Digital Society Assessment
Assessment is an integral part of learning and teaching in the IB DP Digital Society course. The aims of assessment are to support and encourage student learning. The approach to assessment is criterion-related which judges students’ work by their performance in relation to identified levels of attainment.
Digital Society Assessment
Standard Level (SL) Assessment Outline
External Assessment TOTAL = 2 hours 45 minutes examination = 64 marks = 70%
-
Paper 1 = 1 hour 30 minutes = 40 marks = 40%
-
Paper 2 = 1 hour 15 minutes = 24 marks = 30%
Internal Assessment TOTAL = 30 hours Inquiry Project = 24 marks = 30%
-
1,500 words + 10-minute multimedia presentation
TOTAL MARKS = 88
Higher Level (HL) Assessment Outline
External Assessment TOTAL = 4 hours 45 minutes examination = 106 marks = 80%
-
Paper 1 = 2 hours 15 minutes = 52 marks = 35%
-
Paper 2 = 1 hour 15 minutes = 24 marks = 20%
-
Paper 3 = 1 hour 15 minutes = 30 marks = 25%
Internal Assessment TOTAL = 30 hours Inquiry Project = 24 marks = 20%
-
1, 500 words + 10-minute multimedia presentation
TOTAL MARK = 130
External Assessment Markbands
Paper 1 Markscheme for Part C (SL & HL)
Marks for part c are allocated using markbands. While level descriptors are written in the form of individual bullet points, markbands are applied holistically using a best-fit approach.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors
1–2
-
The response shows limited understanding of the demands of the question
-
There is limited relevant knowledge. The response is descriptive and consists mostly of unsupported generalizations
-
The response has limited organization or is only a list of items
3–4
-
The response shows some understanding of the demands of the question
-
Some relevant knowledge is demonstrated, but this is not always accurate and may not be used appropriately or effectively. The response moves beyond description to include some analysis, but this is not always sustained or effective
-
The response is partially organized
5–6
-
The response shows adequate understanding of the demands of the question
-
The response demonstrates adequate and effective analysis supported with relevant and accurate knowledge
-
The response is adequately organized
7–8
-
The response is focused and demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the demands of the question
-
The response demonstrates evaluation and synthesis that is effectively and consistently supported with relevant and accurate knowledge
-
The response is well-structured and effectively organized
Paper 1 Markscheme for Section B (HL)
Marks for Section B are allocated using markbands. While level descriptors are written in the form of individual bullet points, markbands are applied holistically using a best-fit approach.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below
1–3
-
The response shows a limited understanding of the demands of the question
-
There is limited relevant knowledge. The response is descriptive and consists mostly of unsupported generalizations
-
Counter-claims are not considered or addressed
-
The response has limited organization
4–6
-
The response shows some understanding of the demands of the question
-
Some relevant knowledge demonstrated but this is not always accurate and may not be used appropriately or effectively. The response is primarily descriptive with some analysis, but this is not sustained
-
Counter-claims are only partially addressed
-
The response is partially organized
7–9
-
The response shows adequate understanding of the demands of the question
-
Response demonstrates adequate and effective analysis supported with relevant and accurate knowledge
-
Counter-claims are adequately addressed
-
The response is adequately organized
10–12
-
The response is focused and shows an in-depth understanding of the demands of the question
-
Response demonstrates evaluation and synthesis that is effectively and consistently supported with relevant and accurate knowledge
-
Counter-claims are effectively addressed in the response
-
The response is well-structured and effectively organized
Paper 2 Markscheme for Question 4 (SL & HL)
Marks for question 4 are allocated using markbands. While level descriptors are written in the form of individual bullet points, markbands are applied holistically using a best-fit approach.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors
1–3
-
There is limited relevant knowledge
-
Evidence from sources is not integrated with the response
-
The response shows a limited understanding of the demands of the question
-
The response has limited organization
4-6
-
The response shows some understanding of the demands of the question
-
Some knowledge is demonstrated but this is not always relevant or accurate
-
Evidence from sources is partially integrated into the response
-
The response is partially organized
7-9
-
The response shows adequate understanding of the demands of the question
-
Relevant and accurate knowledge is demonstrated with some lapses
-
There is adequate integration of evidence from the sources, but this is not always sustained
-
The response is adequately organized
10-12
-
The response is focused and shows an in-depth understanding of the demands of the question
-
Relevant and accurate knowledge is demonstrated throughout, adding insight to the response
-
There is consistent and effective integration of evidence from the sources
-
The response is well-structured and effectively organized
Paper 3 Markscheme for Question 3 (HL)
In addition to paper-specific analytic markschemes used for all questions, marks for question 3 are also allocated using markbands. While level descriptors are written in the form of individual bullet points, markbands are applied holistically using a best fit approach.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
-
The response shows a limited understanding of the demands of the question.
-
Response is of limited relevance. The response is descriptive and consists mostly of unsupported generalizations.
-
The response has limited organization.
3–4
-
The response shows some understanding of the demands of the question.
-
The response is primarily descriptive with some evaluation demonstrated but this is not sustained or fully supported.
-
The response is partially organized.
5–6
-
The response shows adequate understanding of the demands of the question.
-
Response demonstrates adequate evaluation that is relevant and supported.
-
The response is adequately organized.
7–8
-
The response is focused and shows an in-depth understanding of the demands of the question.
-
Response demonstrates sustained evaluation that is relevant and well-supported throughout.
-
The response is well-structured and effectively organized.
Paper 3 Markscheme for Question 4 (HL)
Marks for Question 4 are allocated using markbands. While level descriptors are written in the form of individual bullet points, markbands are applied holistically using a best-fit approach.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below
1-3
-
The response shows a limited understanding of the demands of the question
-
The response consists mostly of unsupported generalizations with limited relevant knowledge
-
No recommendations are presented or those that are presented have only limited support
-
The response has limited organization
4-6
-
The response shows some understanding of the demands of the question
-
The response demonstrates some knowledge, but this is not always relevant or accurate and may not be used appropriately or effectively
-
Recommendations are presented with some support although this is not sustained and only partially effective
-
The response is partially organized
7-9
-
The response shows adequate understanding of the demands of the question
-
Response is adequately supported with relevant and accurate knowledge
-
Recommendations are presented and effectively supported
-
The response is adequately organized
10-12
-
The response is focused and shows an in-depth understanding of the demands of the question
-
Response is well-supported throughout with relevant and accurate knowledge
-
Recommendations are presented and well-supported with a clear consideration of possible trade-offs and implications
-
The response is well-structured and effectively organized
Internal Assessment (SL & HL)
Criterion A: Inquiry focus (3 marks)
Project element: Inquiry process document
The inquiry process document demonstrates provides an inquiry focus with an explanation of the connection between the inquiry question, a specific, relevant real-world example as well as course concepts, content and contexts.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
-
The focus is limited and/or incomplete.
-
The focus does not include all required elements and/or the real-world example is not specific or relevant to the inquiry.
2
-
The focus is adequate.
-
The focus includes an inquiry question and a partial explanation of its connection to a specific, relevant real-world example and course concepts, content and contexts.
3
-
The focus is appropriate and targeted.
-
The focus includes an inquiry question and a thorough explanation of its connection to a specific, relevant real-world example and course concepts, content and contexts.
Criterion B: Claims and perspectives (6 marks)
Project element: Inquiry process document
The inquiry process document demonstrates how research was conducted with a discussion of the claims and perspectives for three sources including a justification of their usefulness in the inquiry.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below
1–2
-
The discussion of claims and perspectives is limited and primarily descriptive in nature. Fewer than three sources are discussed or there is no justification for their use in the inquiry
3–4
-
There is a partial discussion of the claims and perspectives for each source that includes some justification for their usefulness in the inquiry, but this is not fully developed
5–6
-
There is a thorough discussion of the claims and perspectives for each source that includes a clear justification for their usefulness in the inquiry
Criterion C: Analysis and evaluation (6 marks)
Project element: Presentation
The balance of the presentation consists of the student’s own sustained and well-supported analysis and evaluation of impacts and implications of the digital systems for people and communities.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below
1–2
-
There is limited analysis and evaluation which is primarily descriptive in nature or of limited relevance to the inquiry focus
3–4
-
The student’s analysis and evaluation of impacts and implications for people and communities is adequate, but this is not always sustained or well-supported
5–6
-
The student’s analysis and evaluation of impacts and implications for people and communities is effective, sustained and well-supported by evidence
Criterion D: Conclusion (6 marks)
Project element: Presentation
The presentation concludes by providing further insight reflecting the student’s new understanding and ideas about their inquiry focus following analysis and evaluation and a discussion of emerging trends and future developments.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below
1–2
-
The conclusion is limited with little further insight into the inquiry focus. Emerging trends and future developments are referenced with limited or no discussion
3–4
-
The conclusion provides adequate further insight into the inquiry focus with a partial discussion of emerging trends and future developments
5–6
-
The conclusion provides effective and well-supported further insight into the inquiry focus with a thorough and substantiated discussion of emerging trends and future developments
Criterion E: Communication (3 marks)
Project element: Presentation
The presentation supports understandings through organization of ideas and evidence and also a coherent use of media.
0
-
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
-
Communication is limited
-
The presentation’s organization and use of media are limited and do not support understanding
2
-
Communication is adequate
-
The presentation is adequately organized and the use of media is at times coherent but this is not sustained or only partially effective in supporting understanding
3
-
Communication is effective
-
The presentation is well-organized and coherently uses media to support understanding
IB Digital Society Grade Boundaries
Grade 7
Demonstrates: conceptual awareness, insight, and knowledge and understanding which are evident in the skills of critical thinking; a high level of ability to provide answers which are fully developed, structured in a logical and coherent manner and illustrated with appropriate examples; a precise use of terminology which is specific to the subject; familiarity with the literature of the subject; the ability to analyse and evaluate evidence and to synthesize knowledge and concepts; awareness of alternative points of view and subjective and ideological biases, and the ability to come to reasonable, albeit tentative, conclusions; consistent evidence of critical reflective thinking; a high level of proficiency in analysing and evaluating data or problem solving.
Grade 6
Demonstrates: detailed knowledge and understanding; answers which are coherent, logically structured and well developed; consistent use of appropriate terminology; an ability to analyse, evaluate and synthesize knowledge and concepts; knowledge of relevant research, theories and issues, and awareness of different perspectives and contexts from which these have been developed; consistent evidence of critical thinking; an ability to analyse and evaluate data or to solve problems competently.
Grade 5
Demonstrates: a sound knowledge and understanding of the subject using subject-specific terminology; answers which are logically structured and coherent but not fully developed; an ability to provide competent answers with some attempt to integrate knowledge and concepts; a tendency to be more descriptive than evaluative (although some ability is demonstrated to present and develop contrasting points of view); some evidence of critical thinking; an ability to analyse and evaluate data or to solve problems.
Grade 4
Demonstrates: a secure knowledge and understanding of the subject going beyond the mere citing of isolated, fragmentary, irrelevant or “common sense” points; some ability to structure answers but with insufficient clarity and possibly some repetition; an ability to express knowledge and understanding in terminology specific to the subject; some understanding of the way facts or ideas may be related and embodied in principles and concepts; some ability to develop ideas and substantiate assertions; use of knowledge and understanding which is more descriptive than analytical; some ability to compensate for gaps in knowledge and understanding through rudimentary application or evaluation of that knowledge; an ability to interpret data or to solve problems and some ability to engage in analysis and evaluation.
Grade 3
Demonstrates: some knowledge and understanding of the subject; a basic sense of structure that is not sustained throughout the answers; a basic use of terminology appropriate to the subject; some ability to establish links between facts or ideas; some ability to comprehend data or to solve problems.
Grade 2
Demonstrates: a limited knowledge and understanding of the subject; some sense of structure in the answers; a limited use of terminology appropriate to the subject; a limited ability to establish links between facts or ideas; a basic ability to comprehend data or to solve problems.
Grade 1
Demonstrates: very limited knowledge and understanding of the subject; almost no organizational structure in the answers; inappropriate or inadequate use of terminology; a limited ability to comprehend data or to solve problems.
Digital Society Assessment Overview
Paper 1: Making Connections:
-
Paper 1 invites students to think like a social scientist by considering different combinations of course topics, simulating the inquiry process.
-
Students respond to sequentially scaffolded questions that build to and support higher-order thinking.
-
Students must integrate real-world research and examples.
-
In section B, HL students are asked to consider powerful, open-ended big questions involving global challenges of importance within digital society.
Paper 2: Working with sources
-
Paper 2 invites students to work like a social scientist by considering the claims and perspectives of diverse real-world sources.
-
Students respond to sequentially scaffolded questions that build to and support higher-order thinking.
-
Students may be asked to analyse and evaluate, for instance, a source’s origin and purpose, the qualitative and/or quantitative methods it employs and/or how well it corroborates findings from other sources.
Paper 3: Cultivating a challenge mindset
-
Paper 3 invites HL students to cultivate a challenge mindset by responding to a proposed digital intervention to a global challenge relevant within digital society.
-
A pre-release statement describing the real-world nature of a selected challenge (250–400 words) will be released four months prior to the examination.
-
Students are recommended to spend about 10–15 hours on extended inquiries based on the pre-release statement.
In the examination, students evaluate a specific intervention using a rigorous policy-informed framework and make recommendations for future action.
Inquiry Project: Leading and designing an inquiry
-
The inquiry project is a student-led coursework component in which students investigate the impacts and implications of a real-world digital system through first-hand research.
-
An inquiry process document indicates the inquiry focus and addresses the claims and perspectives of three essential sources.
-
A recorded multimedia presentation conveys the inquiry’s analysis, evaluation and conclusions.
Exam designed to support higher-order thinking
Examinations focus on evidence of higher-order thinking that integrates argumentation, accurate and relevant knowledge, and real-world examples. Digital society examinations are scaffolded. Scaffolding refers to a step-by-step process during which questions of increasingly complexity build from prior experience towards higher-order thinking. Each question (or set of questions) is arranged in a logical relationship with those that come before and after. In this way, responses to earlier questions support successful responses to later questions.
Digital Society Extended Essay
Criterion A: Focus and method
This criterion focuses on the topic, the research question and the methodology. It assesses the explanation of the focus of the research (this includes the topic and the research question), how the research will be undertaken, and how the focus is maintained throughout the essay.
0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below
1–2
The topic is communicated unclearly and incompletely:
~ Identification and explanation of the topic is limited; the purpose and focus of the research is unclear, or does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject for which it is registered
The research question is stated but not clearly expressed or too broad:
~ The research question is too broad in scope to be treated effectively within the word limit and requirements of the task, or does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject for which it is registered
~ The intent of the research question is understood but has not been clearly expressed and/or the discussion of the essay is not focused on the research question.
Methodology of the research is limited:
~ The source(s) and/or method(s) to be used are limited in range given the topic and research question
~ There is limited evidence that their selection was informed
3–4
The topic is communicated:
~Identification and explanation of the research topic is communicated; the purpose and focus of the research is adequately clear, but only partially appropriate
The research question is clearly stated but only partially focused:
~ The research question is clear but the discussion in the essay is only partially focused and connected to the research question
Methodology of the research is mostly complete:
~ Source(s) and/or method(s) to be used are generally relevant and appropriate given the topic and research question
~ There is some evidence that their selection(s) was informed
If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than four marks can be awarded for this criterion
5–6 The topic is communicated accurately and effectively:
~ Identification and explanation of the research topic is effectively communicated; the purpose and focus of the research is clear and appropriate
The research question is clearly stated and focused:
~ The research question is clear and addresses an issue of research that is appropriately connected to the discussion in the essay
Methodology of the research is complete:
~ An appropriate range of relevant source(s) and/or method(s) has been selected in relation to the topic and research question
~ There is evidence of effective and informed selection of sources and/or methods
Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding
This criterion assesses the extent to which the research relates to the subject area/discipline used to explore the research question, or in the case of the world studies extended essay, the issue addressed and the two disciplinary perspectives applied, and additionally the way in which this knowledge and understanding is demonstrated through the use of appropriate terminology and concepts.
0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
1–2
Knowledge and understanding is limited:
~ The application of source material has limited relevance and is only partially appropriate to the research question
~ Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is anecdotal, unstructured and mostly descriptive with sources not effectively being used
Use of terminology and concepts is unclear and limited:
~ Subject-specific terminology and/or concepts are either missing or inaccurate, demonstrating limited knowledge and understanding
3–4
Knowledge and understanding is good:
~ The application of source material is mostly relevant and appropriate to the research question
~ Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is clear; there is an understanding of the sources used but their application is only partially effective
Use of terminology and concepts is adequate:
~ The use of subject-specific terminology and concepts is mostly accurate, demonstrating an appropriate level of knowledge and understanding
~ If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than four marks can be awarded for this criterion
5–6
Knowledge and understanding is excellent:
~ The application of source materials is clearly relevant and appropriate to the research question
~ Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is clear and coherent and sources are used effectively and with understanding
Use of terminology and concepts is good:
~ The use of subject-specific terminology and concepts is accurate and consistent, demonstrating effective knowledge and understanding
Criterion C: Critical thinking
This criterion assesses the extent to which critical-thinking skills have been used to analyse and evaluate the research undertaken.
0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below
1–3
The research is limited:
~ The research presented is limited and its application to support the argument is not clearly relevant to the research question
Analysis is limited:
~ There is limited analysis
~ Where there are conclusions to individual points of analysis these are limited and not consistent with the evidence
Discussion/evaluation is limited:
~ An argument is outlined but this is limited, incomplete, descriptive or narrative in nature
~ The construction of an argument is unclear and/or incoherent in structure hindering understanding
~ Where there is a final conclusion, it is limited and not consistent with the arguments/evidence presented
~ There is an attempt to evaluate the research, but this is superficial
If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than three marks can be awarded for this criterion.
4–6 The research is adequate:
~ Some research presented is appropriate and its application to support theargument is partially relevant to the research question
Analysis is adequate:
~ There is analysis but this is only partially relevant to the research question; the inclusion of irrelevant research detracts from the quality of the argument
~ Any conclusions to individual points of analysis are only partially supported by the evidence
Discussion/evaluation is adequate:
~ An argument explains the research but the reasoning contains inconsistencies.
~ The argument may lack clarity and coherence but this does not significantly hinder understanding.
~ Where there is a final or summative conclusion, this is only partially consistent with the arguments/evidence presented.
~ The research has been evaluated but not critically.
7–9
The research is good:
~ The majority of the research is appropriate and its application to support the argument is clearly relevant to the research question
Analysis is good:
~ The research is analysed in a way that is clearly relevant to the research question; the inclusion of less relevant research rarely detracts from the quality of the overall analysis
~ Conclusions to individual points of analysis are supported by the evidence but there are some minor inconsistencies
Discussion/evaluation is good:
~ An effective reasoned argument is developed from the research, with a conclusion supported by the evidence presented
~ This reasoned argument is clearly structured and coherent and supported by a final or summative conclusion; minor inconsistencies may hinder the strength of the overall argument
~ The research has been evaluated, and this is partially critical
10–12
The research is excellent:
~ The research is appropriate to the research question and its application to support the argument is consistently relevant
Analysis is excellent:
~ The research is analysed effectively and clearly focused on the research question; the inclusion of less relevant research does not significantly detract from the quality of the overall analysis
~ Conclusions to individual points of analysis are effectively supported by the evidence
Discussion/evaluation is excellent:
~ An effective and focused reasoned argument is developed from the research with a conclusion reflective of the evidence presented
~ This reasoned argument is well structured and coherent; any minor inconsistencies do not hinder the strength of the overall argument or the final or summative conclusion
~ The research has been critically evaluated
Criterion D: Presentation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the presentation follows the standard format expected for academic writing and the extent to which this aids effective communication.
0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below
1–2
Presentation is acceptable:
~ The structure of the essay is generally appropriate in terms of the expected conventions for the topic, argument and subject in which the essay is registered
~ Some layout considerations may be missing or applied incorrectly
~ Weaknesses in the structure and/or layout do not significantly impact the reading, understanding or evaluation of the extended essay
3–4
Presentation is good:
~ The structure of the essay clearly is appropriate in terms of the expected conventions for the topic, the argument and subject in which the essay is registered
~ Layout considerations are present and applied correctly
~ The structure and layout support the reading, understanding and evaluation of the extended essay
Criterion E: Engagement
This criterion assesses the student’s engagement with their research focus and the research process.
It will be applied by the examiner at the end of the assessment of the essay, and is based solely on the candidate’s reflections, with the supervisory comments and extended essay itself as context. Only the first 500 words are assessable.
0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors, the RPPF has not been submitted, or the RPPF has been submitted in a language other than that of the essay
1–2
Engagement is limited:
~ Reflections on decision-making and planning are mostly descriptive
~ These reflections communicate a limited degree of personal engagement with the research focus and/or research process
3–4
Engagement is good:
~ Reflections on decision-making and planning are analytical and include reference to conceptual understanding and skill development
~ These reflections communicate a moderate degree of personal engagement with the research focus and process of research, demonstrating some intellectual initiative
5–6
Engagement is excellent:
~ Reflections on decision-making and planning are evaluative and include reference to the student’s capacity to consider actions and ideas in response to challenges experienced in the research process
~ These reflections communicate a high degree of intellectual and personal engagement with the research focus and process of research, demonstrating authenticity, intellectual initiative and/or creative approach in the student voice