To ACE Q3 on the Digital Society Paper 3 exam, the IB dictates that STAGE FOUR needs to be followed and here's an expanded version of STAGE FOUR: Evaluate Interventions and Recommend Steps for Future Action. This expanded framework provides a structured approach for IB DP Digital Society HL students to evaluate digital interventions and develop informed recommendations for future actions. Each criterion includes guiding questions, analytical frameworks, and recommendation templates to support comprehensive evaluation.
N.B. prior to every exam session, the IB will release a specific HL Paper 3 Digital Society Pre-Released Statement, and in this statement, two digital interventions will be proposed.
Step 1: Command Term
Question 3 will use one of the AO3: Evaluation & Synthesis Command Terms, so it is important to first identify the command term used and respond accordingly. One of these command terms will be used:
Compare = Give an account of the similarities between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.
Compare & Contrast = Give an account of similarities and differences between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.
Contrast = Give an account of the differences between two (or more) items or situations, referring to both (all) of them throughout.
Discuss = Offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses. Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence.
Examine = Consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and interrelationships of the issue.
Evaluate = Make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations.
Justify = Give valid reasons or evidence to support an answer or conclusion.
Recommend = Present an advisable course of action with appropriate supporting evidence/reason in relation to a given situation, problem or issue.
To what extent = Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept. Opinions and conclusions should be presented clearly and supported with appropriate evidence and sound argument.
EVALUATION is the major theme in for Q3. The IB will share two interventions, and one or both will need to be evaluated using specific criteria that help students think about implications and form recommendations for future action.
Step 2: Exam Question Prediction
To start with, you can practice responding to Paper 3 Question 3 by using this generic question: Evaluate the two proposed interventions.
Step 3: Evaluate Interventions Using IB-Specific Criteria
Be prepared for the question to specify criterion (e.g. evaluate the intervention(s) in terms of equity, cost and acceptability) in which you need to evaluate the intervention(s). So to best prepare, conduct research in all six evaluation criteria, then apply the evaluation concepts to the interventions. Here's a guide on how to study the six criteria:
1. EQUITY
1.1 Evaluation Questions: Equity
Does the intervention equitably address the needs, claims, and interests of specific people and/or communities affected by the challenge?
How does the intervention impact different demographic groups (considering factors such as gender, age, socioeconomic status, education level, geographic location, disability status, and ethnicity)?
Are there any groups who are systematically excluded or disadvantaged by the intervention?
How does the intervention account for different levels of digital literacy, access to technology, and connectivity?
What power imbalances might exist between the creators of the intervention and those affected by it?
1.2 Analytical Frameworks: Equity (pick one)
Distributive Justice Analysis (Rawls): Apply John Rawls' theory of justice to examine how benefits and burdens are allocated across different groups. Consider the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment and difference principle.
Digital Divide Frameworks (van Dijk, Warschauer): Apply Jan van Dijk's four-stage model of digital access or Mark Warschauer's social inclusion framework to assess how the intervention addresses various levels of digital divide (motivational, physical, skills, and usage access).
Intersectionality Theory (Crenshaw): Use Kimberlé Crenshaw's framework to analyze how multiple social categories (race, class, gender, disability, etc.) combine to create unique modes of discrimination or privilege in relation to the intervention.
1.3 Recommendation Structure: Equity
Short-term adjustments: Changes that can be implemented immediately to improve equity
Medium-term developments: Structural modifications to the intervention design
Long-term systemic changes: Broader policy or ecosystem changes that would support more equitable outcomes
Monitoring mechanisms: Specific metrics and processes to track equity impacts over time
2. ACCEPTABILITY
2.1 Evaluation Questions: Acceptability
Do specific affected people and/or communities view the intervention as acceptable?
What mechanisms exist for transparency about how the intervention works?
How is accountability ensured if the intervention causes harm?
What cultural or social factors might affect acceptability in different contexts?
How do perceptions of the intervention vary across different stakeholder groups?
What trust-building measures have been implemented?
2.2 Analytical Frameworks: Acceptability (pick one)
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis): Apply Fred Davis's framework to assess perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as determinants of user acceptance.
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh): Use this comprehensive model that incorporates performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions to evaluate acceptance.
Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers): Use Everett Rogers' model to analyze how innovations spread through populations and the factors that influence adoption (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability).
2.3 Recommendation Structure: Acceptability
Communication strategies: Improving how the intervention is explained to different audiences
Accountability mechanisms: Systems for redress when problems occur
Community engagement approaches: Methods to increase participation and co-design
Cultural adaptation frameworks: Processes for contextualizing the intervention for different settings
3. COST
3.1 Evaluation Questions: Cost
What are the financial, social, cultural, and environmental costs associated with the intervention?
How are these costs distributed across different stakeholders?
What are the opportunity costs of implementing this intervention instead of alternatives?
How do short-term costs compare to long-term benefits?
What hidden or externalized costs might not be immediately apparent?
How sustainable is the intervention from a resource perspective?
3.2 Analytical Frameworks: Cost (pick one)
Social Return on Investment (SROI): Use this framework to measure the social, environmental, and economic value created by an intervention relative to the resources invested.
Triple Bottom Line (Elkington): Apply John Elkington's framework to evaluate costs and benefits across economic, social, and environmental dimensions ("people, planet, profit").
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (ISO 14040): Use this standardized approach to assess environmental impacts across the entire life cycle of the intervention. LCA is an approach that examines environmental impacts "from cradle to grave" - from raw material extraction through production, distribution, use, and disposal or recycling. It's standardized under ISO 14040 and 14044, which provide principles, framework, requirements, and guidelines for conducting an LCA.
3.3 Recommendation Structure: Cost
Cost optimization strategies: Methods to reduce financial burden while maintaining effectiveness
Resource efficiency improvements: Approaches to minimize environmental impact
Long-term sustainability roadmap: Framework for ensuring continued viability
Value enhancement opportunities: Ways to increase benefits relative to costs
4. FEASIBILITY
4.1 Evaluation Questions: Feasibility
Is the intervention technically, socially, and politically feasible?
What are the current or emerging barriers to implementing the intervention?
How scalable is the intervention across different contexts?
What dependencies exist on other systems, technologies, or stakeholders?
How resilient is the intervention to changing conditions?
What is the timeline for implementation and what critical path dependencies exist?
4.2 Analytical Frameworks: Feasibility (pick one)
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) (NASA/EU): Apply this 9-level scale developed by NASA and adopted by the EU to assess the maturity of technologies from basic principles to proven operational systems.
Stakeholder Power-Interest Grid (Mendelow): Use Aubrey Mendelow's matrix to map stakeholders based on their power to influence outcomes and their interest in the intervention.
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, Callon, Law): Use this approach to map the complex relationships between human and non-human actors in technological systems.
4.4 Recommendation Structure: Feasibility
Technical optimization strategies: Approaches to overcome technical limitations
Stakeholder engagement plans: Methods to build necessary support
Regulatory navigation frameworks: Strategies for addressing legal constraints
Phased implementation roadmaps: Structured approach to staged deployment
Contingency planning: Alternative approaches when barriers are encountered
5. INNOVATION
5.1 Evaluation Questions: Innovation
Is the intervention innovative in its approach or has this approach been unsuccessfully attempted before?
What type of innovation is the intervention? (incremental, sustaining, disruptive, radical)
How does the innovation compare to existing approaches in the field?
What risks are associated with the innovative aspects of the intervention?
How does the intervention balance innovation with reliability and proven methods?
What is the potential for the innovation to create new problems or challenges?
5.2 Analytical Frameworks: Innovation (pick one)
Disruptive Innovation Theory (Christensen): Clayton Christensen introduced this theory in his 1997 book "The Innovator's Dilemma." The theory distinguishes between two types of technological innovations: (1) Sustaining Innovations: Improvements to existing products along dimensions historically valued by mainstream customers. These typically help industry leaders maintain their position by offering better performance to their existing customers. (2) Disruptive Innovations: Initially offer lower performance according to traditional metrics but provide different benefits like simplicity, convenience, accessibility, or affordability. These innovations often start in small or low-end markets that incumbents ignore.
S-Curve Analysis: Use this model to evaluate where an innovation sits in its lifecycle (emergence, rapid growth, maturity, decline).
Henderson-Clark Model: Use this framework to classify innovations as incremental, modular, architectural, or radical based on component and architectural knowledge.
5.3 Recommendation Structure: Innovation
Innovation refinement strategies: Methods to enhance innovative aspects while managing risk
Knowledge gap identification: Areas requiring further research or testing
Failure prevention frameworks: Approaches to avoid pitfalls of previous attempts
Adaptive implementation models: Flexible approaches that can evolve based on feedback
Innovation scaling roadmap: Plan for expanding successful innovations
6. ETHICS
6.1 Evaluation Questions: Ethics
Is the intervention ethically sound according to different ethical frameworks?
How and who determines the ethical status of the intervention?
What values are embedded in the design and implementation of the intervention?
What potential unintended consequences might raise ethical concerns?
How are privacy, autonomy, and human dignity addressed?
What ethical trade-offs were made during the development process?
How are conflicting ethical principles resolved when they arise?
6.2 Analytical Frameworks: Ethics
Ethical Framework Comparison:
Consequentialism/Utilitarianism (Mill, Bentham): Evaluate the intervention based on its outcomes and whether it maximizes overall well-being or utility.
Deontological Ethics (Kant): Assess whether the intervention follows universal moral principles and treats people as ends rather than means.
Care Ethics (Noddings, Gilligan): Evaluate the intervention's ability to maintain caring relationships and responsiveness to needs.
Digital Ethics Principles (e.g., IEEE, EU AI Ethics Guidelines): Apply established frameworks like IEEE's Ethically Aligned Design or the EU's Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI.
6.4 Recommendation Structure: Ethics
Ethical governance frameworks: Structures for ongoing ethical oversight
Value alignment strategies: Methods to better align with stakeholder values
Harm mitigation approaches: Specific steps to address ethical concerns
Ethical design principles: Guidelines for future development
Transparency and accountability mechanisms: Systems to ensure ethical compliance
Extension EVALUATION Areas for HIGH ACHEIVERS
7. SUSTAINABILITY
7.1 Evaluation Questions: Sustainability
How sustainable is the intervention over the long term?
What ongoing resources (financial, human, technical) are required to maintain the intervention?
How resilient is the intervention to changing conditions, technologies, or social contexts?
What is the intervention's lifecycle plan, including eventual retirement or replacement?
How does the intervention contribute to or detract from broader sustainability goals?
7.2 Analytical Frameworks: Sustainability (pick one)
Triple Bottom Line (Elkington): Apply John Elkington's framework to evaluate sustainability across economic, environmental, and social dimensions.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN): Use the United Nations' 17 goals as benchmarks to assess the intervention's contribution to global sustainability objectives.
Circular Economy Model (Ellen MacArthur Foundation): Apply this framework to evaluate how the intervention minimizes waste and maximizes resource reuse.
8. SCALABILITY AND TRANSFERABILITY
8.1 Evaluation Questions: Scaling & Transfer
How effectively can the intervention be scaled to reach more people?
Can the intervention be transferred to different contexts, cultures, or regions?
What aspects of the intervention are context-specific versus universally applicable?
What resources or adaptations would be required for successful scaling or transfer?
What limitations exist on the intervention's potential reach or applicability?
8.2 Analytical Frameworks: Scaling & Transfer (pick one)
Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers): Use Everett Rogers' model to analyze factors affecting adoption across different contexts and populations.
SCALERS Model (Bloom & Chatterji): Apply this framework that identifies seven drivers of scaling social impact: Staffing, Communications, Alliance-building, Lobbying, Earnings generation, Replication, and Stimulating market forces.
Technology Transfer Models (Bozeman): Use Barry Bozeman's contingent effectiveness model to evaluate factors affecting successful technology transfer between contexts.
Integrated Evaluation Framework and Meta-Theories
When conducting a comprehensive evaluation, students should consider these overarching theoretical frameworks that can help integrate multiple criteria:
Socio-Technical Systems Theory (Trist & Bamforth): This theory recognizes the interaction between people and technology in workplaces, emphasizing that interventions must consider both social and technical factors to be successful.
Actor-Network Theory (Latour, Callon, Law): This approach treats objects, ideas, processes, and people as equally important actors in a network, providing a framework for understanding complex technological interventions as heterogeneous networks.
Systems Thinking (Meadows, Senge): This approach emphasizes understanding the whole system rather than just its parts, focusing on connections, feedback loops, and emergent properties.
Technological Determinism vs. Social Constructivism: These contrasting perspectives offer frameworks for understanding whether technology shapes society (determinism) or society shapes technology (constructivism).
When conducting a comprehensive evaluation, students should:
Consider interactions between criteria: For example, how equity considerations might affect acceptability, or how innovation might impact feasibility.
Prioritize criteria based on context: Determine which evaluation dimensions are most critical for the specific intervention being assessed.
Develop integrated recommendations: Create coherent recommendation packages that address multiple criteria simultaneously.
Consider short, medium, and long-term horizons: Structure recommendations across different time frames to support implementation planning.
Identify synergies and tensions: Highlight where recommendations might reinforce or conflict with each other.
Ground recommendations in evidence: Ensure all future action steps are justified by the evaluation findings.
Specify owners and accountability: Clarify who should be responsible for implementing each recommendation.
Step 4: Prepare your written response using the DECIDE framework
The DECIDE Framework for Evaluating Digital Interventions
This framework helps you structure responses that demonstrate "conceptual awareness, insight, and critical thinking" while ensuring your answers are "fully developed, structured in a logical and coherent manner and illustrated with appropriate examples."
Introduction (2-3 minutes)
Clearly identify the specific digital intervention you are evaluating with a real-world named example
Establish context by briefly explaining the digital challenge this intervention addresses
State which evaluation criteria you will focus on (recommend choosing 3-4 from: Equity, Acceptability, Cost, Feasibility, Innovation, Ethics)
Demonstrate conceptual awareness by mentioning which theoretical frameworks you will apply
Main Body: DECIDE Structure (25-30 minutes)
For each chosen criterion (recommend choosing 3-4 from: Equity, Acceptability, Cost, Feasibility, Innovation, Ethics), follow this structure to achieve "sustained evaluation that is relevant and well-supported throughout":
D - Define the criterion and context
Define the criterion using precise terminology specific to digital society
Connect the criterion to relevant concepts from the Digital Society course
Introduce a specific theoretical framework you will apply (e.g., Van Dijk's Digital Divide Framework)
Explain why this criterion is particularly significant for this specific intervention
Ground your definition in the real-world context of the intervention
E - Explore relevant evidence
Present specific evidence from the real-world intervention (e.g., user statistics, implementation reports, stakeholder statements)
Include quantitative and qualitative data where relevant
Ensure evidence is balanced by examining multiple perspectives
Cite specific sources or examples that demonstrate your "familiarity with the literature of the subject"
Distinguish between facts, stakeholder claims, and your own analysis
C - Consider alternatives
Critically compare the intervention with alternative approaches
Reference specific real-world alternatives by name
Demonstrate "awareness of alternative points of view" by examining how different stakeholders view these alternatives
Consider counterfactual scenarios (what might happen without this intervention)
Show "the ability to analyse and evaluate evidence" by weighing alternatives against consistent criteria
I - Investigate impacts and implications
Apply your theoretical framework to analyze strengths and limitations
Demonstrate "the ability to synthesize knowledge and concepts" by connecting this criterion to others
Identify unintended consequences using specific examples
Examine how power structures, cultural contexts, or economic factors influence impacts
Show "awareness of subjective and ideological biases" in how impacts are perceived by different groups
Present a multi-faceted analysis that demonstrates "critical reflective thinking"
D - Develop recommendations
Propose specific, actionable recommendations that address identified limitations
Ground recommendations in both theoretical frameworks and practical realities
Structure as short-term, medium-term, and long-term actions with specific timeframes
Identify who should be responsible for implementing each recommendation
Ensure recommendations demonstrate "a high level of proficiency in problem solving"
E - Evaluate recommendations
Critically assess the potential effectiveness of your recommendations
Identify potential barriers or challenges to implementation
Propose specific metrics or indicators to measure success
Acknowledge limitations in your recommendations
Demonstrate "the ability to come to reasonable, albeit tentative, conclusions"
Conclusion (3-5 minutes)
Synthesize your evaluation across all criteria, showing interconnections
Prioritize recommendations based on your analysis
Provide a nuanced final judgment that acknowledges complexity
Briefly mention broader implications for digital society
End with a thought-provoking insight that demonstrates depth of understanding
Real-World Example Integration
Throughout your answer, consistently reference a specific real-world intervention:
Name the intervention precisely: Use its official title and organization
Provide context details: When launched, by whom, where, target audience
Include specific features: Describe actual components or mechanisms
Cite actual outcomes: Reference documented results or impacts
Mention real stakeholders: Identify groups or organizations involved
Reference actual challenges: Discuss documented difficulties or limitations
Cite legitimate sources: Mention reports, studies, or news coverage
Example Intervention Types:
A specific digital platform (e.g., Estonia's e-Residency program)
A named government initiative (e.g., Singapore's Smart Nation Sensors)
A corporate technological solution (e.g., M-Pesa mobile payment system)
A non-profit digital project (e.g., One Laptop Per Child)
A particular digital policy (e.g., GDPR implementation)
Exam Tips for Achieving 7-8 Band:
Ensure your response is "focused and shows an in-depth understanding"
Maintain "sustained evaluation that is relevant and well-supported throughout"
Create a "well-structured and effectively organized" answer
Demonstrate "consistent evidence of critical reflective thinking"
Use "precise terminology which is specific to the subject"
Balance theoretical frameworks with concrete examples
Avoid general descriptions in favor of specific analysis
Consider both benefits and limitations of the intervention
Acknowledge complexity and avoid oversimplification
Step 5: Create your own IB Digital Society Paper 3 Question 3 exam-style questions and practice your responses
Use this formula to generate some questions:
[insert an A03 command term] one or both proposed interventions in terms of [insert 3 evaluation criterion].
then outline your response
then, if you have time, practice actually writing the response with pen and paper.
Good Luck!
Comments