Category-2 Biology Denver 2014

Session 9 Marking IA/Moderation/Structuring the PSOW

Objectives of Session 8 To consider the marking and comments of a moderator for a student lab. To practice and discuss the application of the IA assessment criteria To evaluate changes in the record keeping associated with the IA and assess implications for students To discuss the styles of scientific writing that promote research and scientific context that align with the new IA investigation To discuss strategies for promoting academic honesty as part of the new IA investigation

Activity 1- Marking samples Participants will mark an IA sample. Take 20 minutes to mark the sample on your own, using the new IA criteria. Participants will then pair up with someone on their tables and discuss and justify the grades they awarded for the five IA criteria. Finally, taking each other’s comments into consideration, each pair will come to a consensus on the grade awarded for each of the five IA criteria and be ready to justify their grade should they need to do so. Lastly we will compare the results of this collaborative marking exercise with the comments made by the moderator

Plagiarism: this is defined as the representation, intentionally or unwittingly, of the ideas, words or work of another person without proper, clear and explicit acknowledgment. Collusion: this is defined as supporting academic misconduct by another candidate, for example, as in allowing one’s work to be copied or submitted for assessment by another. Duplication of work: this is defined as the presentation of the same work for different assessment components and/or Diploma Programme core requirements. Others: taking unauthorized material into an examination, behaviour that disrupts the examination or distracts other candidates, falsifying a CAS record, stealing examination materials, impersonation, disclosure of information to and receipt of information from candidates about the content of an examination paper within 24 hours after a written examination. Academic misconduct cases investigated by the IB 01 January 2012

Academic misconduct cases investigated by the IB On average, the IB investigates 800+ cases of academic misconduct during the May sessions.  53% are plagiarism cases  25% are collusion cases  12% are exam related cases  6% are ethical breaches  4% others On average 76% of the cases are reported by examiners 14% of cases are reported by schools 10% of the cases are detected through the random sample of the IB

Participants in table groups will brainstorm ideas on what strategies can be used to ensure academic honesty during external and internal assessments and record their ideas on poster paper. Groups will then put up the posters on the walls for other groups to have a look at. Give groups 5 minutes to walk around have a look at each other’s comments and questions. This activity will end with a question and answer session. ACTIVITY: Ensuring academic honesty during internal and external assessments