Back to subject papers

COMPUTER-SCIENCE · IB Diploma Programme

COMPUTER-SCIENCE/22

Paper 2

Computer Science · 2024 · Variant 2

Relative difficulty

Demanding · 3.8/5

Analysis source: International Baccalaureate Organization

Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.

Relative difficulty

3.8 / 5

Total marks

115

Duration

150 min

Most tested topic

Object-oriented programming (OOP)

Cohort performance

Session statistics from official examination reports

Total marks

115

Duration

150 min

Session difficulty

3.8 / 5

Key examiner messages

Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise

1

The May 2024 Computer Science SL paper struck a balanced but demanding tone, leaning heavily on practical algorithmic logic and systematic problem-solving.

2

While Section A of Paper 1 provided manageable recall questions on standard topics like system installation, SaaS, and basic hardware, Section B ramped up the cognitive demand with complex scenario-based logical expressions and dual parallel-array pseudocode manipulation.

3

Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.

Question difficulty map

How candidates performed on each question in this series

No data available in official reports

Assessment objectives

Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary

Theoretical8
Recall7
Algorithmic Thinking6
System design & Database modelling4
Analysis & Evaluation3
Social &2
Ethical1

Skill weighting

Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.

TheoreticalTheoreticalRecallRecallAlgorithmic ThinkingAlgorithmicThinkingSystem design & Database modellingSystem design &DatabaseAnalysis & EvaluationAnalysis &EvaluationSocial &Social &EthicalEthical
SkillWeightShare

  • Theoretical

    Weight: 8100%

  • Recall

    Weight: 788%

  • Algorithmic Thinking

    Weight: 675%

  • System design & Database modelling

    Weight: 450%

  • Analysis & Evaluation

    Weight: 338%

  • Social &

    Weight: 225%

  • Ethical

    Weight: 113%

Method marks watchlist

Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost

No data available in official reports

Recurring mistakes across years

Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject

No data available in official reports

Question choice intelligence

Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)

No data available in official reports

Level exemplars

What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like

No data available in official reports

Grade & admission context

How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards

Report type

IB subject report — grade distributions, IA weighting, and HL/SL distinctions

Level 7

Excellent — top band for competitive university offers

Level 6

Very good — strong HL performance

Level 5

Good — solid pass at higher level

Level 4

Satisfactory — minimum for many university credits

Level 3

Mediocre

Level 2

Poor

Level 1

Very poor

Deep insights

What top candidates did

Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series

No data available in official reports

Command word playbook

How to match each command word to the expected response style

IdentifyFrequency: 10

Name or point to the specific feature asked for — avoid extra explanation.

OutlineFrequency: 12

Match the expected response style for “Outline” questions.

StateFrequency: 8

Match the expected response style for “State” questions.

DescribeFrequency: 6

State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.

ExplainFrequency: 7

Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.

ConstructFrequency: 6

Match the expected response style for “Construct” questions.

DefineFrequency: 3

Match the expected response style for “Define” questions.

CompareFrequency: 2

Identify similarities and differences explicitly — paired sentences or a table helps.

Time traps

Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks

Paper 1 Section A30m / 25 marks

Min per mark: 1.2

Syllabus traceability

Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session

Object-oriented programming (OOP)

45 marks this session

Computational thinking

21 marks this session

Computer organization

18 marks this session

MCQ trap analytics

Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary

No data available in official reports

Topic heatmap across years

Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject

Mark intensity

LowHigh
Topic
2023
2024
2025
Σ

Computational thinking

25
30
21
76

Networks

19
17
20
56

System fundamentals

15
14
23
52

Object-oriented programming (OOP)

—
—
45
45

Computer organization

—
9
—
9

Paper comparison

Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session

Paper 1:

70 marks90 min

Paper 2 (Option D):

45 marks60 min

Marks you can still earn

Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit

No data available in official reports

Practise what examiners flagged

Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app

Object-oriented programming (OOP)

45 marks this session

Practise in Revui

Computational thinking

21 marks this session

Practise in Revui

Computer organization

18 marks this session

Practise in Revui

Self-diagnostic checklist

Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise

  • 1Message

    The May 2024 Computer Science SL paper struck a balanced but demanding tone, leaning heavily on practical algorithmic logic and systematic problem-solving.

  • 2Message

    While Section A of Paper 1 provided manageable recall questions on standard topics like system installation, SaaS, and basic hardware, Section B ramped up the cognitive demand with complex scenario-based logical expressions and dual parallel-array pseudocode manipulation.

  • 3Message

    Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.

Teacher briefing pack

One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review

2024 2024

Computer Science

The May 2024 Computer Science SL paper struck a balanced but demanding tone, leaning heavily on practical algorithmic logic and systematic problem-solving. While Section A of Paper 1 provided manageable recall questions on standard topics like system installation, SaaS, and basic

  • The May 2024 Computer Science SL paper struck a balanced but demanding tone, leaning heavily on practical algorithmic logic and systematic problem-solving.

  • While Section A of Paper 1 provided manageable recall questions on standard topics like system installation, SaaS, and basic hardware, Section B ramped up the cognitive demand with complex scenario-based logical expressions and dual parallel-array pseudocode manipulation.

  • Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.

Total marks
115
Duration
150 min
Session difficulty
3.8 / 5

Session analysis

The May 2024 Computer Science SL paper struck a balanced but demanding tone, leaning heavily on practical algorithmic logic and systematic problem-solving. While Section A of Paper 1 provided manageable recall questions on standard topics like system installation, SaaS, and basic hardware, Section B ramped up the cognitive demand with complex scenario-based logical expressions and dual parallel-array pseudocode manipulation.

Updated Jun 14, 2026

Paper breakdown

Paper 1:

70 marks90 min

Paper 2 (Option D):

45 marks60 min

Top chapters

Object-oriented programming (OOP)45 marks
Computational thinking21 marks
Computer organization18 marks

Exam structure insights

Marks by chapter

See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.

Object-oriented programming (OO45 marks
Computational thinking21 marks
Computer organization18 marks
Networks17 marks
System fundamentals14 marks

Mark accessibility

Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.

74% within easy or medium reach

35
50
30
Easy: 35 marksMedium: 50 marksHard: 30 marks

Command word frequency

Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.

Identify10 times
Outline12 times
State8 times
Describe6 times
Explain7 times
Construct6 times
Define3 times
Compare2 times

Question type mix

Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.

115Marks

  • Short Answer

    54·27·47%

  • Medium Response

    47·12·41%

  • Long Response

    14·2·12%

Study ROI

Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.

Difficulty →Recurrence % →Object-oriented pr…System fundamentalsNetworksComputer organizat…Computational thin…

Difficulty trend

Compare difficulty across recent years.

3.820153.62016320173.520183.820193.820203.820213.52022320233.82024

Time vs marks

Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.

MarksMinutesMarks / min

Paper 1 Section A

0.83 m/min
25
30

Total marks

25

Total time

30 min

Avg pace

0.83

Next-year prediction

Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.

Logic Gates (Multi-input with Truth Tables)

90%

90%

Bubble Sort vs Selection Sort Efficiency

85%

85%

Network Protocols & Encryption

80%

80%

May 2024 Exam Analysis

The May 2024 Computer Science SL paper struck a balanced but demanding tone, leaning heavily on practical algorithmic logic and systematic problem-solving. While Section A of Paper 1 provided manageable recall questions on standard topics like system installation, SaaS, and basic hardware, Section B ramped up the cognitive demand with complex scenario-based logical expressions and dual parallel-array pseudocode manipulation.

Examiner notes & key calculations

  • Parallel Array Misalignment: During the bubble sort routine, when swapping elements in the sorting array, candidates frequently forgot to execute the exact same swap operations on the parallel data array, violating data integrity.
  • Zero-Based vs. One-Based Indexing: Subtle off-by-one errors occurred frequently in nested loop bounds (e.g., iterating up to the length of the array rather than length minus one).
  • Vague Explanations: Generic phrases such as 'faster' or 'better' in comparative questions (such as comparing bubble and selection sorts, or RAM and ROM) failed to earn marks without specific underlying technical details like time complexity or volatility.

Exam tips

Paper format

Duration
1h 20min
Total marks
65

Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.

COMPUTER-SCIENCE/22 — IB Diploma Programme Computer Science (2024) | Revui