Official IB Literature and Performance IA criteria

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

The student demonstrates limited command of performance elements. The student’s contribution to the effectiveness of the piece is limited.

Possible characteristics: Simplistic, Ineffective, Superficial

The student demonstrates an underdeveloped command of performance elements. The student’s contribution to the effectiveness of the piece is underdeveloped.

Possible characteristics: Uneven, Inconsistent, Sufficient

The student demonstrates a good command of performance elements. The student’s contribution to the effectiveness of the piece is good.

Possible characteristics: Sustained, Focused, Competent, Credible

The student demonstrates a very good command of performance elements. The student’s contribution to the effectiveness of the piece is very good.

Possible characteristics: Thoughtful, Confident, Purposeful, Controlled

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

There is little knowledge and understanding of the extract.

There is satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the extract.

There is good knowledge and understanding of the extract.

There is very good knowledge and understanding of the extract.

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

The student’s interpretation of the dramatic potential of textual features and/or authorial choices is superficial. The student lists ways in which textual features informed their staging choices.

The student’s interpretation of the dramatic potential of textual features and/or authorial choices is relevant, but reliant on description and lacking in detail. The student outlines how textual features informed their staging choices.

The student’s interpretation of the dramatic potential of textual features and/or authorial choices is detailed and sustained. The student describes how textual features informed their staging choices.

The student’s interpretation of the dramatic potential of textual features and/or authorial choices is perceptive and insightful. The student explains how textual features informed their staging choices.

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

The student lists the extent to which the final piece met the group’s intentions.

The student outlines the extent to which the final piece met the group’s intentions.

The student describes the extent to which the final piece met the group’s intentions.

The student explains the extent to which the final piece met the group’s intentions.

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

Little organization is apparent in the presentation of ideas.

Some organization is apparent in the presentation of ideas.

The presentation of ideas is organized in a generally coherent manner.

The presentation of ideas is effectively organized and coherent.

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

The language is rarely clear or accurate; errors often hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are imprecise and frequently inaccurate.

The language is generally clear; errors sometimes hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are often imprecise with inaccuracies.

The language is clear; errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate to the task but simple and repetitive.

The language is clear and accurate; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate and varied.