IBO Expectations - Responsible & Ethical Behaviour of IBDP Students



The IBO requires high standards from IBDP students in terms of personal and academic responsibility. Students must take responsibility for their own learning.  They must also, on the personal level, take full responsibility for their own actions and decisions.  

According to Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of IBO’s 2013 General Regulations: Diploma Programme For Students and their Legal Guardians,

‘IB candidates are required to act in a responsible and ethical manner throughout their participation in the Diploma Programme and examinations.’


‘The IB Organization is entitled to refuse to mark or moderate assessment material if a candidate has acted in an irresponsible or unethical manner in connection with that part of assessment for the Diploma Programme, for example, if a candidate includes offensive or obscene material that is unrelated to the content of the assessment. In such cases, the final award committee is entitled to award a mark of zero for the component or part(s) of the component that are not assessed due to such irresponsible or unethical behaviour.’


As for ‘Malpractice’, Article 29 of IBO’s 2012 General Regulations: Diploma Programme For Students and their Legal Guardians defines ‘Malpractice’ in the following manner:

‘The IB Organization defines malpractice as behaviour that results in, or may result in, the candidate or any other candidate gaining an unfair advantage in one or more assessment components. Malpractice includes the following:


This is defined as the representation of the ideas or work of another person as the candidate’s own.


This is defined as supporting malpractice by another candidate, as in allowing one’s work to be copied or submitted for assessment by another.

Duplication of work

This is defined as the presentation of the same work for different assessment components and/or IB diploma requirements.

Other Behaviors

Any other actions that allow candidates to gain an unfair advantage or that affect the results of another candidate (for example, taking unauthorized material into an examination room, misconduct during an examination, falsifying a CAS record, disclosure of information to and receipt of information from candidates about the content of an examination paper within 24 hours after a written examination).’