Thoughts from a moderator’s desk
At the time of writing this blog post, we are in the middle of the moderation process for IAs from schools that sit the November examinations. Having also been through the moderation of IAs for the May examinations, now seems a good time to reflect upon some common trends that are evidenced across both these sessions.
There are three effects considered below – do please get in contact if they have some resonance for what you are seeing in your school and/or if you have noticed any other trends that you feel should be considered.
- The effect of the word count
- The effect of AI
- The effect of increasing the emphasis on the higher-level skills
To get in touch just add a comment to this blog…
Please remember the impressions expressed below are Tim’s and do not represent official IB thinking nor are they necessarily representative of the experiences of all moderators.
- The effect of the word count
When this syllabus was introduced, it increased the maximum number of words that can be included in an IA. Previously the limit was expressed in terms of the maximum number of pages, and it has now been replaced with a limit of 3000 words. In doing this change, there was no hidden expectation that write-ups needed to be longer but a prediction amongst most teachers was that most students would feel forced to write to the limit. An extended essay and/or a ToK essay also has a word limit. In these subjects, if candidates are not submitting work close to that limit, it is likely that they are missing necessary detail but the same is not true for a Physics IA.
As predicted, it appears that many pieces of work are now being submitted with word counts just under 3000 words. It is impossible to generalize, but all too often the extra material (that might have been added to increase the word count) has meant that the reports become over verbose and can lack clarity. A succinct report should always be the target and most of the time, far fewer than 3000 words are needed. It is interesting to note that the average word count for the sample IAs provided by the IB in the Teacher Support Materials is 2,206 words. These samples range in marks from 11 to 24 out of 24.
Candidates and teachers often wonder what penalties there are for candidates that go over the limit. A strict application of the regulations could imply that there is no requirement for a marker or a moderator to read beyond the first 3000 words. It is rare, but at least one example of this was seen in the recent November moderation process. A report was submitted for moderation where the school awarded a candidate zero for the Conclusion and Evaluation criteria because these sections were presented after the candidate’s first 3000 words.
In practice there must be some tolerance for extra material; from the moderator’s perspective it is often more about whether the report “feels” over long rather than a strict word count.
- The effect of AI
AI can be used to help the process of writing the report for the Internal Assessment. There are clear guidelines set out in the IB Academic Integrity policy. Two important statements from this policy that all Students and teachers need to remember are that:
· Any work that is solely the output from an AI content generator will be regarded as NOT having met the requirements.
· Any work that uses AI content generator(s) and does NOT include an accepted format for the citation and reference (including prompts) will be regarded as suspected malpractice.
It is, of course, extremely difficult for a moderator to know whether, or not, AI has been used as they do not know the individual candidate. Teachers, however, know their students well and the expectation is that during the process there has been a constant dialogue between student and teacher. This should help identify any suspicious material that “suddenly” makes it way into the final drafts.
It is worth remembering that this is a physics examination so that the quality of language used by the students does not significantly affect their final mark. This means AI used to improve the language is largely a waste of time!
In the 2025 sessions there has been a rise in two common approaches across many reports. More reports appear to be:
1. giving all the values of the independent variable used in the statement of the research question.
2. submitted with a very formal structure including numbered sections and sub-section.
It is not at all clear whether this is just good practice being shared or the result of AI being used in the background. It would be interesting to hear subscribers’ thoughts on these two approaches and whether they are taught in your school or something that students adopted without any input from the teacher.
- The effect of increasing the emphasis on the higher-level skills
One of the predictions when the current syllabus was introduced, was that increasing the weighting given to the higher-level skills of conclusion and evaluation would mean that candidates would find it harder to gain marks. To some extent it could be argued that this increase in difficulty was going to be offset by the criteria being made clearer – thus making it easier for candidates to achieve marks for research design and data analysis.
It is, of course, almost impossible to generalize, but the impression gained from moderating hundreds of scripts is that candidates are, indeed, finding it tough to gain high marks for the last two skills. Many scripts do include a conclusion but often the conclusion is just stated and not justified. Nor is the conclusion always fully consistent with the data obtained. It is very common for students to draw a conclusion predicted by theory rather than a conclusion that is suggested by the data they have collected.
Again, most scripts include an evaluation, but this is often too generic in nature. Additionally, it is rare to see a discussion of the relative impact of the limitations that are identified. Explanations are often missing.
Remember that the May grade award has set the grade boundaries to be identical to the previous syllabus. Candidates need to ensure that they fully address all aspects of the criteria and half the IA marks are available for the research design and data analysis. Half marks on the IA is an IB grade 4.