knowledge of the extracts and works in relation to the global issue; references are sometimes appropriate. |
| 5-6 | Satisfactory knowledge and an interpretation of what the texts suggest about the global issue; references are mostly relevant and mostly support the points. |
| 7-8 | Good knowledge and a sustained interpretation of the global issue; references are relevant and support the points. |
| 9-10 | Excellent knowledge and a persuasive interpretation of the global issue; references are well chosen and strongly support the points. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Mostly description; authorial choices are rarely identified or are misunderstood. |
| 3-4 | Some relevant analysis that leans on description; authorial choices are named but treated vaguely. |
| 5-6 | Analytical overall with mostly relevant evaluation; you identify authorial choices and show a reasonable grasp of how they present the global issue. |
| 7-8 | Relevant analysis and evaluation that is at times insightful; good understanding of how authorial choices present the global issue. |
| 9-10 | Relevant, insightful analysis and evaluation; you show a thorough, nuanced grasp of how authorial choices present the global issue. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Rarely on task, with few links between ideas. |
| 3-4 | Only sometimes on task; the texts may be treated unevenly, and links between ideas are not always coherent. |
| 5-6 | Stays on task despite some lapses; treatment of the texts is mostly balanced and ideas mostly follow logically. |
| 7-8 | A mostly clear and sustained focus; balanced treatment of both texts and ideas that connect effectively. |
| 9-10 | A clear, sustained focus; well-balanced treatment of both texts and a logical, convincing development of ideas. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Language is rarely clear or accurate and errors often block meaning; vocabulary, syntax, and style are poorly suited to the task. |
| 3-4 | Language is generally clear but errors sometimes block meaning; vocabulary and syntax are often imprecise and style is often unsuitable. |
| 5-6 | Language is clear and errors do not block meaning; vocabulary and syntax suit the task but are simple, and style neither helps nor hurts. |
| 7-8 | Language is clear and accurate with only occasional errors; vocabulary and syntax are varied and style somewhat strengthens the oral. |
| 9-10 | Language is clear, accurate, and varied; vocabulary and syntax create effect and style strengthens the oral. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Pick a lens narrow enough to compare both works with precision in under 10 minutes.
Step 2
Prepare opening, two analytical movements, and closing synthesis with timing checkpoints.
Step 3
Practice cutting low-value lines so you stay coherent without rushing.
Step 4
Prepare two deeper interpretations per extract that you can deploy in discussion.
Did You Know?
Marksy runs a timed oral simulation with follow-up questions and criterion-based feedback so you know what to fix before your final IO. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Oral Result Snapshot
Completion + Time + Speaking Length
Practice
Complete
Time
09:42
Responses
18
Criteria Snapshot
Estimated Marks And Feedback
Interpretation
Strong
Develop the implications
Evidence
Review
Add precise textual support
Organization
Strong
Keep the through-line visible
Delivery
Review
Slow down at key claims
Focus First
Priority Improvement Targets
Evidence and analysis
Tighten micro-analysis after each quote.
Organization
Improve transition signposting for clearer flow.
Speaking Flow
Next Steps (TODO)
Action Plan Before Final IO