# data[].attributes.body
Part 1: Global Issues

Answer the prompt
We’ll work on breaking the prompt into smaller, doable parts so it feels less intimidating and more approachable. Regular class conversations, quick analysis drills, and guided discussions will help students see how to unpack what’s being asked and connect their ideas to the bigger global and thematic questions behind the texts.

Choose a global issue
Students will brainstorm through class debates, visual mapping, and comparing key themes across texts. The goal is to find issues that genuinely interest them and feel relevant. We’ll also keep a running “global issues corner” in their learner portfolios — a space for articles, videos, or links that inspire connections and help them stay current with world events.

Select two meaningful passages from two different texts
We’ll focus on finding passages that say something big in a small space — sections where theme, language, and authorial choices really intersect. Through short close-reading sessions and peer analysis, students will practice linking meaning and method until that process feels second nature.

Create an outline
Students will learn how to shape their oral like a story with direction — starting strong, building clear comparisons, and landing on a thoughtful conclusion. We’ll build outlines together using bullet points, color-coded mind maps, and quick peer reviews to check flow and clarity.

Prepare for the Individual Oral
To make speaking practice less stressful, I’ll set up “classroom podcast” sessions where students record short, focused analyses. These will feed into mock orals, timed practice, and feedback rounds — helping students get comfortable with their voice, timing, and argument rhythm.

Use the learner portfolio effectively

The portfolio will act more like a creative lab. Students can include not just notes and reflections, but also voice memos, short videos, and entries from our podcast practice. The idea is to make reflection continuous — so the Individual Oral feels like a natural step in their journey, not a one-off performance.

# data[].attributes.body
My Goals for this Workshop

By the end of the workshop, I would like to:

1. Gain a clear and confident understanding of the course objectives and assessment criteria.

2. Deepen my knowledge of textual selection and planning within the IB framework.

3. Build connections and networks with other IB teachers across Europe for future collaboration and exchange opportunities.

# data[].attributes.body
Introduction

I am an artist and educator working with audiovisual media, and I currently teach English Language and Literature at Fostra Gymnázium in Prague. Until last year, I was teaching English Language and Media Arts at the university level, and I have now returned to teaching at the high school level. I previously completed IB teacher training about eleven years ago, and I am now refreshing that experience to align with both the updated IB policies and my own personal and professional growth. This new phase reflects not only changes in the educational landscape but also my evolution as a teacher, artist, and individual.

My Key Question about the Course

My main question concerns the structure and timing of the Language A: Language and Literature course—specifically, how the syllabus is organized to balance critical and analytical writing with other projects, and how the HL and SL levels differ in terms of workload and time requirements.

Building Professional Connections

I hope to develop positive online professional relationships by actively engaging with other participants—reading and responding to posts, contributing to forum discussions, and sharing experiences and resources regularly.

# data[].attributes.body
🌱 1. What’s a Learner Portfolio?

Your Learner Portfolio is like a learning journal or a personal archive. It’s where you collect your ideas, reflections, drafts, and creative work over time. Rather than just handing things in and forgetting about them, the portfolio lets you see how you grow as a reader, writer, thinker, and language user.

🛠 2. What Can You Put Inside?

You have lots of choices! Include things like:

Drafts & work-in-progress: early versions of essays, commentaries, creative writing, plans.

Final pieces: polished essays, reflections, assignments you’re proud of.

Reflections & thoughts: what surprised you, what you found hard, how your ideas changed.

Reading notes & responses: favorite quotes, connections, questions about texts.

Creative & visual work: drawings, mind maps, photos, collages that relate to texts or themes.

Links & media: relevant articles, videos, songs, or anything you want to connect with course themes.

The goal is to mix different kinds of work so your portfolio feels rich and meaningful.

🗄 3. Where Does It Live?

You’ll use one of two (or both) ways to store your portfolio:

Digital — on platforms like Google Drive, Padlet or another shared folder.

Analogue (paper) — in a well-organized folder

We’ll decide together which method works best for our class. Just make sure:

Everything is dated and labeled.

It’s neat, organized, and easy to navigate.

If digital, make backups or save versions regularly :)

🔄 4. How We’ll Use It in Class

After readings, class discussions, or essays, you’ll reflect and record your thoughts or ideas in your portfolio.

Use it to prepare for assessments: commentaries, essays, oral work, etc.

Share selected entries with your classmates or teacher for peer feedback and discussion.

Look back periodically to see how your writing, thinking, and understanding have evolved. Isn't that great? :)

# data[].attributes.body
My Order of Importance for the Approaches to Teaching:

1. Teaching focused on conceptual understanding
For me, conceptual understanding comes first. In subjects such as literature, helping students grasp and explore the underlying concepts behind a text is essential. It enables them to see the connections between ideas, themes, and broader human experiences. Guiding students to understand the conceptual framework of a work—and its relationship to both local and global contexts—creates a foundation for meaningful learning.

2. Teaching based on inquiry
Closely connected to conceptual understanding is inquiry. Inquiry-based learning allows students to question, explore, and investigate ideas in depth. This approach extends their conceptual knowledge and encourages independent, critical thinking—key skills in developing their voice as learners.

3. Teaching focused on effective teamwork and collaboration
Collaboration is another priority. Working in teams helps students learn from different perspectives, develop empathy, and refine their communication and problem-solving skills. Collaborative learning also mirrors real-world contexts, preparing students for university and professional life.

4. Teaching designed to remove barriers to learning
Equally important is ensuring that every student has access to learning. Recognizing and addressing barriers—whether linguistic, cultural, cognitive, or emotional—supports inclusivity and helps all students engage with the material in ways that suit their individual strengths and needs.

5. Teaching informed by assessment (formative and summative)
Assessment plays a vital role but comes after these core principles. Both formative and summative assessments help teachers understand student progress and inform future teaching. However, for assessment to be truly meaningful, it must be built on strong conceptual, inquiry-based, and inclusive practices.

My Approaches to Learning

For me, thinking skills are at the heart of learning — they allow students to analyse, evaluate, and make sense of complex ideas critically and creatively. These are closely supported by social skills, which encourage collaboration, empathy, and teamwork within diverse classroom settings. Equally important are communication skills, as expressing ideas clearly — both orally and in writing — helps students connect and share their understanding effectively. Self-management plays a key role in helping students stay organized, manage their time, and take responsibility for their own learning journey. Finally, research skills empower students to explore topics independently, locate reliable information, and build evidence-based perspectives. Together, these skills create confident, reflective, and responsible learners prepared for both academic and real-world challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1: Ideological biases in the IB Mission Statement

The IB Mission Statement reflects a liberal humanist and globalist ideology. It assumes that intercultural understanding, respect, and education naturally lead to peace and harmony — values rooted in Western Enlightenment ideals of rationality and moral progress. As a reader, I recognise this bias through the emphasis on “a better and more peaceful world” and “lifelong learners,” which present a universalising belief that education can and should shape ethical world citizens. This suggests an idealistic and optimistic worldview, one that prioritises international cooperation and moral development, while potentially underrepresenting local or non-Western perspectives on what “better” or “peaceful” might mean.

Question 2: Dominant and Oppositional Readings of the IB Learner Profile

The dominant reading of the IB Learner Profile sees it as a framework for developing well-rounded, ethical, globally minded students who think critically, act compassionately, and value intercultural understanding. It presents education as transformative and balanced — developing intellect, empathy, and moral awareness.

An oppositional reading, however, might challenge this idealization. It could view the profile as prescriptive and normative, promoting a particular, middle-class, Western model of “good citizenship.” The insistence on “lifelong learning,” “international-mindedness,” and “ethical decision-making” may appear to universalise certain cultural values and overlook structural inequalities that shape access to such ideals. In this reading, the profile reflects an aspirational but culturally biased view of what it means to be an educated person.

Question 3: Tone of the Course Aims and Assessment Objectives

The tone of the aims and objectives is formal, aspirational, and intellectually rigorous. It conveys authority and ambition, created through precise, academic language such as “interpretation,” “analysis,” “evaluation,” and “appreciation.” The repetition of verbs like “develop” and “foster” projects a forward-looking tone of growth and intellectual maturity. This tone reflects the IB’s commitment to academic excellence and global engagement.

Question 4: Charged Connotations in Standards and Practices

Words and phrases such as “celebrates,” “construct meaning,” “open, democratic classrooms,” “lifelong learners,” “cycles of inquiry, action and reflection,” and “deeper understanding” carry highly positive and aspirational connotations. These terms evoke inclusion, collaboration, and intellectual vitality. Their effect on the reader is motivational and affirming: they construct an image of the IB community as progressive, inquiry-driven, and egalitarian. However, they also implicitly exclude alternative models of education (such as rote learning or teacher-led authority), reinforcing the IB’s preference for constructivist, student-centered pedagogy.

Question 5: Ideological Perspective in the CAS Text

The CAS text reflects an experiential, humanist, and service-oriented ideology. Phrases such as “raise awareness,” “make a positive difference,” “develop and run book clubs,” and “creativity, service and activity” demonstrate a belief in learning through action and social engagement. The focus on community involvement and ethical responsibility aligns with the IB’s broader mission to cultivate active, compassionate global citizens. The ideological stance assumes that education should extend beyond the classroom into civic and creative participation — emphasizing personal growth, altruism, and global consciousness as essential dimensions of learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
What “Canon” Am I Presenting to Students — and Why It Matters

# data[].attributes.subject
What “Canon” Am I Presenting to Students — and Why It Matters

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that literary canons are, in many ways, an outdated construct—historically serving as a tool of power and hegemony that determined which voices were valued and which were excluded. Within English Literature, this tradition has been closely tied to colonialism, patriarchy, and imperial power, often elevating the perspectives of white, European writers (and within that, mostly men) as the universal norm of intellectual and aesthetic authority. The same perspective also informs discourses in art and artistic production.

While I acknowledge the problems inherent in this model, I also recognise that it is impossible to completely disregard the canon. Rather than rejecting it outright or replacing it with its opposites, I aim to place canonical texts in conversation with alternative voices and readings.

This approach helps students to critically examine the construction of literary authority and to understand how meaning evolves across contexts.

The “canon” I wish to present emphasises writers from outside Europe, literatures in translation, and the idea of literatures (plural)—to foreground multiplicity, cultural exchange, and intertextuality across time and space.

Alongside this, I consider it crucial to engage students with feminist and queer re-readings of canonical works, which challenge traditional interpretations and open up new dimensions of meaning and representation. Awareness of intersectionality within text, not just from cultural or racial standpoint but also that of class, privilege and setting that influences their storytelling.

For example, pairing Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart with Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness reveals the dialogue between colonial and postcolonial narratives. Similarly, exploring Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway through a queer or feminist lens allows students to see how identity, gender, and desire are constructed and contested within canonical literature.

Ultimately, my goal is not to dismantle the canon but to expand it—to create a richer, more inclusive space for comparative and critical engagement. In doing so, students learn to value literature not as a fixed hierarchy, but as a dynamic conversation that continues to evolve through diverse voices and perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is my response to the 3-2-1 activity:

1. Three things I want to ensure when designing my own IB Language and Literature course:

I intend to select texts that reflect a breadth of cultures, viewpoints, and historical contexts, ensuring students encounter voices that are often overlooked in traditional literary canons. This approach will help them engage with key concepts such as identity, culture, perspective, and representation, while deepening their understanding of Readers, writers and texts through intertextuality and the interconnected evolution of literature. I am also interested in exploring linguistic evolution — understanding language as a dynamic, living system influenced by social media, digital communication, and globalisation. Examining the fluidity of “main English” and the relationship between global Englishes and literatures in translation will encourage students to see language as both a tool of expression and a marker of identity.

I want to design learning experiences that encourage students to make meaningful connections between texts, contexts, and ideas, integrating Theory of Knowledge (TOK) perspectives and fostering international-mindedness. This supports the IB emphasis on connecting texts and exploring text and context, purpose, and audience. By linking works conceptually rather than treating them in isolation, I hope to help students recognise literature and language as part of a continuous dialogue that shapes — and is shaped by — human experience.

I plan to create opportunities for students to make choices about what they read and how they demonstrate understanding. This will cultivate ownership, motivation, and critical thinking, while supporting the Time and space concept by allowing students to situate texts within relevant cultural, social, and historical frameworks. Teaching in Prague, where my students include international learners, Czech nationals, and Ukrainian refugees, I want the course to reflect and respond to our diverse classroom context. Including texts that engage with our immediate political and social environment will allow students to connect personally with the material while nurturing international-mindedness and creativity.

2. Two principles of course design that resonate with me

Integration – I value the principle of integration because it allows students to see literature and language as interconnected and evolving. Designing units around conceptual or thematic links — such as language and power, voice and silence, or identity and belonging — can help students trace relationships across time, culture, and genre. Integration transforms the course into a dialogue between texts, encouraging critical and comparative thinking.

Autonomy – I believe in fostering student agency by providing choice and flexibility within the course structure. When students have some control over what they study and how they express their understanding, learning becomes more personal and meaningful. I plan to include options for independent inquiry, creative response, and varied assessment formats while ensuring alignment with the Prescribed Reading List, Areas of Exploration, and key conceptual understandings.

Question I am thinking about:

How can I align creative or multimodal projects (e.g., podcasts, visual essays, performance tasks) with IB assessment objectives?

# data[].attributes.body
Criterion A: Knowledge, Understanding, and Interpretation – 4/5

The response reflects a good understanding of both texts and their authors. The student situates each work within its broader context, drawing on relevant character and thematic details. However, the mention of Maus appears unnecessary, as it does not meaningfully support the main argument.

Criterion B1: Analysis and Evaluation – 4/5
Demonstrates consistent awareness of literary and stylistic features, with a solid grasp of how language and form convey meaning. Further depth in evaluating the effect of these choices could strengthen the analysis.

Criterion B2: Comparative Analysis – 4/5
Transitions between the two texts are smooth, showing confidence in comparative discussion. The analysis highlights both parallels and contrasts effectively.

Criterion C: Focus and Organisation – 4/5
The essay is clearly structured and logically developed. Arguments progress coherently, maintaining relevance and clarity throughout.

Criterion D: Language – 3/5
Appropriate academic vocabulary is used, and the tone is clear. However, several spelling and grammatical errors affect accuracy and polish, slightly reducing the overall impression.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi everyone,

Here are my updated marks for Paper 1. My reflections are included below.

First text:

Criterion A – Understanding and interpretation: 4/5 — The student demonstrates a clear grasp of the text, though some interpretations lack depth and nuance.

Criterion B – Analysis and evaluation: 3/5 — The analysis is somewhat effective. However, the student often introduces textual evidence and immediately claims it supports their point, without sufficiently explaining how it does so.

Criterion C – Focus and organisation: 3/5 — The essay remains on topic and organised, but the structure follows a linear, chronological path without a clear analytical purpose. A stronger rationale for the organisation would improve it.

Criterion D – Language: 4/5 — Language use is okay overall, with good vocabulary and clear expression. A few minor phrasing issues appear.

Total: 14/20

Second text:

Criterion A – Understanding and interpretation: 3/5 — The student shows an adequate understanding of the text, but the interpretation feels surface-level and lacks engagement with the deeper implications.

Criterion B – Analysis and evaluation: 2/5 — While the student mentions several authorial techniques, they mainly describe rather than analyse or expand on them. Evidence is cited, but links between evidence and claims are weak.

Criterion C – Focus and organisation: 3/5 — The essay is readable and mostly coherent, though transitions between ideas could be smoother.

Criterion D – Language: 3/5 — The language is functional but occasionally clunky, with some issues in grammar and phrasing.

Total: 11/20

For the second text, my scores matched those of the examiner, largely for the same reasons. For the first text, however, I was more stringent in my assessment of Criteria A and B.

# data[].attributes.body
Criterion A – Knowledge, understanding and interpretation (5/5)

The candidate demonstrates strong knowledge and understanding of the topic, showing clear evidence of reflection and depth of insight. Their discussion reveals a thoughtful engagement with the material and a solid grasp of the key ideas.

Criterion B – Analysis and evaluation (4/5)

The analysis is well-developed, and the evaluation effectively explores the key points. The candidate demonstrates good visual literacy and an ability to connect ideas across different aspects of the work in a meaningful way.

Criterion C – Focus, organization and development (4/5)

While the essay is generally coherent, it occasionally lacks focus and becomes overly emotive. This expressiveness highlights the writer’s personal engagement with the topic, but the argument could be strengthened by incorporating more concrete evidence—particularly comparative examples from relevant visual media.

Criterion D – Language (5/5)

The language used is clear, precise, and engaging. The candidate employs an appropriate academic register and makes effective use of relevant vocabulary throughout.

FINAL REMARKS: The candidate presents an engaging and persuasive essay demonstrating strong contextual understanding and insightful analysis, though some claims lack sufficient supporting evidence, reducing analytical balance, in my opinion.

TOTAL 18/20.

# data[].attributes.body
Criterion A: Focus and Method (5/6)

The essay establishes a clear and purposeful research question—“How have Renaissance and Romantic poets, such as Sidney, Shakespeare and Wordsworth, developed the Petrarchan sonnet to display love, politics and mortality?” The focus is maintained throughout, and the candidate applies a consistent analytical method grounded in close reading of primary texts.

Mark: 5/6

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6/6)

The essay demonstrates outstanding understanding of both Renaissance and Romantic literary contexts. The candidate integrates critical sources such as Fuller, Spencer, and Kerrigan to strengthen interpretations of poetic structure and theme.
For instance, references to Sidney’s “Astrophil and Stella” and its departure from Petrarchan convention are well contextualized with scholarly perspectives on sincerity and poetic invention. The terminology—such as “volta,” “enjambment,” and “negative capability”—is used accurately and appropriately, indicating mature literary competence.

Mark: 6/6

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (10/12)

The essay presents a clear and coherent argument connecting the development of the sonnet form to broader ideas of love, politics, and mortality. Analytical insights—such as the exploration of time and permanence in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116—are persuasive and well supported.

Some sections tend toward paraphrased commentary rather than evaluative commentary or critically thought opinions.

Mark: 10/12

Criterion D: Presentation (3/4)

The essay is well structured, with a logical flow from Renaissance to Romantic poets and a consistent referencing system. The inclusion of appendices for primary texts strengthens accessibility and academic credibility.

Mark: 3/4

Criterion E: Engagement (6/6)

Reflections show genuine enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity, especially in the discussion of how understanding of the sonnet form deepened through independent research.

Mark: 6/6

Total: 30/34 — Predicted Grade: A (High A)

Conclusion:
An academically confident and engaging essay that showcases advanced literary insight, strong contextual understanding, and reflective engagement with poetic form. A more structured argument or a specific point of view on the material could elevate it but overall, I think the student did an incredible job in this task.

THOUGHTS ON THE EXAMINER'S GRADING:

Criterion A (Focus and Method) – 4/6
The research question is clear and ambitious but covers too many poets and time periods, which weakens focus and depth. The method is sound, but the broad scope limits precision and coherence.

Criterion B (Knowledge and Understanding) – 4/6
Shows a strong grasp of literary traditions and contextual background, though at times the analysis leans too heavily on secondary critics. The student’s independent interpretation could be more distinct.

Criterion C (Critical Thinking) – 8/12

Insightful in parts but uneven overall. The argument lacks sustained synthesis between poets, and transitions sometimes feel abrupt. The examiner’s remark about the essay reading like a survey of random sonnets is apt—it highlights the lack of a cohesive analytical thread. I agree that the essay would benefit from deeper, more targeted analysis and clearer articulation of the specific ideas it seeks to address.

Criterion D (Presentation) – 3/4
The essay follows academic conventions and is generally well presented, though minor referencing and formatting inconsistencies detract from polish.

Criterion E (Engagement) – 6/6
Reflections show genuine intellectual curiosity and self-awareness. The student demonstrates thoughtful engagement with both the research process and their evolving understanding of poetry and the time they put it into it.

# data[].attributes.body
Global Issue:
Alienation and isolation in contemporary youth (possibly framed as the degeneration of youth).

Literary Works:
Carol Ann Duffy – “Stealing” and “Education for Leisure”.

Non-Literary Texts:
Banksy artworks – Keep Your Coins, No Hope, Smile, and Express Yourself. The discussion of Smile, with its use of bright, childlike colors contrasted against a darker message, added an effective visual counterpoint to Duffy’s ironic and disillusioned voice.

Observation:
This was a well-delivered oral that effectively connected the chosen works through the theme of alienation. The student demonstrated solid analytical awareness, particularly in examining juxtaposition and showing how Duffy’s literary techniques — such as tone, diction, and voice — parallel Banksy’s use of contrast, color, and irony.

The teacher’s role in guiding the conversation was especially strong. By connecting the discussion explicitly to the Area of Exploration: “Readers, Writers, and Texts” (with some relevant links to “Time and Space”), the teacher helped the student ground their argument in a broader conceptual framework. This connection to AOE made the oral feel more purposeful. How would the work be received today? What key things have shifted in this evolution and if yes, how do they translate in today's world: I think this was a helpful tip.

The teacher’s question about genre and the presentation of global issues was thoughtful — it encouraged the student to consider how poetry and street art differ in accessibility, audience, and intent. The student’s response showed genuine reflection and a growing ability to articulate how medium and context shape meaning. Overall, both teacher and student engaged in a meaningful exchange that deepened the analysis and maintained strong relevance.

# data[].attributes.body
Criterion A (Knowledge, Understanding, and Interpretation) – 9/10
I agree with the examiner that the student demonstrated thorough knowledge and offered persuasive interpretations. She showed a strong and nuanced understanding of both the poem and the artworks, supporting her ideas with several well-chosen examples. I particularly appreciated her references to themes such as alienation and the “degeneration of youth,” which added depth to her analysis. That said, I would have liked to hear her unpack what she personally understood by “degeneration of youth” and then see that concept woven into her broader discussion—it would have added an extra layer of insight and personal interpretation.

Criterion B (Analysis and Evaluation) – 9/10
While the analysis wasn’t highly complex, it was detailed and reflective, allowing for strong evaluation of the interpretations presented. The student engaged thoughtfully with double meanings in the works and considered how audiences might perceive Banksy’s art, showing an awareness of multiple perspectives. Her ability to link textual or visual evidence to broader thematic ideas strengthened the overall evaluation and justified the top-band mark.

Criterion C (Focus and Organisation) – 8/10
The student covered a wide range of material, and I was impressed by her research and overall awareness. However, at times the references felt a little disjointed, and the oral occasionally jumped between ideas without fully developing them. A more streamlined approach, where key points are clearly connected and supported, would have made the presentation even stronger and easier to follow.

Criterion D (Language) – 9/10
The student’s language was consistently clear, engaging, and effective. Her changes in tone and intonation helped maintain listener interest, and her expression conveyed enthusiasm for the material. Occasionally, some words or phrases were difficult to catch, but overall, the oral was compelling and enjoyable to listen to. The combination of clear articulation, varied expression, and thoughtful phrasing contributed significantly to the success of her presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
Introduction

Good morning. My chosen literary work is Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, and my non-literary work is The Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dalí.

The global issue I am exploring is the distortion of time and memory as a means to examine the fragility of the human condition. It considers how our sense of self and meaning deteriorate when time, memory, and perception no longer function as stable frameworks.

I chose this issue because, in the post-COVID world, many people felt time lose shape. Days merged, memory blurred, and ordinary routines dissolved. That shared disorientation mirrors the suspended existence of Beckett’s characters and the dreamlike stillness of Dalí’s landscapes. Both artists, separated by medium and era, explore how fragile human consciousness becomes when its temporal and mnemonic anchors collapse.

Text One – Beckett’s Waiting for Godot

Beckett structures Waiting for Godot around the disintegration of time and the unreliability of language. In Act II, Vladimir reflects:

“Was I sleeping, while the others suffered? Am I sleeping now? Tomorrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of today?... But in all that what truth will there be?”

Here, Beckett uses recursive syntax and repetitive verb tenses (was, am, shall) to trap the character — and the audience — in an endless loop. The logical sequence of time collapses into linguistic repetition, where words perform confusion rather than clarity.

Beckett’s lexical minimalism and fragmented dialogue mirror Freud’s idea that language can expose the unconscious through slips, pauses, and contradictions. The constant stuttering between assertion and doubt — “or think I do”, “what truth will there be” — evokes a mind unsure of its own perception, caught between waking and dreaming.

The trivial debate about the tree — “It’s the same tree… or nearly the same.” — encapsulates this uncertainty. The modifier “nearly” is tiny but destabilizing; it marks how memory distorts even the simplest reality.

Beckett also weaponizes silence. Stage directions like “Pause. A long silence.” and finally “They do not move.” transform absence into structure. The rhythm of speech — short, broken, recursive — becomes a linguistic echo of paralysis. As critic Robert Hughes notes, Beckett’s dialogue “moves toward the edge of silence, where words measure the void rather than fill it.”

Beckett’s treatment of time and language parallels Freud’s understanding of the unconscious as a space where time does not operate logically — where past and present coexist, and repetition reveals repression. The circular structure of Godot thus externalizes the mind’s own pattern of returning to the same thought, the same fear, unable to move forward.

Through syntax, rhythm, and silence, Beckett constructs a theatre of suspension — a world where time continues to exist but no longer progresses, and where language reveals the breakdown of rational consciousness.

Text Two – Dalí’s The Persistence of Memory

Dalí’s The Persistence of Memory (1931) visualizes this same psychological condition in paint. Created in Port Lligat, its barren cliffs and still horizon ground the dream in a precise geography, while the melting clocks liquefy the rational structure of time.

Art critic Dawn Ades describes Dalí’s paranoiac-critical method as “a systematized confusion,” merging hallucinatory vision with meticulous realism. The crisp rendering of rocks and shadows intensifies the surreal effect; reality appears hyper-real just as its logic disintegrates.

Dalí was deeply influenced by Freud’s theories of dreams and memory. Freud argued that dreams distort time and space, allowing the unconscious to reconfigure reality through condensation and displacement. Dalí translates this into visual form: the soft, melting clocks embody Freud’s dream-time, where memory and chronology collapse into elastic perception.

The half-sleeping amorphous figure in the painting — a limp self-portrait with closed eye and drooping eyelashes — evokes Freud’s boundary between waking and dream states. Consciousness remains aware, yet immobilized. The desolate stillness of Port Lligat’s cliffs intensifies this effect; the landscape could almost serve as a set for Waiting for Godot — a space where time exists but motion has stopped, and memory persists only as residue.

Dalí’s use of chiaroscuro — bright Mediterranean light against melting forms — freezes the moment in paradox: both decay and permanence coexist. His later work, The Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory (1954), literally fragments this world into floating cubes — a visual enactment of Freudian fragmentation, where reality and psyche break apart under pressure.

As critic Robert Hughes notes, Dalí’s “precision of detail undercuts the rational order it appears to uphold.” Like Beckett’s words, Dalí’s forms enact disintegration from within their own structure.

Comparative Synthesis and Contemporary Relevance

Beckett and Dalí, working amid 20th-century crises of reason and belief, transform Freud’s insight — that the mind is unstable and time within it is non-linear — into aesthetic form. Beckett’s characters loop through dialogue like dreamers unable to wake; Dalí’s figures and objects melt into their own reflections. Both explore the collapse of temporal order and the distortion of memory as symptoms of psychological fragility.

Beckett uses the tools of language — rhythm, syntax, silence — to trap meaning inside stasis. Dalí uses the tools of vision — precision, light, distortion — to freeze movement inside stillness. In each, time persists as an idea but fails as experience.

This resonance feels strikingly contemporary. During the pandemic, many described a similar melting of time — a sequence of days without distinction, memory fragmented by monotony and uncertainty. Both Beckett and Dalí remind us that this disorientation is not merely historical or psychological but profoundly human.

Ultimately, both works confront the same question:

If time dissolves and memory falters, what remains to define who we are?

Beckett’s answer lies in endurance — speech persisting in silence. Dalí’s lies in vision — form persisting in decay. Together they show that even when time and memory lose coherence, the human drive to create, perceive, and find meaning survives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diploma Programme Subject Outline — Studies in Language and Literature

# data[].attributes.body
Technical Needs: Zoom H1n1 recorder for IO training and in-class podcasts – helps students practice and self-assess presentations.

Global Issues Board: Classroom or digital board to track relevant global issues – supports TOK reflection on perspectives and bias.

Yearly Roadmap Board: Displays yearly modules and IB connections – helps students see progression and integrate TOK themes.

Classroom Layout / Visuals: Visual timelines, charts, and thematic displays – reinforces structure, metacognition, and TOK exploration.