IB Diploma Programme Digital Society HL (first assessment 2024; 2021 guide). This topic equips the course's CONCEPT core (2.1-2.7: change, expression, identity, power, space, systems, values and ethics) working on the first CONTENT areas (3.1 data, 3.2 algorithms), focused through CONTEXTS into inquiry with real-world examples, as demanded by Paper 1 (35% HL). This handout teaches the concept lenses, the data-and-algorithm content and the inquiry focus. All worked examples are original classroom cases.

Must-know for data, algorithms and digital power:

The course inquires through seven concepts 概念: CHANGE (evolution or transformation), EXPRESSION (who can speak, how far it travels), IDENTITY (self and group made and remade), POWER (who decides, who benefits), SPACE (place reconfigured by the digital), SYSTEMS (interlocking parts with emergent effects) and VALUES AND ETHICS (what is good, right, acceptable). A concept is a question asked of a case: the same app is a different object through POWER (whose data) and through IDENTITY (whose self-presentation).

Worked case. The school's attendance app, read four ways: CHANGE (the register moved from teacher memory to database), POWER (who may query the record), SPACE (attendance taken anywhere), VALUES AND ETHICS (locational tracking of minors).

In the content area of 3.1, data 数据 differs from information: data is the raw capture (timestamps, coordinates), information is data made meaningful (a pattern of lateness). The discipline of the content area: ask how data is COLLECTED (what the sensor can and cannot see), PROCESSED (cleaned, matched, modelled) and STORED (who holds it, how long); a dataset is an artefact with makers, not a window on the world. An algorithm 算法 (3.2) is an instruction sequence on that data: the course asks what the instructions assume (a threshold defines lateness), and what decisions flow out (the automated flag), because bias in becomes bias out.

Worked case, continued. The app's lateness rule: arrival after the second bell flags the record; the algorithm's assumption (one bell time for all bus routes) makes rural students 'late' by design: the dataset is not neutral, and the VALUES lens sees it.

Inquiry is focused with the formula CONCEPT x CONTENT x CONTEXT x real-world example 真实例证: a question worth asking (does automated attendance change the power to define lateness?), content that can answer it (data and algorithms), a context situating it (the social context of school; the economic context of transport), and a real case (the attendance app). The failure modes: the concept-only essay (no case), the case-only story (no concept), and the context dump (no digital system in view).

Worked case, concluded. Focused: POWER (concept) x ALGORITHMS (content) x SOCIAL and ECONOMIC (contexts) x the attendance app (example), answering whether automation relocates the power to define lateness from teachers to the rule's authors.

• The seven concepts as questions asked of cases (concepts).

• Data vs information; collection, processing, storage; datasets have makers (data).

• Algorithms: assumptions in, decisions out, bias through (algorithms).

• The seven contexts situating each inquiry (contexts).

• The focus formula applied; the three failure modes avoided (inquiry). Boundary notes: the examiner must see the inquiry working: concepts named, sources diverse and evaluated, real-world examples real. All worked examples are original classroom cases.

IB Diploma Programme Digital Society HL (first assessment 2024; 2021 guide). This topic equips the remaining CONTENT areas (3.3 computers, 3.4 networks and the internet, 3.5 media, 3.6 artificial intelligence, 3.7 robots and autonomous technologies) situated by the seven CONTEXTS, as demanded by the source-based Paper 2 (20% HL): diverse sources explored, their claims and perspectives evaluated. This handout teaches the content areas, the contexts and the source discipline. All worked examples are original classroom cases.

Must-know for networks, media and automation:

As substrate, computers 计算机 (3.3) process with limits (memory, energy, attention); networks and the internet 网络与互联网 (3.4) connect them in layers, each layer a choke point (the cable, the platform, the standard): who owns the layer decides its rules. Closest to daily life is the content area of media 媒体 (3.5): creation (everyone a publisher), distribution (the feed ranked, not chronological) and participation (the comment, the share, the pile-on).

Worked case. The class-news feed: three versions of the same school event (the official post, the student video, the satirical meme) travel differently because the ranking algorithm rewards engagement, not accuracy: MEDIA content on a NETWORK choke point.

In 3.6, artificial intelligence 人工智能 is delegated decision (the classifier that flags, the recommender that ranks); robots and autonomous technologies 机器人与自主技术 (3.7) add delegated ACTION (the warehouse robot, the autonomous mower): each delegation moves a human judgement somewhere else. Every case is situated by the seven contexts 情境: cultural, economic, environmental, health, human knowledge, political, social: the same recommender is a different case in the economic context (whose market) and the health context (whose wellbeing).

A second delegation read. The school's essay-feedback classifier (AI content): the judgement about writing quality moves from teacher to model. Context shift: in the human-knowledge context the question is what counts as good writing; in the social context, who gets encouraged. Same tool, two inquiries: the context choice changes the question, which is exactly the unit's craft.

Worked case, continued. The school's essay-feedback classifier: AI content (delegated judgement) in the human-knowledge context (what counts as good writing) and the social context (who gets encouraged): the context choice changes the question.

Paper 2 is source-based: the discipline is the source 来源 read three ways: its CLAIM (what it asserts), its PERSPECTIVE (who speaks, from where, with what interest) and its PROVENANCE (where it came from, who published it, when). Diverse sources means genuinely different perspectives (the platform's statement, the user's testimony, the regulator's report), and the essay weighs them rather than stacking the agreeable ones.

Worked case, concluded. On the feed case, three sources: the platform's transparency post (claim: ranking serves relevance; perspective: the seller of attention), a student creator's testimony (claim: the meme travelled furthest; perspective: the participant), and a media-literacy study (claim: engagement ranking rewards outrage; perspective: the researcher): the essay weighs all three against the case.

• Computers, networks, media: substrate, layers, feed (computers).

• AI and robots: delegated decision, delegated action (automation).

• The seven contexts situating every case (sources).

• Claim, perspective, provenance on every source (sources).

• The worked feed and classifier cases understood (worked). Boundary notes: the examiner must see the inquiry working: concepts named, sources diverse and evaluated, real-world examples real. All worked examples are original classroom cases.

IB Diploma Programme Digital Society HL (first assessment 2024; 2021 guide). This topic equips the internal assessment INQUIRY PROJECT (20% HL): an investigation into the impacts and implications of a chosen digital system for people and communities, submitted as an inquiry process document, a recorded multimedia presentation and a list of references. This handout teaches the inquiry cycle, the documentation discipline and the presentation. All worked examples are original classroom projects.

Must-know for the inquiry project:

The inquiry project 探究项目 runs the full cycle: a focused question (the formula from topic 01: does the homework-chat group change who gets help?), research with diverse and relevant sources 多样相关来源 (the students who use it, the teacher who watches it, the study that measured it), findings on the impacts and implications 影响与意涵 (the impact: help arrives faster for the connected; the implication: help migrates to the connected), and reflection (what the inquiry could not see).

Worked project. The homework-chat inquiry: question above; sources (eight student interviews, the teacher's observation log, one published study on peer help); finding (help accelerates for group members, and quietly reroutes away from non-members); reflection (interviews miss the silent non-members: the next inquiry surveys them).

The inquiry process document is the trail: the question and its focus (why this concept, this content, this context), the sources with claim, perspective and provenance, the decisions (what was cut and why), and the feedback loop (a teacher comment after the draft, and what changed). The discipline: the document is written WHILE the inquiry runs, not reconstructed after: the dated trail is the evidence of inquiry management.

Worked project, continued. The document's decision page: the gaming-chat comparison cut (the school's single case kept the inquiry honest); the feedback loop: the teacher's draft comment (the non-members are your story) and the survey added for them.

The multimedia presentation 多媒体展示 is recorded: the findings shared in multiple modes (spoken argument, a data graphic, a 20-second clip of the chat in use), timed to the limit, every claim tied to a source named on screen. The failure modes: the read-aloud essay (no other mode), the montage (no argument), and the uncited figure. The references 参考文献 list every source with provenance: the list is the presentation's honesty.

Worked project, concluded. The seven-minute presentation: the question (one slide), the three sources with their perspectives (one slide each), the rerouting finding as a two-line flow graphic (help in, help rerouted), the clip, the reflection; the reference list carries all eleven sources, the interviews anonymised.

• The question focused with the formula (question).

• Sources diverse, relevant, read three ways (research).

• The document written while the inquiry runs (document).

• Multiple modes, timed, every claim cited (presentation).

• The worked homework-chat inquiry understood (worked). Boundary notes: the examiner must see the inquiry working: concepts named, sources diverse and evaluated, real-world examples real. All worked examples are original classroom cases.

IB Diploma Programme Digital Society HL (first assessment 2024; 2021 guide). This topic equips the HL EXTENSION (5.1 global well-being, 5.2 governance and human rights, 5.3 sustainable development) and Paper 3 (25% HL): questions on an intervention related to an HL extension challenge, outlined in a pre-released brief. This handout teaches the three challenges, the intervention read and the evaluation craft. All worked examples are original classroom cases.

Must-know for hl challenges and interventions:

The HL extension names three contemporary challenges 挑战. GLOBAL WELL-BEING (5.1): digital life against flourishing (attention economies, connection and loneliness, the measured self). GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS (5.2): who rules the digital (content moderation as private law; surveillance and its limits; rights asserted against platforms and states). SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (5.3): digital futures that can be sustained (energy and mining for the machines; e-waste; access as a development question). Each challenge is a field of contest, not a topic to summarize.

Worked case. The school's phone-locker policy read as all three: well-being (attention returned to the classroom?), governance (who decided, and by what right?), sustainability (lockers built, phones still made).

Paper 3 gives a pre-released brief outlining an intervention 干预: a deliberate act on a challenge (a policy, a design change, a campaign). The read: WHAT it intervenes on (the mechanism, not the mission statement), WHO acts and who is acted on (the school locks, the students are locked), and WHAT CHANGE it claims (the outcome the brief predicts). The intervention is a case with perspectives like any source: the designer's, the target's, the regulator's.

Worked case, continued. The brief's intervention: a focus-mode feature that hides notifications for six hours. Mechanism: the notification layer silenced; actors: the company designs, the user opts in, the group-chat waits; claimed change: attention reclaimed at meals.

Effectiveness is judged on two axes named in the course: equity 公平 (who gains, who loses, who was never asked: focus mode helps the disciplined and hides the caregiver who must answer) and acceptability 可接受性 (do the affected accept the means: silence chosen differs from silence imposed). The evaluation weighs evidence (trials, testimony, data) and reaches a verdict that names its limits: a good Paper 3 answer is an argued judgement, not a summary of the brief.

Worked case, concluded. The verdict on focus mode: effective for self-chosen attention (evidence: usage trials), weak on equity (the always-reachable lose most), acceptable where chosen and not where imposed: the limits named (one platform, one term, self-reported attention).

• The three challenges as fields of contest (well-being).

• Governance: who rules, by what right, against which rights (governance).

• Sustainability: energy, materials, access (sustainable development).

• The intervention read: mechanism, actors, claimed change (intervention).

• Equity and acceptability weighed to a verdict with limits (evaluation). Boundary notes: the examiner must see the inquiry working: concepts named, sources diverse and evaluated, real-world examples real. All worked examples are original classroom cases.