ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: IB COURSE WORK AND EXAMS

EXAMPLE

OUTCOME

A candidate submitted an extended essay which contained two sections of verbatim copied text from two internet sources, more than 100 words in total; the correct links to the sources were included in the bibliography.

While the correct sources were included in the bibliography, the candidate did not include appropriate reference at the point of use in the body of the essay.

No grade, an “N”, was awarded for the EE.

a candidate submitted artistic work which was copied from a painter. The candidateclaimed that they were inspired to work on similar techniques after attending an exhibition of the painter; however, the candidate did not acknowledge the source.

No grade, an “N”, was awarded for the SUBJECT.

The candidate presented the oral assessment based on memorized material from internet sources.

1. No reference was made at any point in the recording to these sources
2. The candidate stated that they were not aware that memorized materials had to be referenced during an oral presentation.

No grade, an “N”, was awarded for the SUBJECT.

Four candidates registered at the same school included memorized information from internet sources in their responses to questions on the paper 3 examination.

No citations were included at any point on the examination scripts.

No grade, an “N”, was awarded for the SUBJECT.

A candidate submitted an essay that was almost entirely plagiarized from an English source which they

translated into Spanish.

No grade, an “N”, was awarded for the SUBJECT.

Subject

Example

Outcome

Economics HL— internal assessment

•Candidate A in order tocomplete the internalassessment task asked apeer, candidate B, from thesame school for support.

•Candidate B shared a draft oftheir work with candidate Aso they could gain a betterunderstanding of thestructure, but specificallyasked them not to use orcopy their work.

•But Candidate A submitted the shared draft work as their own.

Candidate A received no grade, an “N”, was awarded for economics HL.

Candidate B received a level 1 penalty warning letter.

TOK—essay

•Candidate A was working on their final version of theTOK essay and had a conversation with Candidate B, who attended a different IB school.

•Candidate A shared the draft advising it was fine to use part of it, as it was unlikely that any similarities would be discovered.

•Candidate B rewrote part of candidate A’s essay but left many sections unchanged.

Both candidates received a no grade, an “N”, for the subject concerned.

Two candidates submitted identical work for assessment despite the subject teacher advising that candidates must collect and record their own data and write their own conclusions.

Both candidates received a no grade, an “N”, for the subject concerned

Two candidates registered in different IB schools and who were unknown to each other submitted almost identical TOK essays.

Candidate A admitted hiring a third-party essay writing service. Candidate B maintained that they were the author of the essay.

Both candidates received a no grade, an “N”, for the subject concerned.

Example

Outcome

During the completion of the 15- minute video, a candidate used offensive and derogative language against women in front of a live audience.

Candidate received a level 1 penalty warning letter.

The candidate reworked their internal assessment and expanded on it to create their extended essay; however, both pieces showed extensive similarities.

No grade, an “N”, was awarded for both the SUBJECT.

When entering the examination hall, a candidate refused to sit in his allocated desk. Despite being verbally reprimanded by the invigilator, the candidate continued his disruptive behavior and was eventually removed from the examination hall.

The candidate received zero marks for component.

Within a 24-hour period after the examination ending had elapsed, a candidate posted a message on a social media platform expressing how happy they were that one of the questions was the same topic of their extended essay. Details of the question were posted.

Candidate received a level 3a penalty for the subject concerned.

Within a 24-hour period after the examination ending had elapsed, a candidate posted a message on a social media platform sharing a picture of the stimulus used for one of the paper questions.

Candidate received a level 3a penalty for the component concerned.

Within a 24-hour period after the examination ending had elapsed, a candidate shared on a social media platform the content of the paper. The group with access to that chat was composed of candidates in different time zones.

Candidate received a level 3a penalty for the component concerned.