# IB English Question Bank Design Across Grades 1 to 12
## Executive summary
An effective IB English question bank cannot be designed as a flat store of “comprehension questions.” The official continuum changes the construct of English as students move through the programmes. In the PYP, language is developmental, transdisciplinary, inquiry-based, and organized around oral, visual, and written language strands rather than fixed grade-by-grade external assessment standards. In the MYP, English becomes more formally criterion-based, with six domains of language use and four assessment criteria in language and literature, plus a parallel phase-based language-acquisition pathway. In the DP, English A becomes explicitly assessment-architected around guided textual analysis, comparative literary argument, the individual oral, and, at HL, an extended research essay. A large bank therefore needs different item economies, tagging rules, and response formats by grade band rather than one uniform template. citeturn12view5turn19view3turn15view0turn22view3turn21view1turn21view3turn36view0
The strongest design principle that emerges from the official materials is that upper-stage IB English is **not** built around one-right-answer interpretation. DP marking notes explicitly say they are not exhaustive and that responses taking an alternative formal or technical focus should still be rewarded if they meet criteria. That single point has major question-bank implications: selected-response items are useful for retrieval, craft recognition, language usage, listening/reading detail, and bounded inference, but they should not dominate the constructs that IB assesses through extended oral and written interpretation. From upper primary onward, and especially in MYP and DP, the bank should shift progressively toward short constructed response, analytical paragraphing, comparison, creative transformation, oral rehearsal, and timed extended response. citeturn30view0turn30view1turn30view3turn30view4turn15view0turn21view1turn21view3
For a large bank of **25,000 English questions**, the most defensible macro-allocation is **7,000 for PYP-aligned Grades 1–5, 11,000 for MYP-aligned Grades 6–10, and 7,000 for DP-aligned Grades 11–12**. That distribution reflects the PYP’s broad formative remit, the MYP’s five full years of criterion-based growth and dual-track reality, and the DP’s high requirement for exam-shaped analytical and oral practice despite having only two grades. Across the full bank, the most useful dominant-domain split is **reading 28%, writing 24%, speaking/listening 18%, literature 20%, language usage 10%**, with every item also receiving secondary domain tags because IB English constructs overlap by design. Across cognitive levels, the bank should stay intentionally low on pure recall and heavier on application, analysis, and expression. citeturn20view0turn20view1turn22view4turn21view5turn22view0turn21view1turn36view0
A high-quality IB English bank should also be **text-centered, multimodal, and evidence-anchored**. In PYP this means authentic tasks, oral rehearsal, image-text integration, and visible scaffolds. In MYP it means clear criterion anchoring, multimodal comparison, creative writing that is genuinely audience-aware, and separate routing for language-and-literature versus language-acquisition students. In DP it means Paper 1-style unseen analysis, Paper 2-style comparative prompts, global-issue oral planning, and HL-essay line-of-inquiry work. The metadata model should therefore include programme, grade, band, track, phase/level, official anchor, text mode, text type, command term, cognitive level, response mode, evidence requirement, scaffold level, and accessibility flags. citeturn19view2turn15view0turn25view0turn22view0turn14view3turn14view4turn27view0
## Methodology and source hierarchy
This report was built from a screened corpus of more than one hundred relevant public sources and a close reading of the highest-priority documents. The source hierarchy was: **official IB curriculum and assessment documents first; official IB specimen papers and marking notes second; official IB research and policy documents third; major IB school curriculum guides fourth; and public academic analyses or school-facing interpretive resources fifth**. In practice, the most heavily weighted sources were the PYP curriculum framework, the PYP language scope and sequence, PYP assessment and literacy research, the MYP language and literature brief, the MYP language acquisition brief and curriculum pages, the DP Language A guides and current curriculum pages, the official sample-exam pages and public papers, recent public marking notes, and the IB assessment principles and practices guide. citeturn12view5turn19view3turn20view0turn12view3turn15view0turn22view3turn21view1turn21view3turn23view0turn29view0
Official documents were prioritized because they define the constructs the bank must represent. The PYP materials establish that language learning is developmental and transdisciplinary, with oral, visual, and written strands and four continuums: listening and speaking, viewing and presenting, reading, and writing. The MYP materials formalize objectives and criteria and clarify the structure of on-screen assessment. The DP guides spell out the assessment objectives, component weights, genres, timing, and coursework structures that any serious question bank must mirror. IB research documents were especially useful where public subject guidance is broad rather than prescriptive, because they identify recurring implications around scaffolding, explicit literacy teaching, concept-based learning, and inquiry-led assessment. citeturn19view3turn34view0turn15view0turn21view5turn21view1turn21view3turn20view3turn20view4turn12view3turn12view4
Major IB schools’ public guides were used as **validation sources**, not as rule-setting sources. These school guides helped confirm the common continuity model used in many IB continuum schools: Grades 1–5 in PYP, Grades 6–10 in MYP, Grades 11–12 in DP. They also provided practical evidence of how schools present tracks, progression expectations, and course-selection realities to families and students. International School of Paris, UWCEA, and Nord Anglia school guides were particularly useful in confirming the common grade mapping and the persistent split between language-and-literature and language-acquisition pathways from the middle years onward. citeturn18view1turn17view5turn32view0turn32view1turn32view2
**Limitations matter here.** Public access to up-to-date IB English examiner reports is limited compared with access to guides, briefs, and sample/real papers; many deeper subject reports remain school-portal gated. For that reason, the report leans more heavily than ideal on current official guides, public sample papers, public marking notes, and IB-wide assessment quality documentation. A second limitation is structural: in PYP, IB does **not** publish fixed grade-by-grade English standards in the same way MYP and DP publish more formal assessment architecture. The Grades 1–5 mapping below is therefore a **design recommendation inferred from the PYP developmental continuums, inquiry framework, and common school-grade alignments**, not an official IB grade standard. citeturn29view0turn20view0turn12view5turn19view3turn18view1turn17view5
Key public source clusters that are worth opening directly are the PYP curriculum framework and language scope/sequence, the PYP assessment and literacy studies, the MYP language and literature and language acquisition briefs, the DP Language A: language and literature and Language A: literature guides, the DP sample-exam hub and public English papers/marking notes, and the IB assessment-principles guide. Those documents carry most of the load-bearing evidence in this report. citeturn12view5turn19view3turn20view0turn12view3turn15view0turn25view0turn21view1turn21view3turn23view0turn30view0turn29view0
## Continuum map by grade
This report maps **Grades 1–5 to PYP, Grades 6–10 to MYP, and Grades 11–12 to DP**, because that is a common alignment in IB continuum schools, even though local school structures can vary. In that common model, PYP emphasizes language as a transdisciplinary developmental continuum, MYP formalizes criteria and subject-group expectations, and DP organizes English through course-specific assessment components and teaching-hour requirements. citeturn17view5turn18view1turn17view4turn12view5turn15view0turn22view0turn36view0
```mermaid
flowchart LR
A[Grades 1–2
Supported meaning-making] --> B[Grades 3–5
Evidence-backed explanation]
B --> C[Grades 6–8
Criterion-based analysis and production]
C --> D[Grades 9–10
Paired-text analysis and timed creation]
D --> E[Grades 11–12
Unseen analysis, comparison, oral, research]
```
| Grade | Programme anchor | Recommended bank priority | Recommended question families |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PYP developmental language, usually early Phase 1–2 behaviors | Meaning-making through talk, image, print awareness, and simple sentence production | picture-supported listening, sequencing, shared reading checks, oral retell, draw-and-write, caption completion |
| 2 | PYP developmental language, usually Phase 1–2 with more independent response | Early comprehension, explanation, and sentence-level writing | matching evidence to image, main event sequencing, vocabulary in context, simple opinion with “because,” short oral presentation |
| 3 | PYP developmental language, often moving Phase 2–3 | Independent reading for gist/detail plus short evidence use | main idea, character/action inference, compare image and text, short paragraph with one piece of evidence, narrative continuation |
| 4 | PYP developmental language, often Phase 3–4 | Synthesis across oral/visual/written input; more structured writing | compare-two-text tasks, paragraph organization, author-choice questions, factual vs opinion sorting, mini presentation prompts |
| 5 | PYP developmental language, often Phase 4–5 and exhibition readiness | Research-linked reading/writing/presenting and self-reflection | note-taking from short sources, summary writing, persuasive paragraph, oral presentation rubric tasks, source reliability basics |
| 6 | MYP Year 1 language and literature or acquisition entry point | Transfer from supported explanation to criterion-based analysis and organization | single-text analysis, paragraph planning, audience/purpose, vocabulary/register, brief creative transformation |
| 7 | MYP Year 2 | Multimodal reading plus stronger organization and speaking | text-plus-image comparison, author-choice explanation, speech/article/diary transformations, structured discussion prompts |
| 8 | MYP Year 3 | Evidence chaining, perspective, and multi-paragraph development | unseen extract analysis, compare perspectives, formal paragraphing, oral interpretation, creative transformation with rationale |
| 9 | MYP Year 4; eAssessment preparation intensifies | Paired-text analysis and timed creative writing under criteria | paired-extract analysis, 400–600 word creative responses, criterion-labeled editing, timed commentary |
| 10 | MYP Year 5; end-of-course assessment year | Full eAssessment-shape rehearsal and criterion calibration | full analysis task, full creative prompt from visual stimulus, text comparison, criterion self-marking, acquisition speaking overlays where applicable |
| 11 | DP Year 1; English A Language and Literature or Literature, with optional acquisition branch in some schools | Unseen analysis, comparative thinking, global issue preparation, line-of-inquiry building | Paper 1-style guided analysis, comparative planning, global issue pairing, HL essay proposal work, oral rehearsal |
| 12 | DP Year 2 | Timed exam performance and coursework completion | full Paper 1, full Paper 2, individual oral dossiers, HL essay checkpoints, criterion-driven self/peer calibration |
The official anchor for this mapping is clear even where the grade assignment is inferred rather than prescribed. PYP language is developmental and organized by strands and continuums rather than fixed grade standards. MYP language and literature develops six domains and four criteria, with on-screen assessment built around analysis and creative writing; MYP language acquisition uses six phases that are not tied to year levels and assesses listening, reading, speaking, and writing. DP Language A: language and literature and Language A: literature are then organized through formal assessment objectives and assessment outlines, including Paper 1, Paper 2, the individual oral, and the HL essay. citeturn19view3turn34view0turn15view0turn21view5turn22view3turn25view0turn21view1turn21view3turn36view0
One design consequence is especially important for Grades 6–12: a strong bank should not assume one single English track. From the MYP onward, many schools route students either into **language and literature** or **language acquisition**; by DP, schools commonly offer English A: language and literature, English A: literature, and in some contexts English B or another acquisition language. The bank therefore needs a **track field**, not just a grade field. citeturn22view3turn25view0turn32view0turn32view1turn36view0turn26search0
## Recommended bank architecture
The proposed 25,000-question architecture below is an **inference** from official programme design, the relative formality of assessment by stage, the recommended teaching hours and task diversity in MYP and DP, and the practical need for more item variants as students move toward timed extended response and track specialization. PYP still needs substantial volume because it is formative, multimodal, and transdisciplinary, but it does not need the same number of exam-shaped variants as MYP and DP. MYP gets the largest share because it spans five years and covers both criterion growth and route differentiation. DP gets a large share despite only two grades because each component requires many more parallel prompts, texts, and calibration examples. citeturn20view0turn22view4turn21view5turn22view0turn21view1turn36view0
| Grade | Proposed count |
|---|---:|
| 1 | 1,000 |
| 2 | 1,100 |
| 3 | 1,400 |
| 4 | 1,600 |
| 5 | 1,900 |
| 6 | 2,000 |
| 7 | 2,100 |
| 8 | 2,200 |
| 9 | 2,300 |
| 10 | 2,400 |
| 11 | 3,500 |
| 12 | 3,500 |
| **Total** | **25,000** |
```mermaid
pie title Proposed 25,000-question bank by programme band
"PYP Grades 1–5" : 7000
"MYP Grades 6–10" : 11000
"DP Grades 11–12" : 7000
```
Across the full bank, the most useful **dominant-domain** distribution is the following. This should be implemented as a **primary domain plus secondary domains** model, because a literary-analysis item may still be tagged secondarily as reading and writing, and a multimodal oral task may also be tagged as literature or language usage depending on its construct. citeturn19view3turn15view0turn25view0turn22view0turn36view0
| Primary domain | Share | Count |
|---|---:|---:|
| Reading | 28% | 7,000 |
| Writing | 24% | 6,000 |
| Speaking/listening | 18% | 4,500 |
| Literature | 20% | 5,000 |
| Language usage | 10% | 2,500 |
| **Total** | **100%** | **25,000** |
The overall **cognitive-level** split should stay intentionally light on recall and heavier on interpretation, transfer, analysis, and expression. That matches the PYP’s inquiry stance, the MYP’s criterion-based analytical/organizational/production model, and the DP’s emphasis on interpretation, evaluation, oral communication, and sustained formal writing. citeturn12view5turn15view0turn21view0turn21view1turn21view3
| Cognitive level | Share | Count |
|---|---:|---:|
| Recall | 8% | 2,000 |
| Understanding | 20% | 5,000 |
| Application | 26% | 6,500 |
| Analysis | 28% | 7,000 |
| Expression | 18% | 4,500 |
| **Total** | **100%** | **25,000** |
The domain balance should also shift by band. Lower primary should be heavier on oral/aural and supported reading; upper primary should move toward evidence-backed explanation; lower secondary should become balanced; upper secondary should privilege literature, analytical writing, and oral performance. A practical band-level target is shown below. These percentages are **within-band** design recommendations rather than official IB weightings. citeturn19view2turn15view0turn21view5turn22view0turn36view0
| Band | Reading | Writing | Speaking/listening | Literature | Language usage |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Grades 1–2 | 28% | 20% | 28% | 8% | 16% |
| Grades 3–5 | 30% | 23% | 20% | 12% | 15% |
| Grades 6–8 | 27% | 23% | 15% | 20% | 15% |
| Grades 9–10 | 22% | 26% | 12% | 25% | 15% |
| Grades 11–12 | 16% | 31% | 13% | 33% | 7% |
## Quality rules and scaffolding
IB-wide assessment guidance is useful here because it is explicit about **validity, fairness, reliability, moderation, standardization, and ambiguity control**. The IB states that assessments must be meaningful and fair, that internal assessment is moderated to common standards, that external marking is standardized and monitored, and that assessment design is reviewed for suitability, clarity, and potential ambiguity or bias. Those principles should be treated as the quality spine of the bank, not as post hoc editorial checks. Each item should therefore be written backwards from: **construct → evidence → response mode → scoring rule → accessibility check → bias check**. citeturn29view0
The quality bar should rise with the continuum. In PYP, “good” items are authentic, inquiry-connected, and appropriately scaffolded; they invite meaning-making in oral, visual, and written modes and do not reduce learning to isolated decontextualized skills. In MYP, good items show a visible relationship to criterion language, multimodal analysis, organization, production, or language use. In DP, good items reflect the real structures of Paper 1, Paper 2, the individual oral, and the HL essay, and they use prompts that allow strong alternative analytical paths rather than narrow answer keys. citeturn12view5turn20view0turn12view3turn15view0turn21view5turn21view1turn21view3turn30view0
For **selected-response** design, distractors should be plausible because they model real misunderstandings, not because they are tricky. The best distractors in IB English usually arise from one of six errors: misreading evidence, confusing technique with effect, mistaking tone or register, reading figurative language literally, partial comparison, or overreaching context. A useful rule is this: if an interpretive question could support more than one textually defensible answer, it should probably not be a selected-response item. That rule follows directly from the DP marking notes, which explicitly allow alternative formal or technical focus, and from the broad criterion language in MYP. citeturn30view0turn30view1turn30view3turn30view4turn15view0
| Distractor pattern | Good use | Poor use |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence mismatch | Option cites a real detail but draws the wrong conclusion | Option invents a detail not in the text |
| Technique/effect confusion | Option names a real device but exaggerates its effect | Option uses vague literary jargon with no text basis |
| Tone/register confusion | Option plausibly confuses serious/sarcastic, formal/informal | Option depends on obscure cultural knowledge not supplied |
| Literal/figurative confusion | Option treats metaphor as literal or vice versa | Option asks students to guess author intention with no cues |
| Partial comparison | Option discusses only one of two texts in a comparison task | Option is obviously incomplete or grammatically odd |
| Context overreach | Option imports a context claim not warranted by the text | Option requires background knowledge beyond bank design scope |
Scaffolding should also **fade deliberately**. In Grades 1–2, the bank should allow image support, oral rehearsal, sentence stems, and reduced writing load. In Grades 3–5, scaffolds should shift toward evidence frames, compare/contrast organizers, and vocabulary glosses. In Grades 6–8, scaffolds should become criterion-labeled exemplars, paragraph structures, and guided comparison. In Grades 9–10, scaffolds should move toward timed conditions, paired extracts, and reduced prompting. In Grades 11–12, students should work increasingly with authentic exam timings, clean extracts, brief planning structures, and rubric-calibrated self-review rather than heavy cueing. That progression aligns with PYP developmental continuums, MYP criterion practice, and DP learner-portfolio preparation. citeturn19view3turn12view3turn15view0turn14view3turn14view4
```mermaid
flowchart LR
S1[Picture cues and oral rehearsal] --> S2[Sentence frames and evidence stems]
S2 --> S3[Paragraph frames and criterion labels]
S3 --> S4[Timed practice with limited prompts]
S4 --> S5[Authentic exam conditions and rubric calibration]
```
## Exemplar tasks and markscheme notes
The exemplars below are **original model items**, but their structures mirror the official continuum: PYP multimodal inquiry and developmental strands, MYP criterion-based analysis and creative production, and DP Paper 1/Paper 2/individual oral/HL-essay patterns. They are illustrative of bank design, not reproductions of IB copyrighted exam content. citeturn19view3turn15view0turn21view5turn21view1turn21view3turn30view0
**Grades 1–2**
1. **Listening and sequencing**
*Prompt:* The teacher reads: “Mina packed her kite. Then the rain began. She stayed inside and painted instead.” What happened **before** Mina painted?
*Model answer:* She packed her kite / the rain began.
*Markscheme note:* 1 mark for correct sequencing; accept either full clause or short phrase if unambiguous.
2. **Picture-supported inference**
*Prompt:* A picture shows a child holding an umbrella beside a puddle and smiling. Which word best matches the child’s feeling: *worried, cheerful, sleepy, angry*?
*Model answer:* cheerful.
*Markscheme note:* 1 mark; distractors should reflect visually plausible but weaker interpretations.
3. **Shared reading detail**
*Text:* “The little fox hid under the bridge when the wind grew loud.”
*Prompt:* Where did the fox hide?
*Model answer:* under the bridge.
*Markscheme note:* 1 mark; exact copying not required.
4. **Oral retell**
*Prompt:* Tell two things the character did in order.
*Model response:* “First, she packed the kite. Next, she stayed inside and painted.”
*Markscheme note:* 2 marks, one for each correctly sequenced action; allow gestures plus words.
5. **Sentence expansion**
*Prompt:* Write one sentence about the picture using **because**.
*Model response:* “The child is happy because she likes jumping in puddles.”
*Markscheme note:* up to 3 marks: clear meaning, relevant reason, readable conventions.
**Grades 3–5**
1. **Main idea plus evidence**
*Text A:* a short paragraph about reusing water bottles.
*Prompt:* What is the main message, and quote one phrase that supports it?
*Model answer note:* Main idea should identify reducing waste / helping the environment; 1 relevant phrase earns evidence credit.
*Markscheme note:* 2 marks for gist, 1 mark for valid evidence.
2. **Compare text and image**
*Prompt:* A poster says “Save Every Drop” and shows a dry riverbed. How do the words and image work together?
*Model answer note:* Words give the command; image creates urgency by showing the result of water shortage.
*Markscheme note:* reward explanation of effect, not just description.
3. **Vocabulary in context**
*Text:* “The mayor’s proposal was ambitious, requiring every school to plant a rooftop garden.”
*Prompt:* What does **ambitious** most nearly mean here?
*Model answer:* difficult and far-reaching.
*Markscheme note:* distractors should include “kind,” “cheap,” and “secret” style traps only if plausible.
4. **Short analytical paragraph**
*Prompt:* How does the writer show that the character is brave? Use **one** detail from the story.
*Model answer note:* Paragraph should name the trait, cite a detail, and explain the link.
*Markscheme note:* up to 4 marks: claim, evidence, explanation, coherence.
5. **Research-note sorting**
*Prompt:* Two mini-sources describe bees. Put three details under the heading **Why bees matter**.
*Model answer note:* Credit details about pollination, food growth, and ecosystem support.
*Markscheme note:* sorting tasks are excellent upper-PYP bridges to exhibition research.
**Grades 6–8**
1. **MYP-style analysis**
*Prompt:* In the extract, how does the writer create tension before the announcement?
*Model answer note:* Strong answers discuss pacing, sentence length, withheld information, and sensory detail.
*Markscheme note:* align to Criterion A and D: understanding of choices plus precise language.
2. **Organization task**
*Prompt:* Arrange these four sentences into the strongest analytical paragraph.
*Model answer note:* topic sentence → evidence → explanation → link back to question.
*Markscheme note:* target Criterion B; use genuine organizational logic, not superficial signal-word clues only.
3. **Creative transformation**
*Prompt:* Rewrite a newspaper report as a diary entry by one person involved.
*Model answer note:* Preserve key events but shift voice, perspective, and emotional texture.
*Markscheme note:* score for audience awareness, continuity of content, and stylistic control.
4. **Register and language use**
*Prompt:* Change this informal message to a formal email to the principal.
*Model answer note:* salutation, purpose, polite request, closing, formal register.
*Markscheme note:* useful Criterion D item if the scoring separates register, accuracy, and completeness.
5. **Multimodal comparison**
*Prompt:* Compare how the article headline and accompanying image guide the audience’s first impression of the event.
*Model answer note:* reward integrated discussion of words and visual framing.
*Markscheme note:* ideal bridge from PYP visual language into MYP multimodal analysis.
**Grades 9–10**
1. **Paired-extract analysis**
*Prompt:* Compare how the two extracts present conflict.
*Model answer note:* Strong responses identify a shared issue, then compare methods, perspectives, and effects.
*Markscheme note:* this should feel like the MYP analysis task, not a generic compare/contrast worksheet.
2. **Visual-stimulus creative writing**
*Prompt:* Write 400–600 words continuing the moment shown in the image.
*Model answer note:* Credit coherent narrative control, developed voice, and purposeful choices for audience impact.
*Markscheme note:* align to Criteria B, C, and D, echoing the MYP creative writing blueprint. citeturn21view5
3. **Authorial choice in non-literary text**
*Prompt:* How does the layout of the webpage influence the reader’s trust in the message?
*Model answer note:* Discuss typography, headings, image placement, links, evidence signs, and how these shape credibility.
*Markscheme note:* do not reward content summary alone.
4. **Timed commentary**
*Prompt:* In 20 minutes, write one well-developed paragraph explaining how perspective shapes meaning in the extract.
*Model answer note:* concise claim, well-chosen evidence, focused explanation.
*Markscheme note:* excellent for readiness tracking because it samples analysis under time pressure.
5. **Global-context response**
*Prompt:* How does the text invite the audience to rethink power or fairness?
*Model answer note:* reward concept-linked interpretation supported by textual choices and audience effect.
*Markscheme note:* strong bridge toward DP global-issue framing without prematurely forcing full IO structure.
**Grades 11–12**
1. **DP Language A: language and literature Paper 1-style**
*Prompt:* Guided analysis of an unseen advertisement: how does the combination of image and diction shape the audience’s response?
*Model answer note:* high-level responses integrate text type, audience, purpose, visual-verbal interplay, and alternative valid entry points.
*Markscheme note:* follow DP Paper 1 criteria logic; do not treat one analytical pathway as exclusive. citeturn14view3turn30view0
2. **DP Language A: literature Paper 1-style**
*Prompt:* Analyze how the poem uses ambiguity to complicate the reader’s understanding of memory.
*Model answer note:* reward attention to imagery, syntax, lineation, voice, and structural tension.
*Markscheme note:* alternative formal focuses remain creditworthy if the reading is defensible. citeturn14view5turn30view3
3. **DP Paper 2-style comparative essay**
*Prompt:* Compare how two works you have studied represent the desire to be understood.
*Model answer note:* strong answers are comparative throughout, choose apt works, and maintain relevance to the wording of the question.
*Markscheme note:* make this a bank family with theme-controlled variants, not memorization prompts. citeturn21view2turn23view0
4. **Individual oral planning task**
*Prompt:* Propose one precise global issue, one literary work, and one non-literary body of work. Write a 120-word rationale explaining why the pairing is viable.
*Model answer note:* reward precision, genuine issue-text fit, and awareness of extractability.
*Markscheme note:* excellent precursor to the official 10-minute oral plus teacher questioning. citeturn21view3turn13view3
5. **HL essay line-of-inquiry evaluator**
*Prompt:* Which of these three HL essay proposals is most viable, and why?
*Model answer note:* best answers identify a manageable line of inquiry, analytical focus, and supportable formal/literary lens.
*Markscheme note:* this is one of the best bank types for preventing overly broad HL essays. citeturn14view4
## Metadata schema and implementation notes
A robust IB English bank should treat metadata as part of construct validity, not catalog housekeeping. Official IB assessment design depends on level, component, paper/task type, and criteria, while the IB Questionbank product itself shows the utility of filtering by paper, level, date, and question type. For English, the schema needs to go further: it must store programme and track, official anchor, text mode and text type, evidence requirement, and scaffold level, because those variables materially affect validity. citeturn21view1turn21view3turn21view5turn27view0
| Field | Type | Example | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | string | IBE-G08-AN-000481 | Stable primary key |
| programme | enum | PYP / MYP / DP | Core routing |
| grade | integer | 8 | Grade-level delivery |
| grade_band | enum | G6-8 | Reporting and sequencing |
| track | enum | lang_lit / lang_acq / dp_langlit / dp_lit / dp_english_b | Prevents construct drift |
| phase_or_level | string | PYP Phase 3 / MYP Phase 4 / DP HL | Handles non-grade progression |
| primary_domain | enum | reading | Main reporting bucket |
| secondary_domains | array | literature;writing | Cross-domain analysis |
| official_anchor | string | MYP Criterion A | IB alignment |
| component | enum | formative / eAssessment-analysis / eAssessment-creative / Paper 1 / Paper 2 / IO / HL essay | Task authenticity |
| text_mode | enum | written / visual / oral / multimodal | Stimulus control |
| text_type | string | advertisement / poem / speech / article | Coverage tracking |
| command_term | string | analyse / compare / describe / evaluate / create | Difficulty and rubric alignment |
| cognitive_level | enum | analysis | Progression reporting |
| response_mode | enum | selected / short / paragraph / extended / oral | Scoring design |
| evidence_requirement | string | one quotation / two comparative references / extract-only | Prevents under- or over-demand |
| difficulty_band | enum | low / medium / high | Adaptive sequencing |
| scaffold_level | integer | 0–4 | Fade planning |
| global_issue_or_context | string | representation and power | DP and upper-MYP linking |
| accessibility_flags | array | glossary;audio-support;reduced-load | Inclusive delivery |
| rubric_id | string | DP_P1_AtoD_v3 | Consistent marking |
| distractor_pattern | string | tone_confusion | Quality analytics for selected response |
| source_authenticity | enum | authentic / adapted / original-stimulus | Copyright and validity control |
A practical **TSV starter schema** is:
```tsv
item_id programme grade grade_band track phase_or_level primary_domain secondary_domains official_anchor component text_mode text_type command_term cognitive_level response_mode evidence_requirement difficulty_band scaffold_level global_issue_or_context accessibility_flags rubric_id distractor_pattern source_authenticity
IBE-G09-AN-002341 MYP 9 G9-10 lang_lit MYP Year 4 literature reading;writing MYP Criterion A eAssessment-analysis written paired extracts compare analysis paragraph two comparative references high 1 identity and belonging glossary;re-readable MYP_LL_A_B_D_v2 partial_comparison authentic
```
For systems that already use an **RTC-style sequencing model**, the most useful IB-English equivalent is:
- **R** = **Read / Retrieve / Recognize**
Best for literal comprehension, vocabulary in context, technique spotting, and bounded listening/reading detail.
- **T** = **Trace / Transform / Transfer**
Best for linking evidence to effect, reorganizing ideas, rewriting for audience, and comparing text features.
- **C** = **Critique / Create / Communicate**
Best for analytical paragraphs, comparative essays, oral argument, creative writing, and line-of-inquiry work.
That RTC-equivalent fits the continuum better than a recall-heavy taxonomy because IB English increasingly values interpretation and communication over isolated memory. In practice, early PYP clusters should lean R→T, middle years clusters should build T strongly, and upper MYP/DP clusters should spend most of their volume in T→C. citeturn12view5turn15view0turn21view1turn21view3
For **adaptive sequencing**, the most effective engine is usually **text-cluster adaptation**, not purely random item difficulty. A student should often meet the same stimulus in escalating modes: first a bounded comprehension item, then a craft/effect item, then a short evidence response, then a comparison or oral/written transfer task. That mirrors the learner-portfolio logic in DP, the progression of MYP analytical and creative tasks, and the PYP emphasis on authentic inquiry and reflection. A bank designed that way becomes a learning system rather than a quiz warehouse. citeturn14view3turn21view2turn15view0turn20view3
The main unresolved issue is not conceptual but **access-related**: public source availability is much stronger for official curriculum and assessment architecture than for current public examiner commentary. That means the recommendations above are strongest on **what IB officially asks students to do**, and somewhat less granular on **the most recent recurring examiner warnings** in restricted reports. Even so, the public guides, public papers, public marking notes, policy documents, and research studies are sufficient to support a rigorous English-only question-bank design for an IB continuum context. citeturn29view0turn30view0turn30view3turn20view0turn12view3