My main worry is that I'm not doing the right thing, or haven't quite developed my own courses in the best way, and I'm already seeing that, while I have encouraged creativity in the LP, I haven't necessarily asked students to actually use it towards their assessed tasks.

I think this workshop allows us to see how others interpret the same materials - I like how it exemplifies what we do in the classroom. We can recognise the value in how others approach the LP, for example, and get ideas from each other.

I'd like to:

• feel confident in creating schemes of work.

• have a clearer idea about how to do unit plans.

• get some more ideas about things to teach.

1. Teaching based on inquiry. I think, particularly with the study of texts, the asking of questions is integral to understanding. Why did the author make the particular choices they did? I think it's an inherent human developmental tool to ask questions, so think this is fundamental. We all remember our younger selves or our children asking incessant questions.

2. Teaching focused on conceptual understanding. This is important because it's about depth. All students are able to understand the basics of the texts we explore, but for real understanding, it has to be more than simply what happened. I think this conceptual understanding is a natural bedfellow of the local and global context, because it's where we can see how the ideas of a text are universal.

3. Teaching focused on effective teamwork and collaboration. This is so useful in helping students to become independent. They get to value each other's ideas and recognise that they really don't need the teacher to tell them how to interpret something.

4. Teaching designed to remove barriers to learning. I think a staged process, where students can be helped and led to where they need to be, is incredibly important in building their confidence.

5. Teaching developed in local and global contexts. This is what makes the course really interesting for students - they can see that a work of literature doesn't stand alone, and is a product of the society in which it is made, and they can see how the messages of the texts relate to their own lives and to events in the world around them. The texts are observations and commentaries.

6. Teaching informed by assessment. This is important in helping us to recognise where students need to be supported further. The danger is when achievement in assessment itself is the goal.

The IB definitely values empathy, over and above other measures of success. In its initial list of three, we read that it aims to develop ‘caring’ young people. ‘Knowledgeable’ is an adjective that we would expect in any educational mission statement, but ‘caring’ is unusual, and its presence here also suggests that this is a characteristic that can very much be taught. I would also say that, in the use of the word ‘inquiring’, the IB leans towards a democratic world view that we might take for granted, but that may not be valued in all societies.

It’s clear that globalisation, for the IB, is also a positive thing, with its emphasis on ‘intercultural’ and ‘international’ education, as well as stating overtly that the ‘programmes encourage students to… understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.’ This is far removed from a colonialist, imperialist worldview. The IB’s mission statement is about diplomacy, rather than supremacy.

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

I think the ‘learner profile’ text is one that places great emphasis on what David Brooks calls ‘eulogy virtues’ in his book ‘The Road to Character’. Reference to ‘natural curiosity’, the ‘exercis[ing of] initiative’, ‘integrity and honesty’ point towards a set of skills we don’t necessarily consider to be overtly taught. Often, governments place value on ‘resumé virtues’, for example, the Department for Education writes that it wants children to be ‘prepared with the knowledge, skills, and qualifications they need.’ Here, by ‘qualifications’, the DfE mean grades in subjects that will allow them to get jobs, not virtues of character that enable them to make a positive impact in society.

I’m not sure about an oppositional reading? Is it a rejection of the values of the LP? I think someone could certainly argue that it places too much emphasis on character, which, arguably, is hard to teach and instil in a formal educational setting. Some might say that is something for parents to teach. Perhaps an educational setting is strictly for knowledge, subject-based skills and qualifications…?

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

The tone of the course aims and assessment objectives text is quite understanding and supportive. There is something quite nurturing in the language it uses; it recognises that learning is a process. Learners will ‘develop’, a word that connotes growth. This is supported in the final aim, to ‘foster a lifelong interest in and enjoyment of language and literature.’ Here, it is evident that the aim is for the IB programme to be the start of a journey, not the end of one.

The idea of enjoyment is also evident in the first aim, that students ‘engage with’ texts. This is quite a nebulous term. What does it actually mean? It’s not just ‘read and understand’. ‘Engage with’ begins to sound like a dialogue is taking place between text and reader; perhaps there is an emotional engagement. There is something more mutual about this phrase than any alternatives like ‘read’.

The implication in this is that we should not view the reading of texts as the goal; intellectual engagement and excitement is the goal; lifelong learning is the goal. The texts themselves are catalysts in this.

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

Now I come to this section, I see the word ‘democratic’ overtly used. The idea of democracy was implicit in the mission statement but is explicit here. For some, a classroom should not necessarily be a democratic place – the teacher is not, after all, an elected leader. The teacher could be regarded as a benign dictator in some classrooms. Because of its political connotations, the idea of the ‘democratic classroom’ might make some readers uncomfortable, particularly those who live in countries where the word ‘democrat’ is used as the name of, or part of the name of a political party. It suggests that the classroom will be politically partisan, leaning more towards the ideas and beliefs set out by those in Democrat parties (e.g. Liberal Democrats in the UK, Democrats in the USA, Christian Democrats in Germany).

Moreover, there is some sense that the standards of the IB begin to take on religious significance here. The final sentence, stating that ‘learning is the central tenet as well as the outcome of developing purpose, culture,’ could be applied to any group to which people belong, and be read as a way of living, rather than a way of learning. This is partly because of the use of the word ‘tenet’, with its religious overtones, rather than, for example, ‘principle’, which is more neutral.

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

 The word ‘creativity’, and its root ‘create’ recurs throughout this text, making it clear that value is placed on the imagination of students. This part of the text illustrates a desire for practical constructivism – in creating, students are active in their own learning.