Assessing the PEA

Weighting:

• SL: 25%

• HL: 20%

Grade Boundaries

7: 16-20 marks

6: 14-15 marks

5: 12-13 marks

4: 10-11 marks

3: 7-9 marks

2: 4-6 marks

1: 0-3 marks

Word Count: the written report must not exceed 2,000 words. Work which falls significantly below 2,000 words is unlikely to fully meet the stated requirements of the task, and is likely to receive low marks. A word count must be included as part of the report. If the word limit is exceeded the teacher’s assessment must be based on the first 2,000 words.

Note: Moderators will not read beyond 2,000 words of the report.

The following are not included in the word count.

• • Acknowledgments

  • Contents page

  • Tables of statistical data

  • Diagrams or figures

  • Equations, formulae and calculations

  • Citations (which, if used, must be in the body of the written report*)

  • References (which, if used, must be in the footnotes/endnotes**)

  • Bibliography

  • Appendices.

Additional Notes Regarding the Write-up

• No identifiers i.e. your name, school or session number should not appear on your PEA

• Assume the person reading your PEA has no familiarity with the issue or the area of the world you live in. For example, referring to Hong Kong as an "SAR" needs to be both spelled out (Special Administrative Region of China) and explained (this is the designation used for areas under Chinese control but given administrative independence under the "one country, two systems" agreement. For Hong Kong this occurred when the UK returned control of Hong Kong to China in 1997).

• Do not divide the report into the four criteria.

• Value: 4 Marks

• Requirements:

  • 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?

• In order to be eligible for all four marks, you need to be able to answer the following with a definitive, "yes".

  • Have you explicitly stated your political issue?

  • Have you introduced your political issue in the context of a piece of our course content and explained how it is related? You will dig into this further as part of the the analysis and synthesis, but need to introduce the connections in your introduction.

  • Is your political issue actually political? "My engagement was to work on my health by visiting the gym three times a week and tracking the results" - this is not political. "Obesity is a problem in my country so I interviewed a government official responsible for health and wellness in our region to explore what is being done to address the issue" - this is political.

  • In three to four sentences, have you explained why you are interested in the political issue?

• Value: 4 Marks

• Requirements:

  • Is the description of the engagement and of what the student actually did clear and relevant for their chosen political issue?

Have you written clearly and explained well how the engagement was relevant for your political issue. It should not be difficult to meet the expectations of this criterion. Importantly, as part of this explanation you should clearly explain why you chose the engagements you did and why you felt they were relevant for the PEA.

• • Is there a clear explanation of the ways in which the student’s experiences informed his or her understanding of the political issue

This is best discussed as part of your analysis and synthesis, discussing it separately, particularly as part of the description noted in the previous bullet, will likely result in you having to repeat yourself when doing your analysis and synthesis. Students rarely provide a clear explanation of how their engagement informed their understanding of the political issue. Ask yourself, "what lessons did I learn about the political issue from my engagement activities?" In fact, you are encouraged to use this wording as examiners are looking specifically for the lessons you learned. Oftentimes students get caught up in the explanation of the engagement and forget to address this aspect of the criterion. This analysis component of the criterion is important and shouldn’t be neglected. Students will not achieve full marks without doing so.

• Like your connection to the course content in criterion A, you will develop the role your engagement played in exploring your political issue as part of your analysis and synthesis write-up. Look at this section as situating the engagement within the context of the political issue.

• Value: 6 Marks

• Requirements:

  • To what extent does the student analyse the political issue?

  • To what extent does the student justify his or her main points?

• The political issue is explored in depth, using the key concepts of the course where relevant, and the response contains clear critical analysis.

The name dropping of terms like “realist”, “liberal”. “sovereignty” or “globalization” without context does not make for analysis. Furthermore, theoretical foundations like realism and liberalism are specifically developed in the context of international relations. Students often attempt to “shoehorn” realism or liberalism into the reason behind a local situation.

Students should address the PI with evidence and demonstrate a “working out” of the issue throughout this criterion. Often the PI was ignored throughout the analysis and some other component or solution discussed. This is the familiar pieces of advice - refer often to the question you have asked. Ensure discussion of the political issue sits at the forefront of your analysis and synthesis section.

• All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified.

Students need to ensure they support the claims they have made. This could include an example from the engagement, a real-life example or, more often political theory. This was done rarely and as a result, students struggled to access the top level descriptor.

Many students made claims that are not supported by proper references or citations. Some students either developed their own standard of referencing or simply did not cite their sources at all. This does have an impact on the “extent the student justifies his or her main points.”

• Value: 6 Marks

• Requirements:

  • 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?

• The student’s experiences and more theoretical perspectives are synthesised so that an integrated and rich treatment of the political issue ensues.

Are you ensuring that you have blended both your academic research with your engagement experiences. You should bounce back and forth between the two in your writing in order to demonstrate synthesis.

• Conclusions are clearly stated, balanced and consistent with the evidence presented.

This is an easy one, make sure your conclusion is clear, notes both perspectives and is consistent with what you've been stating in your analysis and synthesis.

• There is evidence of evaluation of the political issue from multiple perspectives.

Perspectives is broad and there are a lot of opportunities. This could mean looking at the issue from a local and national perspective, from a religious and ethic perspective, from a realist and liberal perspective, or, most commonly, from the perspectives of two or more different actors involved in the issue. For example, if you are exploring the impacts of “voluntarism” on the local and national development of Tanzania, then you might look at it from the perspective of a local business and an NGO or from the perspective of the teachers of the school you volunteered at and from a neo-colonial perspective.