Engagement Activity

Engagement Activity Assessment Criteria

Assessment

Engagement activity

Duration: 20 hours

Weighting: 25% at SL; 20% at HL

Written report on a political issue explored through engagement and research

Students are required to write a maximum 2,000-word written report in which they explain what they learned about their chosen political issue through their engagement, and analyse and evaluate the issue, supported by additional complementary research. The requirements of the task are the same at both SL and HL. The maximum mark for the written report is 20 marks and it is assessed using assessment criteria.

Using assessment criteria

For the engagement activity, a number of assessment criteria have been identified. Each assessment criterion has level descriptors describing specific achievement levels, together with an appropriate range of marks. The level descriptors concentrate on positive achievement, although for the lower levels failure to achieve may be included in the description.

Teachers must judge the written report at SL and at HL against the criteria using the level descriptors.

  • The same assessment criteria are provided for SL and HL.
  • The aim is to find, for each criterion, the descriptor that conveys most accurately the level attained by the student, using the best-fit model. A best-fit approach means that compensation should be made when a piece of work matches different aspects of a criterion at different levels. The mark awarded should be one that most fairly reflects the balance of achievement against the criterion. It is not necessary for every single aspect of a level descriptor to be met for that mark to be awarded.
  • When assessing a student’s work, teachers should read the level descriptors for each criterion until they reach a descriptor that most appropriately describes the level of the work being assessed. If a piece of work seems to fall between two descriptors, both descriptors should be read again and the one that more appropriately describes the student’s work should be chosen.
  • Where there are two or more marks available within a level, teachers should award the upper marks if the student’s work demonstrates the qualities described to a great extent; the work may be close to achieving marks in the level above. Teachers should award the lower marks if the student’s work demonstrates the qualities described to a lesser extent; the work may be close to achieving marks in the level below.
  • Only whole numbers should be recorded; partial marks, (fractions and decimals) are not acceptable.
  • Teachers should not think in terms of a pass or fail boundary, but should concentrate on identifying the appropriate descriptor for each assessment criterion.
  • The highest level descriptors do not imply faultless performance but should be achievable by a student. Teachers should not hesitate to use the extremes if they are appropriate descriptions of the work being assessed.
  • A student who attains a high achievement level in relation to one criterion will not necessarily attain high achievement levels in relation to the other criteria. Similarly, a student who attains a low achievement level for one criterion will not necessarily attain low achievement levels for the other criteria. Teachers should not assume that the overall assessment of the students will produce any particular distribution of marks.
  • It is recommended that the assessment criteria be made available to students.
Assessment criteria for the written report
Criterion A: Identification of issue and justification (4 marks)
  • Is the political issue explored through the engagement identified?
  • Is there a clear explanation of why this particular engagement and political issue are of interest to the student?
  • Is there a clear link between the engagement and political issue on one hand and course content on the other hand?
MarksLevel descriptor
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 The political issue raised by the engagement is implied but not explicitly identified. There is some limited explanation of why the student chose this engagement. There is some link between the engagement and course content.
3–4 The political issue explored through the engagement is clearly and explicitly identified. There is a clear explanation of why this engagement and political issue are of interest to the student. There is a clear link between the engagement and political issue on one hand and course content on the other hand.
Criterion B: Explanation of the engagement (4 marks)
  • Is the description of the engagement and of what the student actually did clear and relevant for their chosen political issue?
  • Is there a clear explanation of the ways in which the student’s experiences informed his or her understanding of the political issue?
MarksLevel descriptor
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 There is a description of the engagement and of what the student actually did. There is some limited explanation of what the student learned about global politics from undertaking the engagement.
3–4 The description of the engagement and of what the student actually did is clear and relevant for their chosen political issue. There is a clear explanation of the ways in which the student’s experiences informed his or her understanding of the political issue.
Criterion C: Analysis of issue (6 marks)
  • To what extent does the student analyse the political issue?
  • To what extent does the student justify his or her main points?
MarksLevel descriptor
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 There is some attempt at analysis of the political issue but the response is largely descriptive. Few of the main points are justified.
3–4 There is some critical analysis of the political issue but this analysis lacks depth. The response is more descriptive than analytical. Some of the main points are justified.
5–6 The political issue is explored in depth, using the key concepts of the course where relevant, and the response contains clear critical analysis. All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified.
Criterion D: Synthesis and evaluation (6 marks)
  • To what extent does the student synthesize his or her experiences and research in the discussion of the political issue?
  • To what extent does the student show evidence of evaluation, underpinned by his or her experiences and adequate research, to allow multiple perspectives on the political issue?
MarksLevel descriptor
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 There are limited links between ideas. There are no conclusions, or the conclusions are not relevant.
3–4 There are some links between the student’s experiences and more theoretical perspectives on the political issue. Conclusions are stated but are not entirely consistent with the evidence presented. Multiple perspectives are acknowledged, where relevant.
5–6 The student’s experiences and more theoretical perspectives are synthesised so that an integrated and rich treatment of the political issue ensues. Conclusions are clearly stated, balanced and consistent with the evidence presented. There is evidence of evaluation of the political issue from multiple perspectives.