IBDP English A Paper 1 Criterion

There are 4 assessment criteria based on which you score in Paper 1. Some students struggle to keep an eye on these 4 criteria while writing the analysis. To overcome this, we have invented a metaphorical representation of these 4 criteria using the example of a Melon. First, let’s look at the 4 criteria:

1. Criterion A – Understanding & Interpretation.
2. Criterion B – Analysis & Evaluation.
3. Criterion C – Focus & Organization.
4. Criterion D – Language & Clarity.

The MELON Metaphor for Paper 1 Criteria

1️⃣ Criterion A (Understanding & Interpretation) → “How does a melon taste?”

Just like interpreting a text, tasting a melon is about identifying its core flavor. You experience its sweetness, crispness, and juiciness, just as you recognize a text’s message, themes, and tone. Some melons taste subtly sweet, while others are intensely sugary—just as some texts have straightforward meanings, while others require deeper interpretation.

🔹 Example: A Nike ad’s core taste (message) is motivation and determination, just as a melon’s core taste is refreshing sweetness.

So, criterion A is like experiencing the taste of the melon. Anybody can eat a melon but an IB student should be able to explain how they tasted it, just like telling how you understand and interpret the message, purpose, and themes of an advertisement, infographic, a comic strip, etc., how effectively you interpret meaning by identifying the text type, purpose, audience, themes, tone and mood.

2️⃣ Criterion B (Analysis & Evaluation) → What elements give a melon its taste?

Now, we break down why the melon tastes the way it does—is it because of its sugar content, water balance, ripeness, or texture? This is like analyzing a text’s literary and rhetorical techniques (imagery, tone, diction, etc.) and evaluating their impact.

🔹 Example: The spotlight effect in the Nike ad makes the athlete stand out, just like the natural sugars in a melon make it sweet. Both elements enhance the experience and shape the overall effect.

3️⃣ Criterion C (Focus & Organization) → How is a melon layered?

A melon has clear sections—the deep red (or orange) center, the white transition layer, and the thick green rind.

Similarly, a well-structured essay has logical layers:

• The core (red flesh) is the main argument—rich and full of meaning.
• The white layer transitions between analysis points, ensuring smooth connections.
• The green rind holds everything together, like a strong introduction and conclusion.

Just like slicing a melon neatly makes it easier to eat, a well-structured essay ensures ideas flow logically and are easy to follow.

4️⃣ Criterion D (Language & Clarity) → How easy is it to eat a melon?

Some melons are easy to cut and eat; others are messy or full of seeds. This is like language use in an essay—the easier it is to read and understand, the better.

• A clean, well-cut melon slice = Clear, precise academic language.
• A messy, unripe melon = Unclear, vague, or repetitive writing.
• A bright, fresh-looking slice = Engaging and sophisticated phrasing that makes the analysis more compelling.

🔹 Example: If a writer says, “The author repeats words to make it sound important,” it’s like serving a melon with the rind still attached—harder to digest. Instead, a refined statement like “The author’s use of anaphora reinforces urgency and determination” is like a perfectly cut, seed-free slice—smooth, enjoyable, and effective.

Final Thought: A Perfect MELON = A Well-Written Paper 1 Response 🍉

Just as a melon’s taste, elements, layers, and ease of eating create an enjoyable experience, a Paper 1 essay must balance interpretation (A), analysis (B), structure (C), and language (D) for a strong, cohesive response.

NB: Make sure all 4 criteria are touched in the Body Paragraphs and Conclusion. However, Criterion B is not important for the Introduction.

How you lose your Marks?

Lack of Understanding of the Text’s Meaning (Basic Errors)

1. Misinterpreting the main message – The response misunderstands the core idea or theme of the text.
2. Ignoring the context – Failing to consider the historical, cultural, or situational background of the text.
3. Summarizing instead of analyzing – Simply restating what happens instead of explaining the significance.
4. Not recognizing the author’s intention – Failing to identify why the author wrote the text and what they aim to convey.
5. Superficial interpretation – Only discussing the obvious meaning without deeper insights.

Weak Identification of Themes & Ideas

6. Overlooking key themes – Not identifying central ideas such as power, identity, or injustice.
7. Forcing an irrelevant theme – Bringing in unrelated ideas that do not match the text’s meaning.
8. Only mentioning one theme – Failing to explore multiple layers of meaning.
9. Not considering the audience – Ignoring how different audiences might interpret the text.
10. Failing to recognize contradictions or complexity – Over-simplifying the text and missing deeper nuances.

Lack of Textual Support (Weak Evidence)

11. Not using enough textual evidence – Making claims without quoting or referring to the text.
12. Choosing weak or irrelevant examples – Selecting evidence that does not strongly support the interpretation.
13. Misquoting or misrepresenting the text – Incorrectly citing or distorting the meaning of the passage.
14. Ignoring tone and mood – Not discussing how the text’s emotional feel contributes to its meaning.
15. Failing to explain evidence – Quoting a passage without explaining its significance.

Weak Depth and Connection of Ideas

16. Ignoring alternative interpretations – Assuming there is only one correct way to read the text.
17. Not connecting ideas logically – Jumping between points without a clear argument.
18. Overgeneralizing or making vague claims – Using phrases like “this makes the text interesting” without specifying how.
19. Not linking techniques to meaning – Mentioning literary features (like metaphors) but not explaining their effect.
20. Lack of originality or critical thinking – Repeating basic ideas without offering fresh insights.

How to Improve?

• Always support interpretations with evidence (E).
• Avoid basic summaries—focus on why the author makes certain choices.
• Consider multiple perspectives and nuances in the text.
• Make sure every quote or example is explained clearly.