Mark boundaries in different schools...

[moneyfaery]

The marks are inflated at the lower end? I can't seem to recall any exceptionally bad IOPs but that's besides the point.

The IOPs won't get moderated so that's that. For other moderation - if the lower end is moderated down due to inflation but the upper end is fine, then only the lower end will be affected. However, if that's the case, the predicted marks are inflated so don't they actually gain?

And it's not really inflation. "Percentages don't exist in IB" is what my last school told me. You only get levels and %s are used as aids to help the teacher better predict the mark conversion. The word conversion implies that nothing is lost and nothing is gained (in science/math anyway which might explain why those teachers are doing things correctly ). What universities further convert the levels to - that's their business. Teachers should be mainly concerned with the IB levels and not OH NO, THE MARK DISTRIBUTION IS OUTSIDE THE NORM, LET'S "FIX" IT. You can't pick and choose what you reject and embrace in math.

[Mr. Shiver]

The marks are inflated at the lower end?

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I'm not the best judge about this.

What I do know, though, is that to get a 4 using IB grade boundaries you need 14-17 out of 30, and to get a 4 in our class you need to get a 21-23 out of 30.

So either the teachers are giving students marks they think the students deserve but they don't realize they're underpredicting, or they actually think the students deserve those levels but don't realize that the marks they're giving translate to higher levels. And I'm assuming it's a little bit of both, because I'm pretty sure the teachers are focusing on both the mark and level at this point, and not just the mark (which is the only thing they should be concerned about).

Also, the fact that there's a low marking range mainly within the 20s (/30) should mean that students who got the higher marks are more likely to have deserved them. Although that's not necessarily true, since the subjectivity of English marking complicates everything.

I can't seem to recall any exceptionally bad IOPs but that's besides the point.

Neither can I, really. But I don't think that as a class everyone deserves 6s and 7s, and that's what we'd be getting if our marks were translated using IB grade boundaries. That's a matter of opinion, though.

The IOPs won't get moderated so that's that.

I just meant that if our IOCs get moderated and we're still using the same style of marking, then we'll be moderated down if the moderators think our IA marks have been inflated. And because of reverse translation, I think there would be a greater chance of the moderators thinking that.

For other moderation - if the lower end is moderated down due to inflation but the upper end is fine, then only the lower end will be affected.

That's true in theory, but I guess in practice you also have to consider the subjectivity aspect of the marking, which the moderators might not agree with. It's possible that with the narrow marking range mainly within the 20s making the high end and low end close together could cause these potential disagreements between the teacher and moderator to have an abnormally significant effect on everyone.

Of course, this will all be a completely different story if we use IB grade boundaries for the IOC, but I'm just speculating about what can happen if we're still using reverse translation for grade 12 as well.

However, if that's the case, the predicted marks are inflated so don't they actually gain?

(By "predicted mark", you mean "raw mark", right?)

To answer your question, there's not really any gain. Since we're doing reverse translation, the percentage of the mark out of 30 that was received is also the percentage that the level converts to. So for example if a student got a 22/30, that's a 73% which the teachers convert to a 4, but the 4 doesn't convert to anything different, it's just the same old 73%. If the student deserved the level, then the raw mark out of 30 is the percentage they would be getting anyway. But if the student deserved the mark 22/30, for example (as opposed to deserving the level), then the level given is too low, since a 22/30 according to IB grade boundaries is a 6. Either way, there's no gain.

And it's not really inflation.

It just depends on how you look at it, I guess. If our performance in English internal assessment is measured by levels, then our marks are inflated. But if our performance is being measured by marks, then yeah, it's not exactly inflation. But as I said before, I think the teachers (or teacher, in this case ~_~) are using reverse translation in order to be able to maintain a low marking range in the 20s (/30) allowing for more Ontario-like percentages (70s, 80s, etc.). As you said, "Percentages don't exist in IB", but the teachers in the Lanaguages Department must be so used to Ontario-style percentage marking that they don't want to have to adjust to the IB style, which has a wider marking range. So I do think that if they used IB marking, the wider marking range means we would have to be marked harder, if that makes any sense. And because the moderators use IB style marking, they might think the marking range used on us is too inflated.

PHEW. Those questions took a long time to answer. I just hope I haven't contradicted myself.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[moneyfaery]

Oohh, this will be a fun post to reply to.

What I do know, though, is that to get a 4 using IB grade boundaries you need 14-17 out of 30, and to get a 4 in our class you need to get a 21-23 out of 30.

I think the teacher's ideal of a 4 is screwed up. Our class is clearly above average (95% av in econ, 92% av in bio (I think), 91% av in math :0) and so the majority of the class should be getting 6s, with a few 5s and 7s. Considering how hard most of us work, this isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Neither can I, really. But I don't think that as a class everyone deserves 6s and 7s, and that's what we'd be getting if our marks were translated using IB grade boundaries. That's a matter of opinion, though.

See above. I think I'm perfectly capable of a 6 as to be on par with the world average is nothing less than insulting, especially since we have a somewhat "experienced" school with an extremely high graduation rate (or so I'd like to think).

That's true in theory, but I guess in practice you also have to consider the subjectivity aspect of the marking, which the moderators might not agree with.

Oh, I see what you mean. Further reason why reverse translation should not exist.

It appears I didn't write as much as I thought I would but oh well. The final thing about reverse translation is that it's not consistent with IB marking. Since everything in IB is about consistency (otherwise, why moderate?) this alone should convince teachers to use the global method of marking (regardless if it's "wrong" or "right" since it's what examiners use). I'm sure the teachers are guilty of some fallacious reasoning or some other TOK-related error. Maybe we should bring light to their ways.

Edit: list of fallacies here.

Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"

If the mark distribution is "natural" as in what I've seen in students over the years in teaching, then I am right and so are my methods.

Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things have been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever

The average of students have always been average. Therefore, the average of these students is also average.

I've probably made a few fallacious arguments myself though.

Edited August 26, 2008 by moneyfaery

[Mr. Shiver]

I think the teacher's ideal of a 4 is screwed up.

Yeah, that whole "the world average is a 4" excuse is ridiculous, since IB assessment is criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced.

In order to interpret the assessment criteria, teachers are not supposed to use world averages, they're supposed to use the teacher support material, which has several recordings of example IOCs and moderator comments on how they were marked. If they're not sure how to apply those assessment criteria interpretations to the IOP, then they're supposed to discuss and develop a standard interpretation together for use in class. Or they can use the OCC and discuss the interpretation of assessment criteria for internal assessment with teachers and "online subject specialists" all around the world. That's what it's there for!

The world average should be irrelevant.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[master135]

I agree with moneyfaery. The comment about how a class shouldn't be filled with 5s 6s and 7s (according to IB standards) is not really true. There doesnt always have to be weak kids in a class to have a 'balanced distribution' - which is what Mr.Shiver expects. And its completely true that a teacher shouldnt try to make the world average her own classes's average student's mark.

So either the teachers are giving students marks they think the students deserve but they don't realize they're underpredicting, or they actually think the students deserve those levels but don't realize that the marks they're giving translate to higher levels."

Teacher's shouldn't have a level in mind for a student when marking - they should just look at the rubric provided by IB and follow it. The mark obtained should then be tallied with the boundaries provided by IB.

Edited August 26, 2008 by master135

[Mr. Shiver]

I agree with moneyfaery. The comment about how a class shouldn't be filled with 5s 6s and 7s (according to IB standards) is not really true. There doesnt always have to be weak kids in a class to have a 'balanced distribution' - which is what Mr.Shiver expects.

Hey, don't twist my words! I never said there has to be a "balanced distribution", and if you actually read my posts you'll know that I don't endorse it in any way.

I was simply pointing out, based on my knowledge of how the orals are assessed, that I don't think everyone in our class deserved the marks that translate to the levels (mainly 6 and 7) that we would be getting if proper IB grade boundaries were used on those raw marks. And I already explained why. With the narrow marking range mainly in the 20s, which was used by the teachers to more accurately represent Ontario-style assessment, the raw marks were somewhat inflated according to IB-style assessment.

So either the teachers are giving students marks they think the students deserve but they don't realize they're underpredicting' date=' or they actually think the students deserve those levels but don't realize that the marks they're giving translate to higher levels.[/quote']

Teacher's shouldn't have a level in mind for a student when marking - they should just look at the rubric provided by IB and follow it. The mark obtained should then be tallied with the boundaries provided by IB.

Obviously. I even mentioned that in brackets right after the part of my post you quoted. But I was talking about what they're doing right now (focusing on both the mark and level), not what they're supposed to be doing.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[moneyfaery]

I was simply pointing out, based on my knowledge of how the orals are assessed, that I don't think everyone in our class deserved the marks that translate to the levels (mainly 6 and 7) that we would be getting if proper IB grade boundaries were used on those raw marks. And I already explained why. With the narrow marking range mainly in the 20s, which was used by the teachers to more accurately represent Ontario-style assessment, the raw marks were somewhat inflated according to IB-style assessment.

That was a mouthful. What he means in simple terms is that people at the lower end of the spectrum have inflated marks in regards to the whole; people at the higher end of the spectrum have deflated marks in regards to the whole; and everyone's marks are deflated in regards to the world because of reverse translation... I think. That was also a mouthful.

[master135]

That was a mouthful. What he means in simple terms is that people at the lower end of the spectrum have inflated marks in regards to the whole; people at the higher end of the spectrum have deflated marks in regards to the whole; and everyone's marks are deflated in regards to the world because of reverse translation... I think. That was also a mouthful.

To tell u the truth, I dont think it works that systematically...some random kids (i think) have very inflated marks...but most others are deflated.

[Mr. Shiver]

What he means in simple terms is that people at the lower end of the spectrum have inflated marks in regards to the whole;

Ignoring the subjectivity aspect of the marking, yes.

people at the higher end of the spectrum have deflated marks in regards to the whole;

Because the marking range lies in the higher zone (20s), I don't think deflation is occuring. I think it's more like this: the marks that are given at the higher end are neither inflated nor deflated. Now if the narrow marking range was in the high 10s / low 20s, for example, then most likely at the higher end there would be deflation. That's why the exact location of the range is important, theoretically speaking. And again, this is ignoring the subjectivity aspect, which is beyond anyone's control.

and everyone's marks are deflated in regards to the world because of reverse translation... I think.

Our predicted grades are deflated because of reverse translation. I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to say.

That was also a mouthful.

You got the general idea.

To tell u the truth, I dont think it works that systematically

You're right it doesn't, but let's apply the principle of ceteris paribus; assuming all other things (including subjectivity) remain constant and don't affect the trend. And if you want to try and make a legitimate argument about why reverse translation should be abolished, the existence of subjectivity can't be a factor in the argument (and I realize this means that using subjectivity to make the argument about the higher end being moderated down also makes it a null argument).

Edited August 26, 2008 by Mr. Shiver

[moneyfaery]

Our predicted grades are deflated because of reverse translation. I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to say.

I was referring to predicted throughout the whole thing. Thought you were on about the same.

The only existing argument should be against reverse translation as that's not how IB does it. Any method other than the one IB uses will not be accurate in terms of IB marks. If you want to create your own method of marking - that's fine - just don't teach IB.

I still don't see the argument for why schools use reverse translation. Call me blinded by my beliefs or whatever, but at least I'm not coming up with a garbage excuse to justify why I am marking incorrectly (but in my eyes "correctly") and convinced/threatened/yelled at? the teacher who was marking CORRECTLY, causing them to mark incorrectly.