The International Baccalaureate: Guidance Counselling, Predictions and the Middle Years Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Baccalaureate (IB) Middle Years Programme (MYP) has been running for 35 years and the number of schools offering the MYP continues to grow each year, Whatever its educational or philosophical position within the IB programme as a whole, a matter that is sometimes debated, the MYP does ofter guidance counsellors a set of data on the academic progress of students. Yet how this data might be used towards predictions for applications to higher education is apparently not a topic that is much discussed.Predictions in contextGuidance counsellors need to have accurate predictions for university applications around the world. To do so ensures that students have realistic plans for higher education. Naturally a student predicted 30 points in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (DP) would be ill-advised to apply to a degree course that usually demands 41 points. Consistency with predictions also brings trust from university admissions staff. When offering a place to read for a degree they can be reasonably sure that the student concerned is going to perform as expected in the final exams.Yet often teachers are pressurised by students and parents to record overly optimistic predictions. Faced by such pressure teachers need the support of guidance counsellors to hold with reality. Students (and their parents) need the proven data behind the predictions in order to show that their school is supporting them in the best way possible. As to how this support may be provided, this article explores the relationship between predictions, the MYP grades and DP scores, The data has been collected at one international school over five years.The MYP is often compared to the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE), At guidance meetings at an international school parents often ask which system is better for university applications. This comparison is particularly relevant to predictions. Both the MYP and IGGSE are designed to support international students, especially in Years 10 and ll/Grades 9 and 10 (Ellwood 1999: 35). IGCSE is familiar to university admissions staff around the world.For example, in the UK entry to degree courses will usually specify at least a G grade each in IGGSE English language and mathematics; entry to Swiss universities is allowed with certain combinations of IGCSE and A level subjects; some Lander in Germany recognise IGCSE as the equivalent of the Mittlere Reife; and Canadian universities entertain IGGSE science subjects alongside the DP or A levels to support applications to degrees such as engineering. Students aiming for a leading university in the UK would typically have demonstrated their academic excellence by securing a good proportion of their IGGSE grades at A* and A.At guidance meetings these grades can be used as strong evidence for future choices in higher education, a low grade in maths perhaps suggesting that a degree in mechanical engineering might be problematic, although of course there will be many other factors to take into account when making those choices. In addition IGCSE has for many years been successfully employed to prepare students for embarking on the DP (Ellwood 1999: 40).The MYP is less familiar. Even information on how many students follow the programme is 'limited in its usefulness and accuracy (Bunnell 2011: 263). As an overall part of the application process university admissions staff may consider MYP grades, there being the option to record these on the UCAS application form for entry to UK universities, although for most other countries it is the transcript detailing the grades achieved at the end of the last four academic years that is more important.Indeed the University of Cambridge is rare in allowing MYP grades actually to support an application. For, unlike IGGSE, the MYP was never planned as a means of accessing higher education (Stobie 2007: 145). Part of this difference lies with the MYP running broadly as a programme rather than narrowly as a curriculum. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".