Educerie · IB Diploma · Digital Society
Topic 1 — Topic test · mark scheme
One mark per distinct point unless a band is specified. Real, named examples are credited throughout; generic references ("some companies", "social media") are not, and an answer relying entirely on them is capped at half the available marks for that part.
1Identity — 5 marks
(a) [2]
| How a person presents and understands themselves, which digital systems shape and mediate | 1 |
|---|---|
| Recognises that digital identity may be curated, plural, anonymous or pseudonymous — and need not correspond to offline identity | 1 |
(b) [3]
| Explains that profiling systems infer characteristics from behavioural data — browsing, purchases, location, connections | 1 |
|---|---|
| The system assigns a category the person did not choose: a credit band, a risk score, an advertising segment | 1 |
| The person is typically unaware of the classification and cannot contest or correct it, yet decisions affecting them are made on its basis | 1 |
The third mark is the discriminating one: the harm is not the categorisation itself but the combination of invisibility and consequence. An answer that stops at "companies track you" scores 1.
2Power — 4 marks
| Identifies that the platform decides what content reaches whom, exercising power over attention without formal authority | 1 |
|---|---|
| Explains the asymmetry: the platform can see and adjust the system; users cannot see the criteria, verify decisions or appeal them | 1 |
| Extends beyond users to third parties who depend on the platform — publishers, small businesses — who can lose their audience through a change they do not control | 1 |
| Addresses accountability: the party with power to change the system is not the party bearing the consequences, and there is no external review | 1 |
A named example (a specific platform and a specific algorithm change) should be credited within these marks, not in addition. An answer describing how ranking algorithms work technically, without addressing power, scores a maximum of 1.
3Algorithmic bias — 4 marks
| The system is trained on historical hiring data — records of past selection decisions | 1 |
|---|---|
| If past decisions favoured a particular group, the model learns that pattern as a predictor rather than recognising it as past preference | 1 |
| Identifies proxy variables: features such as postcode, institution attended or employment gaps correlate with protected characteristics even when those are removed | 1 |
| Notes that the effect is applied at scale and with an appearance of objectivity, making it harder to detect and to contest | 1 |
An answer attributing the bias to deliberate discrimination by the developers scores a maximum of 1. The syllabus point is that bias is a systemic property of data and design, not of intent.
4Values and consent — 7 marks
(a) [2]
| One valid value, e.g. privacy, anonymity, freedom of assembly, autonomy | 1 |
|---|---|
| A second, conflicting value, e.g. security, public safety, crime prevention | 1 |
The two must genuinely conflict. "Privacy and data protection" is one value named twice — award 1.
(b) [5] — banded:
| Band | Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Strengths and limitations both developed with specific mechanisms, plus a judgement that distinguishes what consent is effective for from what it fails at | 5 |
| 4 | Both sides developed; judgement present but general | 4 |
| 3 | Both sides present, one substantially thinner; limited or no judgement | 3 |
| 2 | One side developed only | 2 |
| 1 | Generic assertions about privacy with little reference to consent | 1 |
| 0 | Nothing creditable | 0 |
Indicative content — strengths: establishes a legal basis for challenge; forces disclosure of practices; gives regulators an enforceable standard; makes previously invisible processing visible. Limitations: agreements too long and technical to be read; consent bundled so the service cannot be had without unrelated processing; no meaningful alternative where the service is socially or professionally necessary; consent fatigue producing reflexive acceptance; burden of protection placed on the individual least able to assess risk.
A top-band judgement typically holds that consent is necessary but not sufficient — effective for transparency and accountability, ineffective as individual protection — and concludes that limits on collection itself are required. Award band 5 only where the judgement is this specific; "it has advantages and disadvantages" is band 3 at best.
Mark distribution
| Split | Allocation |
|---|---|
| By sub-topic | 1.1 Change, expression and identity 5 · 1.2 Power, space and systems 4 · 1.3 Values and ethics 11 |
| By objective | AO1 knowledge 4 · AO2 application and analysis 11 · AO3 synthesis and evaluation 5 |
| By command term | Explain 11 · Evaluate 5 · Define 2 · Identify 2 |
Total: 20 marks
Educerie · original mark scheme for original questions, written against the published IB syllabus structure for Digital Society Topic 1, first assessment 2024. Last reviewed 5 September 2026.