Example #1: Criterion A

In order to be successful, the report should make the learning goal explicit. An element of Ai that candidates can find more challenging is to clearly explain the connection between their learning goal and their personal interest. Instead, the learning goal and the personal interest are often treated as two separate descriptions, without providing a clear explanation of the connection between the two. 

Candidates are asked to explain how a personal interest ‘led to’ a learning goal. To fully address criterion Ai, it is not enough that candidates state the learning goal and describe their personal interest. They also need to address the connection between the two and provide reasons or causes for why there is a connection between the personal interest and the specific learning goal they ended up choosing. 

Successful candidates generate a meaningful learning goal that are a standalone element of their overall goal and not identical to the intended product. The learning goal serves candidates best when it is moving away from simply learning how to create the product, which otherwise often would lack depth and restrict candidates from a worthwhile learning experience, with the only focus being on creating a product. 

Example

Level: 3

The report doesn’t clearly state the learning goal. Although, by reading the first paragraph of the report, we can see that there is a learning intention formulated by the student. This is quite implicit, and we have to try to understand the student rather than finding one explicit place where the learning goal can be found. The student is given benefit of the doubt that their learning goal is to improve their skills in cooking, even if this is not further defined. Due to the weak presence of a learning goal, the personal interest that led to that goal can only be awarded the lowest level of a summary of how the personal interest connects to the learning goal, since we don’t know precisely what the learning goal is. This is a challenging example where there is a learning intention evident for the project, but it’s not very clear, and at the same time there is an account about how it connects to a personal interest — and we’ll have to use a best-fit judgment.

Candidates provide success criteria for their product. Candidates include information about how their product success criteria were ‘appropriate’. For level 5-8 in criterion Aii, it is required that the success criteria presented by the candidate are appropriate, and it cannot be assumed that each reader of the report has specialist knowledge within the specific topic area to be able to judge whether the criteria are appropriate or not. This means that in some way or form it must be clear in the report as to why the specific criteria presented by the candidate are appropriate. Ways of providing this information can be in the narrative in the body of the report, as part of a rubric/table, or other ways that the candidate finds appropriate.

Example

Level: 4

At the beginning of the second paragraph, we can see a clear statement that the intended product is a digital cookbook. Then there’s a description of what the cookbook should be like. After this second paragraph, there are three criteria. Since there are criteria presented, the work moves beyond level 2. At the same time, they are very basic and there is no information showing how or why these criteria are appropriate, so the work doesn’t reach level 5. The work is awarded level 4, since the criteria, together with the description of the intended product in the narrative, does provide some information about the qualities the product should have. A level 3 would have been awarded if there were only a few criteria stated with no further information about what these criteria mean, that is, any criteria at all which is just beyond level 2.

A candidate’s plan should be for achieving the product and only items in the plan relevant to the product itself should be considered when awarding levels for Aiii. Other items (such as writing sections of the report, submitting draft, contacting supervisor, etc.) may be helpful for the candidate in their overall project, but should not be considered when assessing strand Aiii. 

Candidates sometimes neglected to ensure that their plan included how all of the product success criteria should be achieved. The candidates who achieved the greatest success in criterion Aiii clearly identified which of the stated success criteria were being addressed in each stage of the plan. 

Example

Level: 3

Two tables with planning are evident in the report, but only the second is focused on the product. This plan is mainly about the videos, missing other parts of creating the cookbook, and it’s also lacking details, which prevents the work from being described as a detailed plan for achieving the entire product. This means that the work is below a level 5. Further, the plan doesn’t include how to achieve any of the success criteria presented earlier. To fully fit the descriptor of the 3-4 band, the plan should include how to achieve "some" of the success criteria, and for this reason, the work was awarded the lower level of the 3-4 band.