The following assessment criteria have
been established by the IBO for computer technology and design technology
subjects in the Middle Years Program. The final assessment required for
IB-validated grades and certification at the end of the MYP must be based on
these assessment criteria.
Criterion A |
Investigate |
Maximum
8 |
|
Criterion
B |
Plan |
Maximum
8 |
|
Criterion
C |
Create a
Product/Solution |
Maximum
8 |
|
Criterion
D |
Evaluate |
Maximum
8 |
|
Criterion
E |
Personal Engagement and
Independence |
Maximum
4 |
The assessment criteria and band descriptors appear on the
following pages.
• For each
assessment criterion, a number of band descriptors, describing a range of achievement
levels, are defined. The lowest level of achievement is represented
as 0.
• The
criteria are not equally weighted.
• The
descriptors concentrate on positive achievement, although for the lower levels
failure to achieve may be included in the description.
Maximum
8
Investigation is an essential step in the design cycle. In order for this step to be assessed, students must produce documented evidence of topic research and analysis.
|
Level
of |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
The student has not reached a
standard described by any of the descriptors given
below. |
|
1—2 |
The student demonstrates little
knowledge and ability in identifying and applying technological research
skills. There is little original thought and hardly any attempt at
analysis. The student lists few sources of information, some of which may
be irrelevant. |
|
3—4 |
The student demonstrates some
knowledge and ability when identifying and applying technological research
skills. There are signs of critical thinking and analysis in the work.
Some thought has been given to the significance of the product/solution
for people and/or the environment. The student’s use and acknowledgement
of relevant sources are adequate. |
|
5—6 |
The student demonstrates clear
and consistent application of technological research skills. Personal
comments, original thought about the need, and some analysis of the
significance of the product/solution for people and/or the environment are
evident. Effective use and acknowledgement of sources are
demonstrated. |
|
7—8 |
The student demonstrates
excellent foresight when identifying and applying technological research
skills. There is a high degree of questioning and critical analysis, and
the appropriate use of sources is consistent. There is clear evidence that
the student takes the sources into account in his/her investigation. A
clear understanding of the potential significance of the product/solution
is manifest. |
Planning is of primary importance in the demonstration of the ability to organize both time and resources. In order for this stage to be assessed, students must document their workplan and justify their choice of alternatives.
|
Level
of |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
The student has not reached a
standard described by any of the descriptors given
below. |
|
1—2 |
The student shows limited
ability to identify and consider priorities. Very few alternatives are
explored in relation to the task. The student is unable to predict
outcomes, and therefore tends to react rather than plan. The design
specification is unclear. |
|
3—4 |
The student shows some ability
to identify priorities and consider outcomes. Several alternatives are
explored in relation to the task. There is adequate communication of
ideas. The student demonstrates an awareness of time
constraints. |
|
5—6 |
The student demonstrates
consistently the ability to identify priorities and consider possible
outcomes within a given time frame. A good range of alternative ideas and
resources are explored in relation to the task. There is effective
communication of ideas. The student demonstrates satisfactory forward
planning, structure and organization. |
|
7—8 |
The student shows excellent
ability to identify and consider a wide range of resources and strategies.
The ideas are thoroughly developed and communicated. The work shows an
outstanding level of time management and logical
planning. |
Maximum
8
Creating products/solutions is the aim of all
technology programs. In order for this stage of the design cycle to be assessed,
students must submit a process journal with all amendments to the planning stage
as well as the product itself
Note: Students
will sometimes embark on very ambitious projects or ones that may encounter many
unforeseen obstacles. The emphasis of MYP technology is on the exploration of
its three branches and on the design process. Assessment involves the student’s
engagement in the whole design cycle. In some circumstances a product or
solution which is incomplete or does not function fully may still result in a good level of achievement for
criterion C.
|
Level
of |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
The student has not reached a standard described by any of the descriptors given below. |
|
1—2 |
The student has difficulty using the techniques, materials and/or equipment and has little understanding of the relevance of the design specification. The procedures followed and quality of the product/solution are poor. |
|
3—4 |
The student is able to use the techniques, materials and/or equipment adequately, and has generally made effective use of the design specification. Appropriate choice of techniques, materials and equipment has been made. The procedures followed and the quality of the product/solution are adequate. |
|
5—6 |
The student is able to choose and use the techniques, materials and/or equipment competently, and has made the necessary modifications to the original design specification to enhance the quality of his/her work, resulting in a well-made and well-presented product/solution. |
|
7—8 |
The student has demonstrated a thorough competence when choosing and using techniques, materials and/or equipment. He/she has fully justified any modification to the original design specification, and produced original and outstanding work. |
Maximum 8
Evaluation is necessary in all technology
projects. In order for this stage in the design cycle to be assessed, the
student must provide documentation of the assessment of both the
product/solution and process, and a form of
self-assessment.
|
Level
of |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
The student has not reached a standard
described by any of the descriptors given
below. |
|
1—2 |
The student provides a poor evaluation
of the effectiveness and quality of the product/solution. He/she has
completed a rudimentary evaluation of the process and his/her judgement is
too heavily biased towards either self-assessment or product/solution
assessment. |
|
3—4 |
The student has adequately recognized
the significance of the evaluation process; however, the analysis is
lacking elements such as justification of any deviation from the original
plan, assessment of social significance, and efficiency of the planning
process. The evaluation includes adequate analysis of the quality of the
product/solution in relation to the original design
specification. |
|
5—6 |
The student is able to appropriately
assess both the product/solution and his/her performance. He/she has taken
into account the social significance of the product/solution and provided
justification of any deviation from the original design specification. The
evaluation includes a good analysis of the effectiveness and quality of
the product/solution in relation to the original design
specification. |
|
7—8 |
The student provides a thorough
evaluation (self-assessment and assessment of both product/solution and
process) that manifests insight and suggests possible further improvement.
The evaluation includes excellent analysis of the effectiveness and
quality of the product/ solution in relation to the original design
specification. The student has made good use of feedback acquired through
product testing. |
Maximum
4
This criterion focuses on an overall
assessment of two aspects:
•
the student’s personal engagement (motivation, general attitude,
confidence, etc.)
•
the degree of personal independence in his/her
work.
By their very nature these qualities are
difficult to quantify and the assessment should take into account the context in
which the unit of work was undertaken.
The assessment should bear in mind the amount
of encouragement that the student needed, the interaction between student and
teacher, the student’s attention to deadlines and procedures,
etc.
|
Level
of |
Descriptor |
|
0 |
The student has not reached a
satisfactory standard in any aspect listed
above. |
|
1 |
The student has displayed a satisfactory
standard in one aspect listed above. |
|
2 |
The student has displayed a satisfactory
standard in both of the aspects listed above. |
|
3 |
The student has displayed a high
standard in one aspect listed above, and a satisfactory standard in the
other. |
|
4 |
The student has displayed a very high
standard in both aspects listed
above. |