Back To English Literature

IO Playbook

English Literature IO Criteria Guide

Deliver a controlled, insight-rich oral analysis with clear structure under time pressure.

Use this rubric-first framework to prepare your extracts, manage pacing, and keep interpretation precise during delivery.

Criteria Breakdown

Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.

Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding and interpretation (10 marks)

Examiner Focus

How well does the candidate demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the extracts, and of the works/texts from which they were taken? To what extent does the candidate make use of knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts to draw conclusions in relation to the global issue? How well are ideas supported by references to the extracts, and to the works/texts?

Top-Band Move

There is excellent knowledge and understanding of the extracts and of the works/texts and a persuasive interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are well chosen and effectively support the candidate’s ideas.

Common Penalty

There is little knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are infrequent or are rarely appropriate.

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (10 marks)

Examiner Focus

How well does the candidate use his or her knowledge and understanding of each of the extracts and their associated works/texts to analyse and evaluate the ways in which authorial choices present the global issue?

Top-Band Move

Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and insightful. There is a thorough and nuanced understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.

Common Penalty

The oral is descriptive or contains no relevant analysis. Authorial choices are seldom identified and, if so, are poorly understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

Criterion C: Focus and organization (10 marks)

Examiner Focus

How well does the candidate deliver a structured, well-balanced and focused oral? How well does the candidate connect ideas in a cohesive manner?

Top-Band Move

The oral maintains a clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is well balanced. The development of ideas is logical and convincing; ideas are connected in a cogent manner.

Common Penalty

The oral rarely focuses on the task. There are few connections between ideas.

Criterion D: Language (10 marks)

Examiner Focus

How clear, accurate and effective is the language?

Top-Band Move

The language is clear, accurate and varied; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are varied and create effect. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and enhance the oral.

Common Penalty

The language is rarely clear or accurate; errors often hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are imprecise and frequently inaccurate. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.

Markbands

Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.

Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding and interpretation (10 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

There is little knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are infrequent or are rarely appropriate.

Points 3-4

There is some knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are at times appropriate.

Points 5-6

There is satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and an interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are generally relevant and mostly support the candidate’s ideas.

Points 7-8

There is good knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and a sustained interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are relevant and support the candidate’s ideas.

Points 9-10

There is excellent knowledge and understanding of the extracts and of the works/texts and a persuasive interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are well chosen and effectively support the candidate’s ideas.

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (10 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The oral is descriptive or contains no relevant analysis. Authorial choices are seldom identified and, if so, are poorly understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

Points 3-4

The oral contains some relevant analysis, but it is reliant on description. Authorial choices are identified, but are vaguely treated and/or only partially understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

Points 5-6

The oral is analytical in nature, and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts is mostly relevant. Authorial choices are identified and reasonably understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.

Points 7-8

Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and at times insightful. There is a good understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.

Points 9-10

Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and insightful. There is a thorough and nuanced understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.

Criterion C: Focus and organization (10 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The oral rarely focuses on the task. There are few connections between ideas.

Points 3-4

The oral only sometimes focuses on the task, and treatment of the extracts, and of the works/texts may be unbalanced. There are some connections between ideas, but these are not always coherent.

Points 5-6

The oral maintains a focus on the task, despite some lapses; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is mostly balanced. The development of ideas is mostly logical; ideas are generally connected in a cohesive manner.

Points 7-8

The oral maintains a mostly clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is balanced. The development of ideas is logical; ideas are cohesively connected in an effective manner.

Points 9-10

The oral maintains a clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is well balanced. The development of ideas is logical and convincing; ideas are connected in a cogent manner.

Criterion D: Language (10 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The language is rarely clear or accurate; errors often hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are imprecise and frequently inaccurate. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.

Points 3-4

The language is generally clear; errors sometimes hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are often imprecise with inaccuracies. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are often inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.

Points 5-6

The language is clear; errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate to the task but simple and repetitive. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and neither enhance nor detract from the oral.

Points 7-8

The language is clear and accurate; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate and varied. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and somewhat enhance the oral.

Points 9-10

The language is clear, accurate and varied; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are varied and create effect. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and enhance the oral.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Define one global issue lens

Pick a lens narrow enough to compare both works with precision in under 10 minutes.

Step 2

Script a signposted backbone

Prepare opening, two analytical movements, and closing synthesis with timing checkpoints.

Step 3

Rehearse with a timer

Practice cutting low-value lines so you stay coherent without rushing.

Step 4

Train for follow-up questions

Prepare two deeper interpretations per extract that you can deploy in discussion.

Submission Checklist

  • Global issue is explicit in the first 30 seconds.
  • Both works get balanced analytical depth.
  • Transitions are spoken and audible to the listener.
  • Ending synthesizes significance beyond the extracts.

Quick Wins

  • Record one rehearsal and mark every filler word to reduce verbal clutter.
  • Keep one note card with only transitions and thesis reminders.
  • Pause for one beat before key analytical claims to improve clarity.

Did You Know?

Practice Your IO Like The Real Exam

Marksy runs a timed oral simulation with follow-up questions and criterion-based feedback so you know what to fix before your final IO. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.

1. Start the timed oral simulation in Marksy.
2. Get criterion-based oral feedback and follow-up insights.
3. Rehearse again with targeted fixes before the final IO.

Oral Result Snapshot

Score + Time + Speaking Length

Total Score

31/40

Time

09:42

Responses

18

Criterion Breakdown

Per-Criterion Scoring

Criterion A

8/10

Interpretation depth

Criterion B

7/10

Analysis precision

Criterion C

8/10

Structure and focus

Criterion D

8/10

Language control

Focus First

Priority Improvement Targets

Criterion B

7/10 - tighten micro-analysis after each quote.

Criterion C

Improve transition signposting for clearer flow.

Speaking Flow

Next Steps (TODO)

Action Plan Before Final IO

State the global issue in the first 30 seconds.
Shorten quotation setup to protect analysis time.
Close with comparative synthesis across both works.
Start IO SimulationSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaMarkbandsBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Start IO Simulation