I want to welcome you to my IB Learner Portfolio. This collection showcases my journey as a lifelong learner, highlighting the skills, knowledge, and attitudes I have developed through my academic and personal experiences. In this portfolio, you will find examples of my work, reflections on my learning, and evidence of how I strive to embody the attributes of curiosity, resilience and open-mindedness.

I am eager to learn and grow as an educator and look forward to the challenges that lie ahead.

I teach at St Peter’s School in Cambridge, New Zealand. I’ve been teaching for 10 years and have recently moved here from South Africa, so I’m navigating a new educational and cultural context. My IB situation is unique because I’m working to integrate into a school with strong IB values while also bringing my own experiences from different curricula. I’m passionate about helping students think critically, reflect deeply, and connect literature to their own lives and the wider world.

2. What is the most pressing question you have about the Language A: language and literature course?

My biggest question is: How can I best support students in developing their analytical and reflective skills while keeping them motivated and engaged with a wide variety of texts? I’m especially interested in strategies for helping students connect personal reflection with formal analysis.

3. How can you develop positive online professional relationships for the workshop and beyond?

To develop strong professional relationships online, I plan to:

• Engage actively and respectfully in discussions, sharing ideas and responding to others thoughtfully.

• Collaborate and contribute by offering support, sharing resources, and learning from colleagues’ experiences.

• Follow up beyond the workshop by staying connected through emails, discussion boards, or professional networks, ensuring ongoing dialogue and professional growth.

4. What does a successful outcome look like for you after this workshop? List three things you want to achieve.

After this workshop, I want to:

• Gain practical strategies for supporting students in reflection, analysis, and connecting literature to real-world contexts.

• Build a network of supportive IB colleagues to exchange ideas, resources, and experiences.

• Leave with a clear plan to enhance my classroom practice and the learner portfolios my students create, making them meaningful and manageable.

1. Collaboration 

2. Enquiry 

3. Differentiation

4. Teaching local/ global 

5. Conceptual understanding 

6. Assessment Formative / Summative 

What is your criterion behind some having a higher or lower priority? 

In my teaching, some elements naturally take higher priority depending on the learners and the unit. I place collaboration and enquiry at the top because they spark engagement and ownership. Students learn best when they’re curious and working together. Differentiation and formative assessment are also vital, as they ensure all students can access learning and make progress at their own pace. Local/global perspectives and conceptual understanding give learning depth and relevance, but I see them as threads woven throughout rather than stand-alone priorities. In short, I prioritise what most directly supports student growth and keeps learning meaningful.

1. Thinking skills 

2. Communication 

3. Self-management 

4. Research skills 

5. Social skills 

What is your criterion behind some having a higher or lower priority? 

For me, the priority depends on what students need most in order to succeed and stay engaged. I often put thinking skills first, because they underpin everything. Critical and creative thinking drive deep learning. Communication is a close second, since students need to express their ideas clearly in both written and spoken forms. Self-management becomes a higher priority when students are working on independent tasks or long-term projects, while research skills rise in importance during inquiry-based units. Social skills are always present but shift in priority depending on the group dynamic. Some classes need more explicit focus on collaboration than others. In short, the balance changes, but I prioritise what best supports students’ growth at that moment.

The IB mission statement reflects several ideological biases that become clear through its language and focus. Firstly, it promotes a liberal humanist worldview by valuing qualities such as inquiry, knowledge, compassion, and intercultural understanding. These are not neutral aims; they are rooted in the belief that education should develop individuals who contribute to a peaceful, cooperative global society. This reflects a progressive ideology that emphasises tolerance, respect for diversity, and internationalism.

The statement also assumes that a "better and more peaceful world" is a universally agreed-upon goal and that education is the means to achieve it. This positions education not just as a tool for personal advancement but as a moral responsibility, which aligns with globalist and humanitarian values. Furthermore, phrases like “active, compassionate and lifelong learners” suggest a preference for students who embody particular character traits, again reflecting an ideological stance that prioritizes certain identities and behaviours over others.

As a reader, these biases are evident in the choice of words and ideals emphasised. The repetition of values like “caring,” “respect,” and “understanding” shows a deliberate orientation toward ethical and intercultural priorities, while the emphasis on “international education” reveals a bias toward global perspectives over purely national or local ones. In this way, the mission statement conveys more than neutral educational goals; it actively promotes a worldview shaped by ideals of liberal humanism and global citizenship.

The dominant reading of the text is that it describes the ideal student the program seeks to develop: curious, independent, ethical, open-minded, and globally aware. It presents these qualities as universally positive, suggesting that education should shape learners who are balanced, compassionate, and able to contribute to a better world. From this perspective, the profile is read as aspirational, offering a shared vision of what a successful 21st-century learner should look like.

An oppositional reading, however, might challenge the assumption that these traits are universally valued or achievable. Some may argue that the profile imposes a particular, Western-influenced set of ideals about education, morality, and global citizenship. For example, not all cultures prioritise independence over collective responsibility, or view “lifelong learning” as a key measure of success. Others might question whether expecting all students to be courageous, open-minded, and multilingual places unrealistic pressure on learners or ignores systemic inequalities that limit access to these ideals.

In this way, the dominant reading celebrates the profile as a positive and progressive vision for education, while an oppositional reading sees it as a prescriptive framework that reflects specific ideological values rather than universal truths.

The tone of the aims and assessment objectives for Studies in Language and Literature is formal, aspirational, and academic. The author creates this tone through the use of ambitious verbs such as “engage,” “develop,” “foster,” and “communicate,” which suggest growth, progression, and high expectations for learners. The repetition of “develop” also reinforces the idea that this subject is not just about acquiring knowledge, but about shaping well-rounded, thoughtful, and expressive individuals.

The aspirational tone is further created through the emphasis on broad and inclusive goals. Students are expected to engage with texts from “different periods, styles, genres and cultures,” and to consider “local and global issues.” This language suggests openness, diversity, and the cultivation of global-mindedness. At the same time, the detailed assessment objectives, with their precise focus on interpretation, analysis, and evaluation, create a rigorous and academic atmosphere.

The author uses this tone to establish the importance and seriousness of the subject, positioning it as both intellectually challenging and personally enriching. It is meant to inspire students and teachers to see language and literature as a discipline that develops critical thinkers, effective communicators, and globally aware learners.

Terms like “celebrates,” “lifelong learners,” “open, democratic classrooms,” and “deeper understanding” suggest positivity, growth, and empowerment. “Construct meaning” and “make sense of the world” imply intellectual independence and curiosity, while “cycles of inquiry, action and reflection” conveys an active, purposeful process rather than passive learning.

The effect on the reader is to create a sense of excitement and inspiration about the IB approach. These words make learning feel meaningful, collaborative, and transformative, encouraging the reader to view the IB as not just an academic program, but a holistic environment where students grow as thoughtful, engaged, and responsible individuals.

Words and phrases that demonstrate the ideological perspective of this text include “raise awareness about a global issue,” “service,” “creativity,” “develop and run book clubs,” and “create or participate in a literary walking tour.” These phrases reflect an ideology that values social responsibility, active engagement, and community contribution, alongside personal and intellectual growth.

The text emphasises learning as something that goes beyond the classroom: students are expected to take initiative, help others, and connect their studies to real-world contexts. This demonstrates a perspective that education should foster ethical, globally-minded, and socially engaged individuals, rather than focusing solely on academic achievement.

The Importance of the Learner Portfolio
The learner portfolio is a central tool in the IB, providing a comprehensive record of student growth, skills, and understanding over time. Unlike assessments that focus solely on final outcomes, the portfolio emphasises process as much as product, allowing students to reflect on their learning journey, set goals, and take ownership of their development. It also enables teachers to track holistic growth, including creativity, research skills, collaboration, and personal development, aligning with the IB’s emphasis on cultivating well-rounded, internationally-minded learners.

Comparing the IB with Other Curriculums (NCEA)
Having taught the NCEA curriculum, I notice both similarities and differences with the IB. Both systems emphasise rigorous assessment, evidence of understanding, and skill development. However, the IB differs in its integrated, interdisciplinary approach, its focus on international-mindedness, and the expectation for students to engage in reflection and personal growth through tools like CAS and the learner portfolio. While NCEA assessments can be discrete and content-driven, the IB encourages students to consider how their learning connects across subjects and to broader global contexts, fostering lifelong learning and ethical engagement.

Close Language Analysis
Close language analysis, to me, is at the heart of effective literature teaching. It involves helping students explore how language choices create meaning, influence perspective, and evoke response. My approach will involve guiding students to notice patterns, rhetorical and literary techniques, and word choices, while also encouraging them to reflect critically on the purpose and effect of these choices. By connecting language analysis to broader cultural, historical, and personal contexts, students will move beyond technique identification toward critical, independent interpretation.

Overall Reflection
Teaching in the IB context challenges me to shift from a purely content-driven model to one that values reflection, connection, and holistic growth. It builds on my experience with NCEA but pushes students, and me as a teacher, toward global awareness, ethical development, and analytical independence. The learner portfolio, the IB’s assessment approach, and close language analysis all work together to create a learning environment that is rigorous, reflective, and deeply meaningful.

A literary canon is traditionally a collection of works regarded as representative or “great” within a culture. The Western canon, for example, has long prioritised writers such as Shakespeare, Homer, and Austen. Yet, such canons are shaped by institutions of power such as universities, publishers, critics, and historically dominant groups that decide what counts as “high art.” This process often excludes voices from women, Indigenous people, writers from colonised nations, and those working in oral or non-written traditions. These omissions matter because they limit students’ exposure to diverse perspectives and reinforce social and cultural hierarchies.

Historical and social contexts heavily influence what is considered canonical. Wars, colonisation, and social movements determine whose voices are amplified or silenced. Over time, the canon can evolve as societies reconsider what they value, but the power structures that shape it remain important to examine through a TOK lens. Recognising that canons are constructed, rather than fixed, encourages students to question how knowledge is validated and who benefits from those systems of validation.

Non-literary works can also hold canonical significance. Films, speeches, and digital narratives can powerfully reflect and shape cultural identity. Including such forms alongside traditional literature helps students see that meaning and artistry exist in many mediums.

As teachers, we have a responsibility to curate a “living canon” that aligns with the IB mission of fostering intercultural understanding and respect. This means selecting texts from multiple cultures and genres, including translated works and oral traditions, and giving space to local and global voices. By consciously choosing texts that represent individual and collective experiences, especially those historically marginalised, we promote empathy, critical inquiry, and international-mindedness.

To avoid personal bias, I aim to consult colleagues, reflect on my own assumptions, and seek student perspectives. Ultimately, the goal is to build a syllabus that not only meets academic standards but also embodies the IB vision: helping students appreciate the diversity of human thought and expression, while recognising the interconnectedness of global cultures.

Who gets left off in canonical literature discussions, and why does that matter?
Canonical literature has historically privileged Western, male, Eurocentric voices, often representing dominant social, cultural, and linguistic groups. Women, Indigenous people, writers from colonised nations, and those whose work belongs to oral or non-written traditions have often been marginalised or excluded entirely. This exclusion matters because it narrows the perspectives students encounter and reinforces hierarchies of value that align with colonial histories and power structures. When only certain stories are legitimised as “high art,” we risk teaching students that only those experiences and worldviews are worth studying or emulating.

Is the notion of a canon helpful in the study and understanding of literature? How does a canon get established?
The canon can serve as a useful reference point for understanding literary traditions, intertextuality, and the evolution of form and theme. However, it becomes problematic when treated as fixed or universal. Canons are shaped by institutions of power, publishers, critics, universities, and cultural gatekeepers who determine what is preserved, taught, and valued. TOK invites us to question the knowledge frameworks underpinning these decisions: Who has the authority to decide what counts as literature? and How do social, historical, and political contexts influence our sense of literary value? Understanding this helps students see literature as a dynamic conversation rather than a static list of “great works.”

What "canon" am I presenting to students in my literature choices, and why does that matter?
In constructing a syllabus, I aim to present a “living canon”. One that values multiple perspectives, languages, and modes of storytelling. Alongside established works, I include voices from Māori and Pasifika writers, postcolonial authors, and texts from oral and visual traditions. This approach aligns with the IB’s emphasis on international-mindedness by encouraging students to recognise and reflect on cultural contexts different from their own, while also valuing local and personal identities. The balance between canonical and non-canonical texts helps students see how literature both shapes and is shaped by the world, fulfilling the IB’s mission to cultivate empathy, critical thinking, and global awareness.

Ultimately, the study of literature within the IB framework should not replicate traditional hierarchies of knowledge but challenge and expand them. By engaging students in conversations about whose stories are told and whose are missing, we turn the syllabus itself into a site of inquiry which is then an act of TOK in practice.

This is still a work in progress.

To what extent does your course, as you have designed it, reflect the IB mission and values?
I feel like my course reflects the IB mission quite well. By integrating choice, conceptual understanding, and connections across cultures and perspectives, students are encouraged to think critically and develop empathy. TOK and international-mindedness are woven into the syllabus so that students engage with literature as global citizens, exploring identity, culture, and communication in meaningful ways.

What do you think is missing from the discussions you have had so far in this module about course design and unit planning?
While the discussions have been really interesting, I think we could spend more time on practical application. For example, how to sequence units effectively, differentiate for diverse learners, and balance assessments with student creativity. I’d also love to see more examples of how schools link the areas of exploration across the course while keeping everything coherent and connected to conceptual inquiry.

1. How did your thoughts about what you might teach change based on the TOK debate?
The TOK debate made me more aware of why I choose certain texts and whose voices are represented. I realised that teaching literature isn’t just about great works but about encouraging students to question assumptions, explore different perspectives, and reflect on how knowledge is constructed. This has encouraged me to balance canonical works with texts that are culturally and socially diverse, fostering critical thinking and reflection about authority, perspective, and interpretation.

2. What is your role in creating an internationally minded language and literature syllabus?
My role is to curate a syllabus that reflects multiple cultures, perspectives, and worldviews, while encouraging students to think critically and independently. I aim to guide students in making connections between texts, concepts, and real-world issues, helping them develop empathy and global understanding. I also see my role as providing choice and fostering student autonomy, so that learners can explore texts that resonate with their own experiences and interests while still engaging with IB standards and concepts.

3. Do you believe it is more important to teach canonical works or a diverse set of texts? Why?
I believe a balance is most effective. Canonical works are important for understanding literary history, conventions, and influential ideas, but focusing solely on them risks limiting perspectives and reinforcing cultural hierarchies. Including diverse texts ensures students engage with voices that are often marginalised, promoting empathy, critical thinking, and international-mindedness. Together, canonical and diverse works create a rich learning experience where students can explore both tradition and innovation, and see literature as a living conversation across cultures and time.

4. What are you most excited about teaching and why?
I’m most excited about teaching texts that challenge students’ perspectives and invite meaningful discussion. I love when students encounter works that reflect different cultures, experiences, and identities. They often surprise themselves with new insights and develop a deeper appreciation of human complexity. Seeing students connect concepts, reflect critically, and engage creatively with literature is incredibly rewarding and embodies the IB mission of nurturing inquiring, caring, and internationally minded learners.

How formative assessment can help students prepare for summative assessment:
I’ve seen that formative assessment is a powerful tool for guiding my students toward success in summative assessments. By providing regular feedback and opportunities to practise skills, I can help them identify areas for improvement before the high-stakes assessments. This also allows me to adjust my teaching strategies to better support their learning. Breaking tasks into smaller, manageable steps and giving timely feedback helps students build confidence and ensures that their performance in summative assessments reflects their actual understanding.

How the learner portfolio can be used when preparing for all assessment tasks:
The learner portfolio is an invaluable resource in my teaching practice. It allows students to track their growth, reflect on feedback, and revisit previous work when preparing for assessment tasks. I can use the portfolio to guide them in identifying patterns in their learning, consolidating their strengths, and targeting areas that need further development. By encouraging regular portfolio use, I can support students in becoming more self-aware and independent learners, which benefits both internal and external assessments.

What was missed or forgotten in this module as so much focus was on external assessments:
Module 3 focused heavily on external assessments, Paper 2, Paper 1, the Higher Level essay, and parts of the extended essay. While analysing student responses and understanding examiner standards was highly instructive, it highlighted for me the importance of incorporating smaller, internal assessments in my teaching. Internal assessments give students a low-stakes environment to practise skills, experiment creatively, and receive formative feedback. Moving forward, I see how I can balance exam preparation with internal tasks and portfolio work to help students develop confidence, reflect on their learning, and build deeper understanding. This approach allows me to guide my teaching strategically, ensuring students are prepared for exams while still engaging in meaningful, ongoing learning.

Overall, this module has given me valuable insights into how I can support my students’ learning more effectively. By combining formative assessment, learner portfolios, and carefully planned internal tasks, I feel better equipped to guide my students toward both exam success and meaningful, ongoing learning.

For me, the IB mission is about helping students become curious, caring, and responsible learners who can make a positive impact in the world. I see assessment components, the learner portfolio, and other teaching tools as ways to support that mission in practice.

By using formative assessments and smaller internal tasks, I can give my students regular feedback and opportunities to practise skills without the pressure of high-stakes exams. The learner portfolio is particularly powerful as it lets students reflect on their growth, see how far they’ve come, and take ownership of their learning. When students engage with their portfolio and assessments thoughtfully, they develop confidence, curiosity, and a sense of responsibility for their own learning.

I can also use these tools to encourage creativity and risk-taking in learning. Giving students safe spaces to try ideas, make mistakes, and reflect on them helps them develop resilience and problem-solving skills. By combining assessments, portfolio work, and reflective practice, I can guide my students to not only meet academic expectations but also embody the qualities the IB mission values.

The student delivered a highly focused and detailed oral that maintained the central Global Issue throughout: "The effects of alienation and society's obsession with money that leads to complete degeneration of youth".

The oral was cohesive and well-planned.

• Began by clearly setting out the global issue and previewing the interpretations to be covered, establishing the idea that "Criminals are not born as delinquents" but are products of Alienation and psychological help has led to the gradual demoralisation of our youth.

• Demonstrated an incredible ability at being able to transition between the extracts and the works. Equal attention was given to all four required elements: the Duffy extract ("Stealing"), the Banksy extract ("Keep your coins I want change"), the Duffy wider work (poems), and the Banksy wider work (street art body).

• Used an interesting conclusion that summarised the similarity in the extracts' portrayal of "youth and the degeneration of youth," but offered a final, lasting insight: that it is a "curable youth that needs a little attention".

• The student used subtle techniques, such as changing her tone to engage and amuse the listener, particularly when discussing the "awkward moments" in Duffy's poem (e.g., "frozen stiff").

• Employed a range of effective and ambitious language, including sophisticated devices like the tricolon: "persistent, unrepentant and possibly".

  
  

The student demonstrated excellent and thorough knowledge of the texts and the global issue, offering original and persuasive interpretations.

Duffy's "Stealing":

• Defined the poem as the "Melancholic life of an ignored member of society," arguing the thief uses "robbery as a way of seeking joy" rather than monetary gain.

• Defined the poem as the "Melancholic life of an ignored member of society," arguing the thief uses "robbery as a way of seeking joy" rather than monetary gain.

• "Education for Leisure": Used the "goldfish quote" to connect to the idea of "alienation and the negligent environment," and the narrator saying "I am a genius, I can be anything I want with half a chance" to highlight the youth being "robbed of opportunities".

• "Money Talks": Explored the personification in "I am the language of suffering," linking it to the exploitation of those in pursuit of money, and the idea that "money owns us".

• "Today I am going to kill something, anything": Used this link to "Highlight the psychosis that takes over the youth."

• Banksy's "Keep your coins I want change":

• Analysed the satirical piece as a "reflection of the deterioration of a society built on money" and its complacency. The student highlighted the homeless man asking for "social change" instead of money, seeing him as a "hero" who "refuses to be bought off by coins".

• Brought in several interesting and relevant Banksy works:

• "No Hope" (Malnourished child/balloon): Analysed the child being "disinterested in a balloon" to illustrate how society has "alienated her" and robbed her of childhood.

• "Smile": Used this piece to contrast and represent how a child is "expected to behave."

  
  

The student demonstrated a high level of detail and evaluation of authorial choices, moving beyond simple identification into persuasive and original analysis.

• Duffy's "Stealing":

• Symbolism/Personification: Analysed the snowman's symbolism and the use of personification in "he looked magnificent," arguing it shows the criminal "is wanting human contact and not stealing for the monetary value".

• Provided an original analysis on the thief starting with the "head" and discussed the "melancholic life" where the persona adopts "self destructive methods" to find self-worth.

• Delved into the creation of the persona with such detail that it left the listener with interesting questions, such as: "Perhaps he was young which would explain the sexual desires... Frozen stiff in classic Duffy style is possibly about the snowman's appendage".

• Banksy's "Keep your coins I want change":

• Analysed the "clever diction of change" as a double meaning (coin vs. social transformation), and the "bleak colours" representing "the world's inability to change".

• Evaluated how Banksy's choices "shock the audience out of their complacency" and challenge the audience's "perception we have of a hero" by refusing a handout.

  
  

• Similarity: Both artists "play around social boundaries, they cross them," using art and poetry to reflect the world's inner turmoil.

• Noted they "differ in how they approach global issues." Duffy uses "brutal imagery and designs of unredeemable characters" to shock, while Banksy uses shocking, "in the face of others" street art which is hard to ignore, in contrast to literature "is always taken differently and is more powerful as it is a reflection of our society."

• The final thought was that the art and poetry convey "An image of a curable youth that needed attention."

The student showed excellent and thorough knowledge of the extract and the wider body of work (poems from the collection). They were able to use specific and interesting references from the wider work, like the goldfish quote in "Education for Leisure" and links to "Money Talks," to form persuasive and original interpretations. The student clearly understood the intricate and complex meaning and the effects on the reader/viewer, such as how Banksy explores complacency. While more links to Banksy's body of work could have been made, the overall knowledge was deemed excellent.

Criterion B: Analysis and Evaluation (9/10)

• The student analysed and evaluated a range of authorial choices (e.g., symbolism, personification) with a high level of detail and evaluation, placing the response in the top band.

• The analysis was often original and persuasive, such as the interpretation that the theft in Duffy's "Stealing" is about human contact rather than money, and the point about why the thief starts with the head.

• The student delved into meaning and the creation of the persona with such detail, even leaving the listener with interesting questions about the poem (e.g., the potential explanation for unsatisfied sexual desires).

• Banksy Analysis: This depth was maintained for the Banksy discussion, where the student analysed the double meaning of 'change' and challenged the perception of the persona as a hero.

  
  

Criterion C: Focus and Organisation (10/10)

• This was deemed a focused and detailed oral.

• The student always remained focused on the global issue and gave equal attention to all four elements: the two extracts, the work, and the body of work. The amount of content covered was "very impressive".

• The student demonstrated an "incredible ability at being able to transition between the extracts and the works".

• The oral used an effective introduction and an interesting conclusion that summarised the extracts' portrayal of youth, managing to leave the listener with new and lasting insights. The timings were effective, providing a comprehensive overview.

  
  

Criterion D: Language (9/10)

• The language was consistently clear, accurate, and effective.

• The language was completely appropriate during both the talk and the teacher discussion.

• The student used subtle techniques to enhance engagement, such as changing tone to engage and amuse the listener (e.g., when discussing the sexual innuendo of 'frozen stiff').

• The student used a range of language with effective and ambitious choices, including variations in syntax and sophisticated devices such as tricolons ('persistent, unrepentant and possibly'). The language choices were consciously selected to enhance the oral.

How you, as a school, will conduct internal moderation before sending sample individual orals to the IB.

Reflecting on this, I’ve realised how important it is to have a structured moderation process. As a school, we could come together to listen to sample orals, compare our marks, and discuss any differences in interpretation of the criteria. This helps ensure consistency and fairness across all teachers. I can see how this also helps me refine my own understanding of the assessment standards and improves the guidance I give to students. Moderation isn’t just about checking marks, it’s about creating a shared understanding of what quality looks like.

What the difference is between internally assessed work; internally completed, but externally assessed work; and examinations.

Thinking about this, I now better understand the subtle differences. Internally assessed work is both completed and initially marked by the school, then moderated by the IB to ensure accuracy. Internally completed but externally assessed work involves us supporting students in completing the task, but the final assessment is entirely done by the IB. Examinations are fully external, standardised, and leave no room for teacher judgement in marking. Reflecting on this makes me more aware of the balance between supporting students and maintaining the integrity of IB standards.

How the preparation for the individual oral can help you and your students achieve the IB mission.

Preparing students for the individual oral has really highlighted the broader purpose of our teaching. It’s not just about assessment; it’s about developing critical thinking, fostering international-mindedness, and encouraging students to express their ideas clearly. I’ve noticed that guiding students through this process also pushes me to think more creatively as a teacher. Practising these skills aligns perfectly with the IB mission of developing inquiring, reflective, and thoughtful learners. Seeing students grow in confidence and understanding through this preparation is incredibly rewarding.

Overall, this training has reminded me that internal moderation and careful preparation for the individual oral are not just administrative tasks, they are opportunities to deepen my own teaching and enhance my students’ learning. I feel more confident now in how I can guide students to achieve their best while staying true to the values of the IB.

What did you learn about the individual oral by going through the process yourself? 

Going through the individual oral myself really helped me understand how challenging it can be to organise ideas clearly under time pressure. I realised that preparing strong links between the global issue and the chosen texts is essential, but it’s equally important to practise speaking naturally and confidently. I also noticed how easy it is to fall into a monotone or rush through points, which can affect the overall impact of the oral. Experiencing this firsthand gave me a much deeper appreciation of the skills students need to develop, both in analysis and in delivery.

How is this going to help you better prepare your students for this assessment task?
Doing the oral myself has shown me which areas I need to focus on when supporting my students. I now see the importance of practising tone, pace, and eye contact, as well as helping students structure their ideas clearly. I feel more confident guiding them on how to connect global issues to their texts and make their responses more engaging. This experience will allow me to give practical advice and targeted support, helping to make the preparation process less intimidating for students.

This experience reminded me that the individual oral isn’t just an assessment. It’s an opportunity to develop students’ analytical and communication skills. Doing it myself has made me more confident in supporting them and helping them engage deeply with their texts and global issues.