1. What actions would you undertake if for example you feel there are some major weaknesses in the draft?
1.1. I would usually set up a meeting with the student to discuss their progress, understanding, challenges.
1.1.1. I would ask the student first as well, figure out if they are aware of their own weaknesses in whatever they're done. Most of the time, the problem is solved - then and there. Also informing the EEC or sitting with them and the student in a meeting
1.1.1.1. I agree that if the student takes it serioiusly, it wouldn't have to be escalated to the coordinator initially.
1.2. If it is a case of lack of effort, then I refer the issue to our principle and decide whether to call student into a formal meeting or e-mail the parents.
1.2.1. I agree. We are completely free. Students pay for nothing and we can't afford to allocate monetary resources for students who don't try or don't care - if they are trying, but just performing poorly, we don't threaten to remove them... but if they won't try and refuse support, then we call in te admin....
1.3. I would schedule a meeting/confer with the EE Coordinator to discuss a remediation plan, especially if this occurs past a deadline.
1.4. I would schedule a meeting with the student to discuss the problems with the draft, and would also inform the DP coordinator to ensure they are aware. I would provide both written and verbal feedback.
1.5. I would arrange a meeting with the individual student and provide detailed written and verbal feedback. I would also keep the EE coordinator in the loop.
1.5.1. I think the meeting with the student is essential. Sometimes I have students with accommodations because they struggle with planning. I try to help them do their outline by asking them questions, so they have a better idea of what they have done and what they should do to improve it.
1.6. I er on the side of caution generally and get the coordinator and parent involved early in the process. The Draft stage is quite late for significant weaknesses to be overcome. A push may be needed.
1.6.1. I agree! At this point I would schedule a meeting with the student first but let them know that we are going to enlist the help of the EE coordinator and their parents.
1.7. I would schedule a meeting with the student to discuss this but I would keep my DP coordinator informed of the conversation/outcomes as I may need to lean on them for support.
1.8. I would do a one one moeting and I would likely model psitive proactive actions they could take.
1.9. ○ I would reach out to the IB coordinator for advice on how to best approach this.
1.10. I would also talk to the student about their draft, and how they feel about it. Sometimes, in these situations, students acknowledge that they were in a rush/had poor time management/etc. and therefore just 'had to submit something', even though it was not a strong draft. Usually, these students then commit to doing better for the final task. However, sometimes students simply submit work that isn't strong. Either way, I would have this conversation with the student and perhaps see if they can self-identify areas to improve. That way, I can focus my feedback more on elements that need to be improved that they are not aware of.
2. How could you deal with common errors found in the first draft amongst many students?
2.1. I think I would present the students with the list of common errors, and invite them to reflect on how successful they have been in avoiding these common issues.
2.1.1. Using a list of common errors makes so much sense!
2.1.1.1. I agree - I think a list of common errors would be very useful. I wonder if there is something already out there.
2.1.1.1.1. I think the examiners give guidance on common errors year-by-year. I'm just not sure how to access it or if we even can independently.
2.2. We also try to incorporate them in their research classes pre-emptively or review them if it is a common issue in the cohort.
2.2.1. Having a vertically articulated plan for teaching research skills is something I've been working on.
2.3. I highlight the issues noted in the Subject Specific Criteria and the Score Reports and ask the students to pay attention to these as they re-read their paper.
2.4. so because i'm also the EEC I have a meeting of the end of the year with all the teachers supervising EEs and figure out whatever the overlapping errors are and include them in the research classes for the new academic year.
2.5. I wonder if you could ask the students to check for spelling or grammar errors by running it through Grammarly?
2.6. I usually have a common errors document but this could also be done as a presentation for them.
2.6.1. That is a great idea, i would love to see that document!
2.6.1.1. I sometimes use what other teachers share in groups on social media. you can find good presentations that you can adapt to your group. The presentations show how to structure the EE and give some examples. They also mention some common errors.
2.6.1.2. Yes, I agree with you. Psychology facebook group is a great resouce to collaborate with teachers in relation to all of the assessments
2.6.2. I always create an overall feedback document for the IA too! It's really useful, I also use the examiner's report to inform this document.
3. What elements would you want to include on a final submission checklist?
3.1. I think the checklist would include the general elements of each criterion and more detailed checklist of presentation requirements.
3.1.1. This is a sensible plan. This might be more useful for a student if some specific examples are provided. Perhaps excerpts from stong EE
3.2. Specific elements of presentation, including RQ, MLA/APA/Chicago references & headings, Bibliography, word count
3.3. I have not had to do this for the EE yet as I've only ever supervised one student, but I would bring them together for a presentation session where I go through some of the major errors (perhaps with generic examples to work through) and discuss how to address these.
3.4. Our checklist is broken down into a number of subheadings, but some key features include structure and layout, correct referencing. As well as referring to the RQ consistently in the intro, the essay and conclusion.
3.4.1. Also - conclusions after each section, including all the arguments in the main conclusion
3.5. I would have the presentation aspects broken down, word count, research question and key elements e.g. the introduction, body & conclusion.
3.6. I recently created a checklist for the IA and my students really found it useful. I would like to create one for the EE. As mentioned by others, it would include a lot of presentation elements but could also include reference to the criterion strands.
3.7. I also use a checklist for the IA. it helps a lot to keep track on everything. Ther them and for me. It will be a good idea to do the same with the IA :)
3.8. Presentation for sure
3.9. I would link this to the criteria. In particular, criterion D would be easy to do as a checklist. I have previously used an EE submission checklist from John Crane's InThinking Psychology.
3.10. Layout, referencing, content page, conclusion, Correct RQ, viva
3.10.1. yes - definitely referencin, layout, contents, word count etc. The things that are easily checked!
3.11. I agree with the other comments... so I might add: Something I'd like to see on a final submission checklist is a word count ;-) I also think it might be useful if students submitted a self assessment based on the rubric and predicted their own grade. I am probably in the minority here, but I am hoping that this might help discourage students from handing in something "just to hand something in."
4. I agree with this.
5. I agree with this - speak to the EE coordinator, possibly let the Head of Sixth form know too, so they are aware, and call in the student for a formal meeting
6. What would you seek to communicate verbally?
6.1. I would communicate the general issues that I found in the draft
6.1.1. I would talk about gerneral issues and to check unserstanding and authenticity.
6.2. I would discuss the comments with them if something is not clear, or they would like to understand further
6.3. I would be surer to answer any questions the student asks and encourage them to take notes on thos comments.
6.4. I'd want to find positive things to say, and reassure the student that revising and editing is part of the process, so they don't feel overwhelmed by whatever work remains.
6.4.1. I agree that the verbal feedback should be quite positive at the beginning and the end. The middle part of the conversation is when I would get in to the areas of improvement.
6.5. To be honest I find verbally communicating all the written feedback points, and expanding and explaining is really helpful to students. A lot of my students are not good at reading written feedback, or they scan over it and don't actually understand it. I think have the verbal feedback also provides the student with the opportunity to ask any direct questions.
6.5.1. I agree with this point - I definitely think it is worth sitting down with them and going through feedback as a lot of the time they have clarifying questions.
6.5.1.1. I also agree with this point. They have a tendency to forget verbal feedback anyway - so verbal and written focusing on the same info would be useful
6.6. I would use this time to clarify the the comments made, praise the best aspects and answer questions asked by the student.
6.6.1. I agree. Clarifying is a good way to reinforce what needs to be more evident.
6.7. I'd start with the positives, appreciate the good work, then more in to the inquiry based questions or ask for feedback, and open the floor to the student to discuss whatever.
6.7.1. I like this point - the verbal communication is a good time to develop those relationships for learning, and to help students get motivated and feel like they're doing a good job, before sending them away with a big to-do list.
6.8. I would ask them to justify and explain decisions they have taken. I'd ensure they had a good undertanding of the topic they are investigating
6.8.1. I agree with this, and I would specify that the student should explain their investigation to people who are not supervisors nor students in psychology but family members or friends because if they do not understand what their topic and explanation, then it means it needs to be improved.
6.9. Verbally, I feel I could weave more inspiration or constructive criticism in. I mioght say "I like what you did here," and "Here I am a bit confused, I don't see that you......" Then I could be more explicit with what is missing or weak...
6.10. I would discuss trickier/weaker elements verbally, as this would allow me to deliver it more gently to the student and also potentially weave in some positive feedback too (like a compliment sandwich - positive, constructive criticism/feedback, positive).
6.10.1. I would also take this as an opportunity to clarify anything that the student may not understand or that they may need further guidance on. This would be a good chance for dialogue with the student, and also allow them to ask questions - e.g., often they can say, "I wasn't sure about this part, what would you suggest?"
7. The honest truth is that most feedback for the students has to be communicated both verbally and in writing.
7.1. I agree with this - I think verbal feedback allows for things like sensitivity and checking for understanding, but written feedback can help provide clarity and ensure both people are on the same page!
8. What would you write down on a separate response sheet?
8.1. I usually write down a summary of comments (probably the ones shared verbally) at the end of the draft, so they can keep track of them. And they can write notes next to any points discussed.
8.2. General questions/issues followed by a criterion by criterion list of guiding questions.
8.2.1. I would probably format this so that the student had space to write notes to respond to each of the questions.
8.2.2. I think I missed this the first time around,b but I like the idea of grouping the comments I have by Criteria.
8.3. Agree - I think my response sheet would be directly linked to the wording used in the assessment criteria.
8.3.1. Yes, the more tailored/structured feedback can be to the rubric, the more effective it is. As long as the strands are put into the students own language or exemplified clearly.
8.4. Perhaps a checklist or a list of guiding questions related to each criterion/strands. This could be used to support students in self-assessing their own work, which could then lead into a verbal discussion.
8.5. Highlight parts of the criterion and add guiding questions to help the student to identify where their response is weakest
8.5.1. I think that using the criterion strands in combination with guiding questions would be a great thing to include on a separate response sheet.
8.5.2. Yes, I agree I would also use the criterion strands and the guiding question for this separate response sheet