Assessment-Fieldwork.

Standard Level
2 Written papers 3 hours 80%

 __ Paper 1 __ 1½ hours 40% Three questions, based on the core theme. Candidates are required to answer __two__ questions. The maximum mark for each question is 20.  __ Paper 2 __ 1½ hours 40% Eleven questions on the optional themes. Candidates are required to answer __two__ questions. The maximum mark for each question is 20. 

Resource booklet
This booklet contains relevant stimulus and data material for structured questions.  Internal Assessment

Standard Level 20%
__Coursework__

One piece of coursework (approximately 1500 words) are to be internally assessed and externally moderated by the IBO.

Geography Levels These notes clarify what is included in the word count. There is still misunderstanding about what is counted in textboxes and annotations, and some students have been trying to avoid the word limit by putting information that should be in the main body of the text in long annotations. This is not permitted, and any annotations that are over 10 words will be included in the word count. Label: 10 words or less Annotation: more than 10 words Title page Acknowledgments Contents page Titles, and subtitles Citations, references and bibliography Footnotes—up to a maximum of 15 words Appendices—containing only raw data and/or calculations Photographs Map legends and/or keys Labels—of 10 words or less Tables—of statistical or numerical data, or categories, classes or group names Calculations Annotations: every word Main text: the introduction, hypotheses, analysis, and conclusion and evaluation, wherever these appear
 * //1. //****// 0-19 //**
 * //2. //****// 20-36 //**
 * //3. //****// 37-46 //**
 * //4. //****// 47-58 //**
 * //5. //****// 59-69 //**
 * //6. //****// 70-81 //**
 * //7. //****// 82+ //**
 * ** A ** || = Aims and Hypothesis = || ||
 * 0 || There is no aim or hypotheses || ||
 * 1-2 || The aims are neither realistic nor clearly focused. There are hypotheses but these are not justified. The locational context and theoretical background provided are limited. || ||
 * 3 || The aims are focused and there is an appropriate hypothesis with justification. The locational context and theoretical background are sound, but treatment of one may be better than the other. || ||
 * 4-5 || The aims are well focused and there is an appropriate hypotheses with justification. The locational context and theoretical background are strong and there is a clear link between them. || ||
 * ** B ** || ** Methods of data collection ** || ||
 * 0 || No primary data || ||
 * 1-2 || There is only a brief statement of the methods used for data collection and these may be inappropriate to the research. As a result there is little data and it is generally of an inappropriate type or of poor quality. Very limited knowledge of sampling techniques. || ||
 * 3 || There is an adequate description of methods and they are appropriate to the research. There is an adequate amount of primary data. Where relevant some knowledge of sampling techniques is evident. || ||
 * 4-5 || There is a clear description and justification of methods used for data collection. The methods used are appropriate and accurate, sometimes inspired and produce data of high quality. Where relevant good knowledge of sampling techniques is evident. || ||
 * ** C ** || ** Data Presentation and processing. ** || ||
 * 0 || No evidence || ||
 * 1-2 || The presentation of data is poor. Illustrations and written technique of inadequate. There is an absence of maps or they are limited and reveal a narrow range of mapping skills. Limited graphical techniques. Statistical may be missing or applied out of context or inaccurately calculated. Heavy dependence on secondary data. || ||
 * 3 || Presentation of data illustrations and written technique is adequate. Maps included demonstrating some variety of skills. An appropriate, if limited, range of graphical techniques. Statistics are used and there is some understanding of their significance. || ||
 * 4-5 || Presentation of data, illustrations and written text is good. Maps demonstrate a good variety of mapping skills. There is a wide range of relevant and sometimes imaginative graphical techniques. There is competent and through use of statistics and where appropriate tests of significance. || ||
 * ** D ** || ** Interpretation and Analysis ** || ||
 * 0 || No reference to aims and hypotheses and no discussion. || ||
 * 1-2 || The descriptions are brief with little discussion and little reference to aims, hypothesis and theory. The report reveals that there is generally little depth of understanding. || ||
 * 3-4 || There is an attempt to provide an adequate reference to aims, hypotheses and theory. The descriptions of findings presents a simplistic argument either accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. The report reveals that there is limited understanding. There is some reference to maps and illustrations. || ||
 * 5-6 || There is a reasonable attempt to refer to aims and hypotheses and theory. The description of the findings presents a sound argument accepting or rejecting hypotheses. The report reveals some depth of understanding in the discussion. Attempts are made to explain anomalies. There are references to all maps and illustrations. || ||
 * 7-8 || There is a good attempt to refer to aims and hypotheses and theory. The description of the findings presents a reasoned and balanced argument accepting or rejecting hypotheses. The report reveals a depth of understanding in discussion. Attempts to explain anomalies are good. There are clear references to all maps and illustrations. || ||
 * 9-10 || There is a very clear interpretation of the results with strong references to aims and hypotheses and theory. The description of the findings presents a well-reasoned, balanced and critical argument either accepting or rejecting hypotheses. The report reveals a good level of understanding and the discussion is sophisticated and detailed. Attempts are to explain anomalies in results are very good. There are very clear references to all maps and illustration used. || ||
 * ** E ** || ** Conclusion and Evaluation ** || ||
 * 0 || No conclusions || ||
 * 1-2 || Basic conclusions or inconsistent with data presented in report. May attempt to provide a summary of results. There is some attempt to evaluate the methods of data collection and processing. There is no recommendation for improvements or extensions. || ||
 * 3 || The conclusions are adequate and some attempt has been made to evaluate the methods of data collection and processing. There are brief recommendations for improvement. || ||
 * 4-5 || The conclusions are sound and consistent with the data presented in the report. Methods of data collection and processing have been evaluated clearly. There are some good and sometimes imaginative recommendations for improvements or extensions. There may be some suggestions for modifying hypotheses. || ||
 * Word count—2007 clarification **
 * Definitions **
 * Words not included in the word count **
 * Words included in the word count **

Check List  Type in the content of your page here.