Despite my love of learning, I've never attended nor taught at a school with an IB programme, so I'm quite excited to collaborate and learn from others through the forums and replies. My most pressing question is how the programme differs from a regular English class.

Here are 3 things that I hope to achieve throughout the next month:

• How to create a routine around the learner portfolio/ how to make it a reflex for students to add to it

• How to best prepare my students for the IB evaluations

• A rough plan for the upcoming school year

1. Teaching based on inquiry

2. Teaching developed in local and global contexts

3. Teaching focused on effective teamwork and collaboration

4. Teaching focused on conceptual understanding.

5. Teaching designed to remove barriers to learning

6. Teaching informed by assessment

1. Self-management skills

2. Thinking skills

3. Communication skills

4. Social skills

5. Research skills

2. What is the dominant reading of this text and what might be an oppositional reading of the IB learner profile?

3. What is the tone created in the aims and assessment objectives, how does the author create it, and why?

4. What words or phrases have a highly charged connotation and what is the effect on the reader?

5.What words or phrases demonstrate the ideological perspective of this text?

2. And so, is the notion of a canon helpful in the study and understanding of literature? How does a canon get established?

   
   

3. And what "canon" are you presenting to students in your literature choices? Why does that matter?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g1tPJbrQvDhyb0r0PM-FyTzGvEdq_64UHOoAJXXNDXc/edit?usp=sharing

10 points:

• Road Allowance People not belonging.

• Story telling, authoritative use of voice, Kannap vs Jim Boy

• Significance of Roots (uproot, shallow roots)

• Colonization, hitler, taliban

• Stats about MMIWG / Australia and US

• Letter vs social media

• Contrast missing kids (16 days vs less than 24 hours)

• Implications (community thinks she doesn't matter, she thinks she doesn't matter)

• Control the narrative (her qualities, if i go missing)

• Black lives matter

Knowledge, understanding, and interpretation: 8/10

The student provided context and seems to understand both stories and their similarities and differences pertaining to journey. However, it wasn't insightful.

Analysis and evaluation: 7/10

There are some comparison and contrasts. The student mentions the use of literary devices, but they could have been elaborated on. (ex. The end says both authors used irony but it's only mentioned in Satrapi's description)

Focus and organisation: 3/5

The paper was mostly clear, but the student focused a lot on money and less on the theme (journey). Additionally, the student mentioned Maus, briefly introducing a 3rd text.

Language: 5/5

Despite a few punctuation and sentence structure errors, the vocabulary was excellent. I even had to look up a few words.

My reaction: At first, I was blown away by the vocabulary that the student used. When a text is well written, sometimes it's difficult to assess it critically. However, after reading it a second time and using the criteria, I soon learned that it did not score as well as I had originally thought it would. I also found it a bit difficult to distinguish between certain elements of criterion A and B. For example, if a student is talking about authorial choices, wouldn't that also fall under interpretation?

01

Knowledge, understanding, and interpretation: 4/5

I found that the student provided many textual examples pertaining to identity, but perhaps lacked the larger implications that would warrant it a 5/5

Analysis and evaluation: 3/5

At first, I had given it a 4/5, but I forgot that the that the meaning needed to be insightful to obtain a 4. While the student was analytical and provided many examples of the literary devices, they didn’t provide something ‘‘new’’ to the evaluation of identity or always explain how it provided meaning.

Focus and organisation: 3/5

I had originally given a 4/5. While the paper was well structured, the conclusion felt vaguer than it should be. It also felt like a stream of conscience when the student mentioned the authorial context and society’s perceptions back-to-back. I forgot that argument construction could also affect this score, so I see how the evaluator have it a 3.

Language: 4/5

The vocabulary was ok. There was effort in certain places like ‘‘The author uses content and structure to communicate her ideas using a thematic approach discussing the central concept of identity,’’ but the majority of the paper was just ok.

02

Knowledge, understanding, and interpretation: 2/5

Desptite seeing the sharp contrast between the first analysis and this one, I had originally given it a 3/5. However, due to the lack of specifics, it is difficult to fully know what the text is saying. The quote about writing letters could have been fleshed out to provide more context. How has it evolved in the past?

Analysis and evaluation: 2/5

Although the student attempted to analyse the facial expressions and the speech bubbles, I felt that they missed the message the artist was trying to convey. Why do methods of communication change? Why is communication important? Etc.

Focus and organisation: 3/5

Although the paper is divided into paragraphs and there are good transitions, it isn’t focused. I feel the student jumps from one idea to another without explaining how they provide meaningful insight. How did he confuse the reader?

Language: 4/5

Once again, the vocabulary was ok. There was effort in certain places like ‘‘in conjunction with the indiscernible text above it,’’ but the majority of the paper was just ok.

Despite getting the same score as the examiner, I didn't have the same scores for criteria B and C. I found that the mention of Trump was important for the analysis, but I can see how it may have been imbalanced. As for criterion C, I felt that the student didn't quite answer the question (see below) and the paragraphs were a little clunky (or repetitive as the examiner states).

Knowledge, understanding, and interpretation: 4/5

I found that the student established meaning (misogyny, sexism, etc) in the advertisements. They chose many textual examples but only briefly described their significance. For example, the student mentioned that the loincloths alluded to women being uncivilized cavemen, but I would have liked the student to touch on the harm this mentality can cause (providing context).

Analysis and evaluation: 5/5

The student touched on the clothing, props, angles, colour, and text, and explained their significance. I also found that there were moments of insight like the helmet, the sedan, and the fact that the man was wearing the pants. 

Focus and organisation: 3/5

I'm not entirely sure if the student answered how Hoax challenged toxic masculinity. They were able to give examples of toxic masculinity in the advertisements, but they didn't elaborate on how it was meant to affect people/toxic masculinity. Is it meant to shock viewers? Who is the audience? Additionally, I felt the body paragraphs could have flowed better; they seemed a little clunky.

Language: 4/5

The vocabulary was ok. There was an effort in certain places like ‘‘... he illustrates the jarring and absurd nature of Trump's anachronistic and outmoded beliefs whilst...’’ but the majority of the paper was just ok.

Despite having the same score in 3/5 criteria, I can see how the student lost the additional 3 points in Knowledge and Understanding and Critical Thinking. The examiner is correct in saying that the student could have provided more context and explained why they chose those specific texts. As for the critical thinking element, I can see how it merited an 8/12. The research/analysis/discussions are just good, not very good.

My assessment: 28/34   

Focus and method: 4/6

While the student had a good question, the title was too vague and the justification for the topic wasn't fleshed out. The student said, ''Despite sonnets being an extensively studied form of literature, there is no amount of analysis that has yet truly uncovered all meaning behind it''. Are they planning to completely analyse every part of sonnets? Their topic was specifically love, politics and mortality. 

Knowledge and Understanding: 6/6

I felt that the student provided a lot of context and explained authorial choices, for example, Keats' Apollo. The sources supported their conclusions and elevated the writing. However, the evaluator commented that we needed more justification for the choices in the texts. Why was Shakespeare used (twice), for example?

Critical thinking: 9/12

I found that the research was good, but the essay wasn't as focused as I would have liked. The student did a great job of analysing the individual sonnets but didn't always tie it back to the topic. Had they fleshed out the quotes and elaborated on their secondary sources, perhaps the essay would have been more cohesive.

Presentation: 3/4

Like the examiner, I found that the overall layout was good, but they focused too much on Shakespeare and were missing references at the beginning. 

Engagement: 6/6

Lastly, upon reading the reflections, you can see that the student persevered through challenges, had an open mind, extensively researched and was fully engaged in their research.

Feel free to consult my notes.