Computer science

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2020

International Baccalaureate® | Baccalauréat International® | Bachillerato Internacional®
May 2020 subject report Computer science

Contents

Standard/higher level internal assessment 3

Page 2 / 4
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2020
May 2020 subject report Computer science

Standard/higher level internal assessment

Most schools submit well-organized student folders which consist of a root directory with the teacher's
marking decisions, the required cover page, one product folder and one documentation folder (video and
criteria). It is worthwhile for schools to double-check the uploaded folder for corrupted files/video since
an examiner will moderate the work as it is presented, and corrupted files will not be credited.

Range and suitability of submissions

Students usually embark on projects for a real client with a clear need. Unfortunately, some students still
decide on a product first and then find a client to match. This approach tends to result in superficially
addressed assessment criteria.
The best IAs demonstrate extensive client interaction, detailed documentation and a combination of
software types (such as Java or Python with MySQL, HTML, PHP, MS Access, control systems). The weakest
projects were little more than poorly documented class exercises (like a two-table database in MS Access,
a static website, a hard-coded text-based adventure game).

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A
Generally, well done. Evidence of client interaction is now routinely included, but the quality varies widely
and is often not meaningful. To achieve in the highest level descriptor, candidates must consult the client
about the issues of the current situation and use this information in their description of the scenario.
Criteria for Success (CfS) do not have to be comprehensive, but they must be a sufficient number, specific
enough and testable. Inadequate CfS will have an impact in other criteria such as Criterion B (test plan),
Criterion D (functionality) and Criterion E (evaluation).

Criterion B
To achieve in the highest level descriptor, candidates must provide detailed algorithmic design. In most
cases there was a wide variety of design components but limited detail of data structures and non-
standard algorithms. This also impacts on the level of Ingenuity demonstrated in Criterion C.

Criterion C
Students struggled to explain the use of tools and techniques. Unfortunately, most candidates only
produced a descriptive narrative with unexplained code excerpts.

Criterion D
Most videos did not show full functionality of the solution with sufficient test data and error-handling.
Similarly, most candidates do not provide sufficiently detailed documentation (technical design and
annotated code) to allow for easy modification of the product. If the code is not accessible in any way (for
example only an executable product without separate code listing) then the product cannot be extended.

Criterion E
Evidence of client feedback is now routinely included, but the quality varies widely and is often not
meaningful. To achieve in the highest level descriptor, it must be demonstrated that clients have

Page 3 / 4
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2020
May 2020 subject report Computer science

evaluated the solution against the CfS (with evidence in appendix) and candidates must use this feedback
in their own evaluation of the solution against all CfS.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Students should be guided to:
• consult a client about the issues of the current situation and use that information to describe
the scenario in Criterion A
• give a rationale for both product and software (potentially including alternatives)
• spend time and effort to write a sufficient number of specific and testable CfS
• include the actual installation and operation of the solution as the implementation stage in the
Record of Tasks
• describe data structures and non-standard algorithms in the design
• (for the design of database solutions) describe normalization, non-standard queries and
complex macros
• understand the need for the video to demonstrate the full functionality of the solution to the
examiner
• include the product in an editable format or at least as an annotated code listing
• fully evaluate the solution against the stated CfS, incorporating client feedback into their own
evaluation.

Further comments
The video is intended to demonstrate to the examiner that the product is a fully functional solution to the
need identified in Criterion A. The vast majority of videos do NOT show full functionality. Addressing the
CfS in the video is a good starting point, but typically not enough (especially if these are limited or
inadequate). An example: inclusion of buttons is NOT a proper success criterion similarly, showing that
a button is included does NOT evidence its functionality.

Page 4 / 4
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2020