IB ASSESSMENT: MARKING, MODERATION AND STUDENT SUPPORT

What to agree before marking

A department needs a shared interpretation of the current subject guide, assessment objectives, command terms, criteria and component weightings. Standardization is not a meeting held only before marks are submitted. It begins when teachers design tasks and choose what evidence students will produce.

The official IB overview describes assessment as direct evidence of achievement, using both external and internal components. It also states that results are determined against set standards rather than each student’s rank in the cohort. That principle should shape classroom language: teachers should describe what the evidence demonstrates, not simply where a student sits compared with classmates.

How to run a marking standardization meeting

Internal assessment moderation aims to support a consistent global standard. Departments can prepare by applying the published criteria, discussing borderline evidence and documenting why a descriptor is the best fit. The objective is not to reverse-engineer an examiner’s personal preference or to inflate marks in anticipation of an adjustment.

Choose standardization samples that expose meaningful disagreements, not only obvious top and bottom work. Have teachers mark independently before discussion, compare criterion-level reasoning and record the interpretation the department will apply to the remaining cohort. Revisit the notes when new evidence or official guidance changes the shared understanding.

• Use the current subject guide as the scope authority.
• Separate comments about student work quality from comments about teacher marking accuracy.
• Discuss criteria one at a time before agreeing an overall mark.
• Record the reason for a changed judgment, not only the final number.
• Use anonymized work where practical to reduce expectation effects.
• Turn moderation feedback into one specific department action for the next cohort.

Worked example: measuring a change in student work

In a hypothetical class of 20, 8 students justify a scientific conclusion with appropriate evidence on a first task. After a teaching intervention, 13 do so on a comparable second task. That is 40% compared with 65%: an increase of 25 percentage points, not 25%. These are invented teaching-example numbers, not IB statistics.

Before claiming that the intervention worked, check whether the same students completed both tasks, the difficulty was comparable and teachers applied the same criterion. Review the actual responses. A change in task wording, extra support or different marking could explain part of the difference.

• Record the criterion, task, date and number of students assessed alongside the percentage.
• Keep a small anonymized sample of work showing what changed.
• Separate students who still need conceptual help from those who understand but do not explain their reasoning.
• Use a later independent task to check whether improvement lasts beyond the lesson.

Related teaching topics

Scope note. Always verify operational decisions in current official IB systems and school policy. These public resources are for professional thinking, not authorization.

Continue reading