This component is out of 20 marks, 10 marks for each presentation and worth 20 percent of your final IB grade. This assessment is internally assessed, then externally moderated by the IB.

Note: these are subject to change, though that rarely happens after the first two years an IA has been assessed.

For the HL extension, a global impression marking rubric has been developed around the following overarching question. “Does the student present a clear, focused and balanced analysis of the case study, highlighting a global political challenge?” The assessment of the presentations is a process of holistic or global judgment around this overarching question rather than an analytical process of totalling the assessment of separate criteria.

Teachers must judge the presentations against the global impression marking rubric using the level descriptors. The aim is to find the level descriptor that conveys most accurately the level attained by the student, using a best-fit approach. A best-fit approach in the case of global impression marking means that the performance of students can be uneven across different aspects of the assessment, but it is the overall impression that is most important.

Within a level descriptor, teachers should award the upper mark 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.

The Exemplars:

1. Hong Kong's Homeless and Ebola
2. Poverty in Moldova and Cyberwarfare
3. FGM in Egypt and Transgender Rights in the USA
4. Women's Rights in Saudi & Catalonia Independence
5. Syrian Kurds and Lebanese President
6. Black Lives Matter and Terrorism

Instructions and Tips for Assessing the Exemplars:

• Have a copy of the rubric in front of you
• Note the prompt question at the top of the rubric – the assessment of the presentation is wrapped around this question.
• The presenter cannot achieve levels 4 or 5 without a “clear and focused analysis” or without making a connection to the “wider context of global politics”
• The very clear difference between a level 4 and 5 is, when discussing the wider global political context of the case study, the presenter must demonstrate the “significance of the case” i.e. why is it important, why does it matter globally, but also why does it matter to the presenter. Essentially, "why does your presentation matter?" For example, if you are talking about identity issues in India, we know that in our world today we are facing identity issues across the globe - Cameroon, the US, Russia and so on. So, connecting your case to those stories is important. You need to explain that this isn't something isolated to the country you are researching but rather that it is an international issue that is resulting in conflict and, ultimately, people being hurt (be that physically or emotionally). It is valuable to reference other cases (but not go into detail). However, you can also discuss how the issue is, more generally, a global issue. You might ask, "if we don't uphold international law or prevent conflict in "X" situation, what does that mean when the same thing happens in "Y" country?"
• Access the “cover sheet” file in the link
• Review the cover sheet first so the PI and the context of the presentation are clear prior to watching the presentation
• If it is clear that presenter is reading significantly and consistently from a script, it triggers plagiarism investigations and he or she will be graded down significantly on the rubric for the “understanding of a political issue” component of the rubric.
• Note that the rubric uses the term “different perspectives” and not “counter-claims”. The presenter does not necessarily need a claim and a counter-claim, though that would be fine, they just need different perspectives on the global political challenge.
• At Level 4 the rubric notes an acknowledgement of different perspectives versus an exploration of different perspectives
• As you assess the presentation, you may wish to break the rubric up into the following statements to hone in on each. However, do remember, it is a global impression rubric and not criterion based, so, this should be used more for notetaking purposes than assessment.

– The student demonstrates an excellent understanding of a political issue raised by the case study

– with a clear and focused analysis

– and an exploration of different perspectives on the issue.

– The student analyses the case study within the wider context of global politics,

– illustrating effectively the significance of the case.

Have you:

1. set out what you are going to do, what your argument is / what the debate is?
2. clarified the key terms?
3. stated who the main actors are?
4. given enough information for the reader to understand the case study but at the same time not spent too much time simply providing details of the case study and not actually analysing your political issue?
5. been constantly analyzing or are you simply providing information?
6. explained the significance of all the information you shared in your presentation?
7. shown your knowledge of relevant concepts and theories?
8. explained why this case study is part of the global political challenge you have chosen?
9. explained the different perspectives?
10. evaluated and made clear your conclusions?
11. explained what does this case study tell us / explained the implications?

Student are encouraged to identify case studies that are more local in origin with an eye towards using the presentation to analyse the case study within the wider context of global politics. Many (not all) topics selected from the headlines of various news outlets prove rather unmanageable for many (not all) candidates. Candidates can spend time with the more ordinary elements of a case study, avoiding analysis altogether; or, conversely, candidates can dive into analysis untethered to any contextual information.

Over-reliance on one source or a shallow understanding of multiple sources typically results is no more than a satisfactory presentation.

Candidates must be keen to avoid two still-common mistakes:

• Over reliance on reading/memorizing material. Note the subtle difference between a presentation or talk and a formal speech. We are looking to the former as candidates contend with ideas that are complex and multifaceted. A candidate who is knowledgeable and has clearly prepared will not lose marks for the odd stumble or loss of words; however, a candidate who is potentially reading from a script pasted to cue cards or from a screen off camera is vulnerable to accusations of academic dishonesty.
• The two most significant parts to a candidate’s analysis centre on providing multiple perspectives and to place their case study in a global context. Put simply, students must consider case studies from the local levels and work a path to the global, to understand the explicit and implicit connections to the various actors’ (including institutions) perspectives. Trends and patterns should be recognized to reinforce those connections; hence the suggestion to start locally when considering topics. In the end, the candidate does not have to be ‘right;’ but we certainly want to see them work to try and construct a clear and balanced analysis .

As a reminder to teachers and students, for the HL extension, a global impression marking rubric has been developed around the following overarching question: “Does the student present a clear, focused and balanced analysis of the case study, highlighting a global political challenge?” The assessment of the presentations is a process of holistic or global judgement around this overarching question rather than an analytical process of totalling the assessment of separate criteria.