Reports  Clients  Testimonials  Resources  Order  FAQ  About



ToK Presentation Scores: Increasing Moderation and Declining Scores

One of our client schools experienced moderation of their ToK Presentation scores for the first time in 2016, and their IB Coordinator was wondering if other schools had experienced the same thing.

At IB Score Reports, we see results from many different schools, so we decided to investigate. What we found was really interesting, so we decided to share it.

Method

We created a large sample by pooling the complete results of 30 different schools over the last five years, 2012 through 2016. Results were gathered from each school’s Component CSV files.

Characteristics of the Sample

The 30 schools represent a wide range of programs, from well established to relatively new, from large enrollment to small. The sample includes schools from Asia, Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere. All of the schools participated in May exams, and all had results in each of the last five years. Interestingly, exactly half of the schools in the sample had at least one year in which their average overall ToK score was below the worldwide average.

The sample includes between 1,790 and 2,131 ToK Presentations each year, for a five-year total sample size of 9,973 ToK Presentations.

Summary of Findings

1. More schools experienced moderation of their ToK Presentations in 2016 than 2015.

2. More ToK Presentations were moderated in 2016 than 2015.

3. The degree of moderation increased on ToK Presentations in 2016 from 2015.

4. The maximum degree of moderation increased on the ToK Presentation in 2016 from 2015.

And perhaps most importantly,

5. Final ToK Presentation scores were much lower in 2016 than 2015.

Finding #1

More schools experienced moderation of their ToK Presentations in 2016 than 2015.

In 2012, 2013, and 2014, no schools in our sample experienced moderation.
In 2015… 17 of the 30 schools (57%) experienced moderation.
In 2016… 26 of the 30 schools (87%) experienced moderation.



That none of the ToK Presentations at the 30 schools were moderated in 2012, 2013, and 2014 is not surprising, actually, given that only about 5% of ToK Presentations worldwide were even reviewed in those years.[1] The IBO began moderating ToK Presentation scores by reviewing a sampling of uploaded TK/PPD forms in 2015.[2]

Finding #2

More ToK Presentations were moderated in 2016 than 2015.

In 2012, 2013, and 2014, no ToK Presentation scores were changed as a result of moderation.
In 2015… 697 of 2,090 ToK Presentation scores were changed as a result of moderation (33%).
In 2016… 1,542 of 2,131 ToK Presentation scores were changed as a result of moderation (72%).



Finding #3

The degree of moderation increased on ToK Presentations in 2016 from 2015.

In 2015, when scores changed as a result of moderation, that change averaged 1.13 points.
In 2016, when scores changed as a result of moderation, that change averaged 1.93 points.

In 2015, only 4% of scores were changed by two or more points.
In 2016, more than 46% of scores were changed by two or more points.

We can see this in more detail by looking at the distribution of score changes in 2015 and 2016.



Exact counts and percentages for each of the distributions shown above are presented at the end of this article.[3]

Finding #4

The maximum degree of moderation increased on the ToK Presentation in 2016 from 2015.

In 2015, the highest degree of moderation was 5 points (downward), which was applied twice.
In 2016, the highest degree of moderation was 6 points (downward), which was applied six times.

Finding #5

Final ToK Presentation scores were much lower in 2016 than 2015.

The average and distribution of raw scores were quite similar in 2015 and 2016, as can be seen in the top two charts below.

In 2015, there was a slight downward shift in the distribution of final scores, which is barely noticeable when comparing the two charts on the left.

In 2016, there is a substantial downward shift in the distribution of final scores, which is strikingly apparent when comparing the two charts on the right.

The upshot is that final scores on the ToK Presentation in our sample were much lower in 2016 than 2015, by an average of 1.33 points.



Exact counts and percentages for each of the distributions shown above are presented at the end of this article.[4]

Limitations

Although our sample of 30 schools is quite diverse in terms of location, enrollment, and length of offering the IB Diploma, we do not claim that it is representative of all IB schools, all IB Score Reports client schools, or all IB schools in any particular region. Thus, one should be cautious about generalizing our findings. Our purpose is to share information, and answer a question about what we, at IB Score Reports, are seeing in terms of changes in moderation of the ToK Presentation.

Would You Like To Have IB Score Reports For Your School?

Getting started is easy. Just click here to send us an email: support@acadamigo.com

Endnotes

1. As stated in the IBO document “Theory of Knowledge, May 2015 Subject Report”:

“Until November 2014 about 5% of candidates’ oral presentations were viewed by senior examiners in order to confirm or change the marks awarded by teachers. This procedure was known as verification. Schools knew in advance that they would need to record and send the presentations of (usually) five candidates displaying the range of marks in the cohort. A few schools were selected at random and many were selected because there was cause for concern due to the striking discrepancy in marks in previous sessions between the oral presentation and the essay.” (Return to text)

2. As stated in the IBO document “Theory of knowledge guide: First assessment 2015”:

“Marks awarded by teachers for the presentation will be subject to moderation procedures through sampling of the associated TK/PPD forms that have been uploaded. The objective of this process is to judge whether the contents of the TK/PPD form justify the marks given by the teacher for the presentation.” (Return to text)

3. The following table supports the distributions shown in Charts 3 and 4. (Return to text)

4. The following tables support the distributions shown in Chart 5. (Return to text)