The IA consists out of 5 parts and can be no longer than 2000 words (excluding any appendixes & footnotes/bibliographies). The video can be no longer than 7 minutes.
Click on the criterion name to see our student guidance on each part:
Criterion A – Planning – 6 marks
Criterion B – Record of Tasks (RoT) and Design – 6 marks (ROT_blank)
Criterion C – Development – 12 marks
Criterion D – Functionality (Video) – 4 marks
Criterion E – Evaluation – 6 marks
All required Documents can be found HERE
Every year, the moderator for IB CompSci gives feedback on the previous cohorts’ achievement and then makes suggestions for the next year. Below is the most recent report:
Moderator Feedback (specifically for IA)
It is HIGHLY recommended that you follow the suggestions offered if you would like a level higher than a 4.
Here is the summary of their recommendation for this year’s students:
The aim of the Internal Assessment for IB DP Computer Science is to create a working solution for a real client. The consultation (which must be included as an appendix) should be the basis for the description of the scenario, leading to Criteria for Success of a chosen solution. All high scoring projects showed ample evidence of client involvement.
Criterion B should provide evidence of a rigorous design stage with an overview of all five stages of the project (including the actual intended use of the product by the client) in the Record of Tasks, detailed layout design sketches that include annotations for complex techniques, evidence of algorithmic thinking (in the form of flowcharts, UML diagrams, pseudo-code), and a test plan that addresses all Criteria for Success. All high scoring projects included a thorough design stage.
Criterion C provides candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the tools and techniques used in creating the product. The use of tools/techniques should be explained in relation to screenshots that show their use.
Criterion D does not require written documentation. The video should be around 5 minutes and should only show the proper working of the final solution. The structure of the video should be scripted by the candidate. For example, the video could show the testing of the implemented solution following the test plan from criterion B. Successful videos showed comprehensive evidence of the solution’s functionality with lots of data, but were edited to avoid viewing tedious data entry. Candidates are advised to test their videos to ensure the playback is correct.
Extensibility can be evidenced by a detailed design in criterion B, by a detailed description of the creation process in criterion C.
Criterion E should provide evidence of a rigorous evaluation stage. The client feedback (which can be included, in full, in an appendix) should be cited and discussed by candidates as part of their own evaluation of the solution. A table showing the Criteria for Success with a tick for “met” and a cross for “not met” is not sufficient to achieve the highest level.
Recommendations for improvement should go beyond simply restating the success criteria that have not been met.
A word of caution: treating the project as a purely academic exercise typically means that there is no proper client and that the solution is not being implemented, which will likely impact upon the marks in criteria A, D and E.
The recommended word count for each section is only for guidance. The overall word count of 2000 words however, is a fixed limit and a moderator is not required to read beyond this limit, which may lead to marks being lost in criterion E.
After analysing the moderator feedback, we’ve drawn up a few ‘checklists’ to make sure you do everything they’ve asked for. We use them in peer-assessment exercises to get students to reflect critically on another student’s work.
IB grading bands for all 5 parts
IBO Student checklist (best used after all parts are completed)
Part A peer assessment checklist
Part B peer assessment checklist
Part C peer assessment checklist
The IBO released several example IAs (with moderator comments) for you to gauge what is expected of you.
Here are a dozen official graded example IAs from the IBO.
They are published only as examples for reference, not to be taken as ‘explicit examples of what you have to do to get a 7’. One of the most difficult things is how to judge complexity and ingenuity in Part C. In the previous specification of this course, there was a document that floated around to help teachers judge these things. Although it does not apply anymore, it might give you a hint as what the moderators are looking for (if anything!)
To finally submit their IA, each candidate has to create a folder with hyperlinked documents using the predefined template given by the IBO.
You can access the website template here.
The final submission folder should be labelled with the session number and candidate’s surname.
The top level of each candidate’s submission folder should contain:
• a cover page in HTML format (see the template above)
• a “product” folder, containing the final product (see the comments on JAR files below)
• a “documentation” folder, containing the associated documentation (in PDF format)
• a video, demonstrating the product functioning (in AVI, WMV, MP4 or MOV format).
• a completed form 4ICCS_e2017 as a PDF (we will use Toddleapp to make this file)
From what can find out, you don’t need to include a full print-out of of the code you created, but you DO need to include a “running version“* of your program. Normally, this can be done by creating an executable JAR file. Here is a video link that explains how to do this.
Candidates then hand their work to their teachers who completes this IA teacher comment sheet for their work.
The commentary sheet is then placed in the top folder of the work, each candidate’s work is then compressed (ZIPPED) and uploaded when requested as part the IBO sample for each exam centre.
The final ZIP file for each candidate can’t be more than 700mb.
*Comment from the IBO’s Norayr Ghazaryan (OCC Lead Faculty Member) on including the product
Q. Is the student required or expected to provide a functional product that the moderator can execute, use and test on the moderator’s equipment? If the student does not provide a product that functions on the moderator’s equipment, how will this be penalised? If this is a requirement, or even an expectation, then what platform(s) and software systems will the moderator have available for running the product?
A. The candidates are expected to include their product in their submission, as it is considered a subset of the solution. The candidates do not need to consider the hardware/software available to the moderator when creating their product (and to do so would go against the flexibility of choice intended by the redesigned course). For this reason the product is not required to function straight off of the CD. It is sufficient for the school to include in the submission only the files and folders that are uniquely those of the candidate; the product at its most fundamental (and would work with the necessary hardware/software “off the shelf” as it were). Font, browser, software, hardware issues can be resolved by the IB if necessary (see below) and the school should not go out of their way to add extra elements to the product folder to help with the running of the product. In some cases the moderator will not be able to run the product; this is not immediately an issue and is why the video is required. All the marks for the IA are awarded (by the teacher and the moderator) against the written documentation and video, and therefore there is no mark penalty for failing to include the product. However if the product is not included the solution will be considered incomplete, from an administrative point of view, and the subject operations administrator at the IB office will contact the school requesting the missing product(s), as they would for missing cover-sheets and signatures.
The moderator will check that something is in the product folder (to ensure the submission meets the requirements outlined in the guide) but will not immediately do anything with the product.
The product will need to run if necessary; by “necessary”, we mean if the moderator, principal moderator and/or the IB wants to see exactly what the candidate has made in order to gauge authenticity. If the moderator feels there is a contradiction between what is described in Sections A – C, and what is shown in the video (for example an elaborate and complex technique not referenced by the candidate), they will investigate the product to ascertain if it is genuinely the work of the candidate. If the moderator is unable to run the product, the moderator will contact the IB assessment centre who will escalate the situation and make arrangements for the work to reach someone who can execute the product. This will only occur when authenticity is in doubt, and the functioning of the product will have no bearing the marks awarded; instead it may affect the candidates overall Diploma after an investigation from the Academic Honesty department. If the authenticity of the work is not in doubt, it will not be necessary to run the product.