I last blogged about the proposed curriculum changes in December. Since then more progress has been reported on the Online Curriculum Centre by the review teams. These reports are available to IB teachers who are registered to use the OCC. The chemistry review gives details of the new Curriculum Model, an overview of the new Syllabus and the Assessment Model.

Essentially the time spent on the Core is increased from 80 hours to 95 hours and the AHL is increased from 55 hours to 60 hours. The option time is reduced from 30 hours to 15 for Standard level and from 45 hours to 25 hours for Higher Level. The Group 4 project (10 hours) remains and the total time for investigations remains unchanged at 40 hours for Standard Level and 60 hours for Higher Level. There is a statement that the amount of material in the Core/AHL will be reduced. The titles of the 11 Core topics and the 9 AHL topics remain unchanged but there will be some rearrangement of sub-topics. The four options have been identified as Materials, Biochemistry, Energy and Medicinal Chemistry. Students will only need to choose one of these options.

Standard Level will only be examined by three components one of which is the IA. This means the number of exam papers has been reduced from three to two. Paper 1 (¾ h) will be 30 multiple choice questions on the Core and counts for 30% of the total marks. Paper 2 (2¼ h) will be short and long structured questions based on the Core and questions on the option. It will count for 50% of the marks – the remaining 20% is made up by the IA. Higher Level will still have 3 exam papers. Paper 1 (1 h) will contain 40 multiple choice questions as now and will count for 20% of the total mark. Paper 2 (2¼ h) will consist of short and long structured questions and some extended questions all on the Core/AHL and will count 40% towards the final mark. Paper 3 (1¼ h) will consist of questions on the option and a data based question which may test skills and understanding learned through the IA and will be worth 20% of the total mark. The remaining 20% of the total mark is made up by the IA.

We discussed these proposals during a workshop for experienced IBDP Chemistry teachers that I ran in Berlin last weekend. Before the workshop I had got some clarification to some of the less clear points from Fiona Clark, the Chemistry Curriculum Subject Area Manager (SAM) and I am very grateful to her for all her help.The teachers were generally of the view that they would need to see the exact content of each topic and sub-topic on the Core and AHL before making specific comments. However the following points were made:

1. They were surprised at the very low response to the questionnaires sent to teachers and felt that to base a new programme on returns from only 23 teachers is worrying. It may be that the IB expects all teachers to respond to questionnaires when they are put on the OCC but the reality is that very few teachers actually look at the OCC.

2. The options seem biased towards biological chemistry. They were concerned that the two options Analytical Chemistry and Further Organic Chemistry have been dropped as these are highly regarded by universities. They accept that some of the content of these current options will be in the core/AHL on the new programme but are at a loss to see how much since the overall content of the current core/AHL is being reduced. Much of the proposed Materials option may be difficult to test at an Objective 3 level.

3. There was a genuine disagreement about reducing the Core/AHL content. Some were in favour but others felt that the current content is about right and are concerned about ‘dumbing down’ the programme.

4. Some felt that if the Core/AHL content is being reduced then errors and uncertainties (Topic 11) could be removed as it is less important than real chemistry. One person suggested that some of the more difficult concepts such as hybridization could be removed but others disagreed.

5. The participants were mystified as to the emphasis being put on the Nature of Science. How is this different to the current emphasis on TOK and ‘Aim 8’ and will it actually be assessed?               

6. Concern was expressed that the Standard Level exam would not necessarily contain a data-response question nor would the IA be necessarily assessed in the written papers whereas both of these are specified as being included at Higher Level.

7. Normally the weighting of an exam paper is related to the time spent. It seems odd that the ¾ h Paper 1 (30 multiple choice questions) for Standard Level counts for 30% of the total marks whereas Paper 2 which is three times as long (2¼ h) only counts for 50% of the marks. Contrast this with Higher Level where the 1h Paper 1 (40 multiple choice questions) is only worth 20% of the final marks.

The workshop then looked at the proposed changes to the IA. Essentially the Internal Assessment will consist of one written ten hour open investigation/scientific exploration which will count for 20% of the total marks. The Group 4 project will count for another ten hours and be assessed for personal skills. Teachers will be free to devise their own practical programme for the remaining 20 hours (SL) or 40 hours (HL).The investigation will be assessed for Context, Analysis, Communication and Reflection - each on a 0-4 point scale. Manipulative skills will be assessed summatively as at present. The investigation will allow a wider range of activities than the present traditional hands on practical investigation. For example, using a spreadsheet for analysis and modelling, extracting data from a database and analysing graphically etc, simulations – must be interactive and open ended and more qualitative work will be allowed. ” Hands on investigations would remain as a possible IA task but the detailed assessment of specific aspects of it would be undertaken in the written papers.

The participants at the workshop appreciated that one of the major strengths of the IB is that teachers are free to devise much of their own practical programme. They also felt that it would be a good opportunity for the IB to introduce the idea of including specific manipulative skills (e.g. distillation, reflux, recrystallisation, chromatography etc.) in the unassessed work, much in the same way that ICT is now. However they also expressed concerns about many of the proposed changes to the IA. Specifically:

1. Since only one piece of written work will be submitted participants felt this could disadvantage ESL students. They also felt there was much scope for potential academic dishonesty. They see it as high risk – an ‘all or nothing’ scenario whereas the current system allows for development through learning.

2. The fact that simulations seem to be preferred to actual ‘hands on’ experimentation was seen as worrying.

3. They foresee a huge problem with student overload. Currently the IA is spaced out over the two years. The new proposal will add to the demands on students in their final few months of the two year course. There was also a workshop for experienced IB coordinators running at the same time and they too were extremely concerned about this.

4. Who will be responsible for determining the specific ‘research questions’ for the investigation? Teachers already find it hard to help students come up with EE research questions. Indeed, as proposed, the investigation sounds like a mini EE in Chemistry.

5. In the report the IB has finally admitted that the current IA is not working (“Group 4 IA has been problematic for many years. The Internal review committee came to the conclusion that the current IA cannot be fixed…”). The participants felt that assessing the proposed new IA will cause just as many, if not more, marking and moderation problems.

6. The assessment model mentions setting questions on specific aspects of ‘hands on’ practical work on Higher Level Paper 3 but no mention is made of how these specific aspects will be assessed for Standard Level.

7. Concern was expressed about how different schools will implement this new system.  How will the ten hours be allocated? It cannot be outside the normal schedule as it will cause more disruption to other subjects on top of the Group 4 project. It may be difficult for weak students to come up with their own ideas and there is the question of the availability or lack of resources in poorly resourced schools.

It was agreed to pass on all these comments and concerns to the IB.