IB MYP Individuals and Societies: Discipline Options and eAssessment Subjects — Revision Notes

The full syllabus guide confirms this subject group’s specific content varies considerably by school, since schools choose which discipline to teach. These notes cover discipline options and eAssessment subjects, alongside the assessment revision notes already on the site.

Same criteria, different content by school

This subject group covers disciplines traditionally studied under humanities and social sciences. Schools develop courses in integrated humanities, history, economics, geography, philosophy, sociology/anthropology, business management, psychology, or world religions — a genuine school-level choice. The subject group name and four assessment criteria (Knowing and understanding, Investigating, Communicating, Thinking critically) stay the same everywhere, but the specific content studied can differ substantially between schools.

Only three eAssessment subjects exist

Despite the wide range of disciplines schools may teach, the on-screen eAssessment is available in only history, geography, or integrated humanities. This matters directly for revision: confirming which of these three your own course actually prepares you for is an essential first step, since a school teaching, say, economics or psychology as its individuals and societies discipline may still direct students toward one of the three examinable subjects for the eAssessment itself.

The three eAssessment tasks

• Investigating (criteria A and B, 26 marks) — evaluating an investigation and planning one of the student’s own, demonstrating knowledge from the course or from exam source material.
• Communicating (criteria A and C, 18 marks) — engaging creatively with a topic, presenting information appropriately for audience and purpose.
• Thinking critically (criteria A, C and D, 36 marks, the largest task) — discussing issues, arguments and perspectives through structured questions, culminating in extended writing.

Worked example: the source-evaluation skill

Official sample questions illustrate the investigating task’s specific demand:

Sample question 1:   "Explain one value or one limitation of source B
                      for a student researching protests."
Sample question 2:   "Compare and contrast source C and source D in
                      terms of their usefulness in studying protest
                      movements."
Skill demonstrated:  evaluating what a source CAN and CANNOT tell you
                      about a topic -- not simply summarising its
                      content -- applied both to a single source and
                      comparatively across two sources

Build the habit of asking what a source can and cannot tell you every time you work with primary or secondary material in class, since this is tested directly and is distinct from simply extracting facts.

Building for extended writing

Because the thinking-critically task carries the largest share of marks (36 of 80) and ends in extended writing, a sample question such as “To what extent do you agree that gaining support from different groups in society is the most important factor in making sure a protest movement is successful?” models the expected approach: take a position, weigh it against alternatives, and reach a reasoned judgement — not simply describe events.

Common mistakes

Assuming the discipline your school teaches automatically determines your eAssessment subject, without confirming which of the three (history, geography, integrated humanities) actually applies. Summarising a source’s content in the investigating task instead of evaluating its value or limitation for a specific research purpose. Writing a descriptive, narrative response to the thinking-critically task instead of a structured, judgement-based argument.

Quick revision checklist

• Confirm which of the three eAssessment subjects (history, geography, integrated humanities) your course prepares you for.
• Practise stating one value and one limitation of a source for a specific research purpose, not just summarising its content.
• Practise comparing two sources’ usefulness for the same research question.
• Build extended-writing practice around taking and justifying a position, not just describing events.

Sample eAssessment topics

The official brief lists sample topics the on-screen examinations may draw on: demographics and human movement, settlement and urban morphology, superpowers and supra-national alliances, significant individuals, warfare and peacekeeping, rights and social protest, trade and economic exchange, and industrialization and technological development. Because these span history, geography and broader social-science themes, they illustrate why the three eAssessment subjects (history, geography, integrated humanities) can draw on genuinely overlapping content even though a student’s own taught discipline may have been narrower.

Why criteria transfer even when discipline changes

Because the same four assessment criteria (Knowing and understanding, Investigating, Communicating, Thinking critically) and the same level-and-band scoring structure apply across every MYP subject group, a student moving between, say, individuals and societies and MYP Sciences encounters a familiar assessment logic even though the criterion names, content and specific skills tested differ. This consistency is deliberate: it lets the IB apply the same underlying standard of rigor across very different kinds of coursework.

Self-test

1. Name three disciplines a school might choose to teach under this subject group.
2. How many eAssessment subjects actually exist, and what are they?
3. Which task carries the largest share of marks, and what does it culminate in?
4. What is the specific skill the investigating task rewards, beyond summarising a source?
5. What structure should a thinking-critically extended-writing answer follow?

Answers: 1. Any three of: integrated humanities, history, economics, geography, philosophy, sociology/anthropology, business management, psychology, world religions. 2. Three — history, geography, and integrated humanities. 3. Thinking critically (36 of 80 marks), culminating in an extended piece of writing. 4. Evaluating a source’s value or limitation for a specific research purpose, not simply summarising what it says. 5. Taking a clear position, weighing it against alternative viewpoints, and reaching a reasoned judgement, rather than a purely descriptive narrative.