This study used comparative case study methodology to investigate student perceptions of different programmes that prepare them for a challenging high school education programme: the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP). Given the benefits and challenges of the programme, educators and stakeholders want to ensure students feel ready to participate. In the literature, studies support that programmes such as the International General Certificate of Secondary Education and the International Baccalaureate Organisation's Middle Years Programme prepare students for the IBDP; however, there is a need for students' voices on how they perceive they are prepared through these programmes. This study investigated three different approaches to IBDP preparation by gaining student insights through a scaled-item questionnaire and interviews. Students identified experiences that gave them skills to monitor their learning and resources that motivated them to participate in an advanced upper-high school programme.
The main purpose of this investigation was to explore the predictors of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) outcome scores. A purposive sample of 123 high school students was drawn from a selective private school in a city in Eastern Turkey. Multiple regression analyses were conducted for one dependent variable: Diploma Programme outcome scores by using the independent variables: students' International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) scores, English scores and IBDP mock exam score variance. The model found to explain 76% of the DP outcome scores. It was found also found that the English levels of the students were not considered by teachers as important as they should be. If students could increase their English achievement level in IGCSE by 1 point, their IBDP results would increase .21 points. This means that the prospective IBDP students and their teachers must consider students' English achievement level as well as their achievement level in IGCSE exam for each course when they are to register for IBDP. The model built as a result of this study can be used by IBDP teachers, coordinators, and students to predict the achievement level of students in the end of IBDP.
Drawing method along with the written responses of 1 st year International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) secondary school students was used to determine their understanding of the concepts of human body organ systems. Due to the time limitation, misconceptions were not evaluated in this research. The focus of this research was mainly to determine the frequency of the drawn organ systems by the students to find out their knowledge prior to the upcoming chapter in IBDP Biology curriculum, Topic 6: Human Physiology, so that the curriculum implementation plan can be built considering the data collected in this small-scale research. Spontaneous drawings of students in support with open-ended questions were used in this current research to make qualitative analysis of the students' ideas on human body systems and their functions. The mean age of the students was 18.1 (range 18-19) in this study which did not focus on the gender differences. The participants had studied at various middle schools before they started this high school. Therefore, there was great diversity due to the participants' background however they were all being taught International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) Biology in grade 9 and 10 prior to IBDP. It was found that the only organ system among ten of those, which the students reached level 5 was urinary system. They still need further support on digestive, muscular and skeletal systems as well as the lymphatic system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.