For all of those who missed the Pre-ToK art day

For all of those who missed the Pre-ToK art day, you will be doing Art visitations on this Friday, 6/3 DURING SCHOOL.

They will need to visit several installations, take notes on their observations, then do several reflection questions including:

Guerilla Art visitation

Today, during school], spend about 30 minutes to observe others interacting with your work.  The goal is to gather at least 15 observations and then to wonder (in writing) about whether or not your installation achieved its purpose.  A model might look like the following:

Action Cause Thoughts/reflections
Freshman girl stops, looks, turns to friend, then laughs She looked directly at the collage portion – It seemed as if she was laughing at the Bieber portion of the collage.  She didn’t seem to link it to the Satan drawings nearby – perhaps a missed opportunity… Perhaps the positioning needed to be more deliberate.  Do I have to train people to interpret my art?  Is that like explaining a joke?  Is it a failure if I have to tell them what it means????

Your observations and the following steps will accompany the following in your Art reflections due Monday, 6/6 at latest:

  1. Your observations – done today at some point [see grid above]
  2. Your reflections – due Monday 6/6
  3. a) What amazed you about how people reacted to/interacted with the art?
  4. b) What did you learn (about self, peers, art, artists) by seeing the project?
  5. c) What will you do for your project next year? How will you do things differently than these students?
  6. Which installation was best? (you determine the criterion, then vote)

Pre-ToK Ethics


When, if ever, is it O.K. to lie?

In your initial freewrite response include your personal experience, to support your argument.

Please know that you will later submit your responses (along with your in-class notes) to confirm your attendance.

  1. Describe human nature.  Are people naturally good, evil, or…
  2. Explain the guiding principle that you use to make difficult moral decisions.  How does it work?
  3. If your friend asks you about a suprise birthday party you’re throwing for her, should you lie about it, or tell her the truth?  Justify your answer.
  4. Should the President of the United States ever lie?  If no, why not?  If so, what would justify such behavior?
  5. Do you, as a citizen, have any duty or obligation to expose corruption or wrongdoing?  Where does this obligation come from?
  6. If, at lunch, your friend asks you what is on the Chemistry test you took during 2nd period, what would you do?  Why?  What should you do?
  7. Research the Heinz Dilemma.  What should Heinz do?  Why should he do it?  Which of Kohlberg’s six stages are you?

After answering each question, then you can begin the overal task:

Here’s your assignmentRead the linked article.  Consider the arguments contained therein.  Then, reflecting upon the discussions and scenarios above including the Heinz Dilemma, answer the question we started with:

When, if ever, is it O.K. to lie?

In your response include (and quote/cite) examples from your interviews, your answers, your personal experience, and the article.

Please submit your responses (along with your answers to #1-#7 above) in written form before the end of class.

For those of you that missed Pre-ToK session 5…

Here is your makeup assignment:

Consider the relationship between faith, belief, and knowledge.  Without consulting another source, write down what you consider to be the similarities and differences between these three concepts.  In doing so, consider your words carefully and do feel free to include additional terms like these used in class: confidence, truth, justification, evidence, trust, explanation and tested.

Then, consider how these three are related:

  1. Which of these three is most reliable?
  2. Which of these three is most useful?
  3. Which of these three is most permanent?

Interview someone else – a peer, an older sibling, a parent – and record their responses to your inquiries about the relationship between these three concepts.

Then, create a drawing that incorporates shapes as you explain the relationship between these three terms.  As you design and label the drawing, be sure to consider what your drawing implies – Is belief really encompassed in knowledge?  Does faith sit independent of belief? etc.

Then, (beside your drawing) list an example of something that represents that area of your drawing – i.e. what is an example of something that is faith and belief, but not knowledge?

Then, read this story and figure out where it goes on your diagram.  Include a few sentences to explain its placement on your diagram.  Then, consider the argument of David Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University.  In a paragraph, respond to his argument, citing his article throughout your response.  Please submit your work in paper form to Mr. Braman’s office -2410G as soon as possible.

Thank you.

For my Junior Diploma Candidates’ session #2 OPVL

For the Pre-TOK session #2, below is your assignment.

The task below assists in helping you master what you need to know and do as diploma candidates concerning the History IA during your Junior Year.

You will need to teach yourself about Origin, Purpose, Value, and Limitation [OPVL]- the four-part analysis that is one important facet of your Internal Assessment.  In order to better understand OPVL, you will need to read this handout that explains it thoroughly.  Then, you’ll need to apply your understanding by creating an analysis of the histories in documents one and two below.  You’ll need access to two documents on Reconstruction during the post-Civil War era in U. S. History.  Here are links to both document one and to document two.

As you work on this, you will need to consider the limitations of academic historical writing.  When you think about what historinans have written, you must do more than identify what is not included in the work. In addition, you should thoughtfully consider the issue – How has this scholar addressed this subject?

Other questions to consider are: What are some limits to how this scholar has approached this subject?  Limits may include (but are not limited to): sources considered to construct the work, the education and background of the scholar, and the word choice used to craft the work.

An important warning should include this – that this assignment is not ‘looking for bias’.  If anything, searching for bias has a role in other things you’d do when reading a history, but this task is different from that one.

After reading and analyzing these two documents, you should produce a one-page OPVL analysis on each of the two documents linked above.  Please print these two products, staple them together and turn them in to ms. Lund before leaving class.

If you’re smart, you will consider some of the assessor’s feedback (below) published in the May 2012 subject report [sent to Mr. Raines] last year.  Ask him about what he thinks.

May 2012 subject reports: Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A – Plan of the investigation

Most candidates were able to clearly express the research question and their approach or method to investigate it. As with past years a number of candidates did not state the research question in the plan of investigation while many outlined the scope and method. Some candidates used this section to provide a lengthy introduction instead of developing the scope and method for the investigation. Too often the research question was too broad with limited focus. There continues to be a group of candidates that simply state the two sources that they will evaluate for section C and believe that this qualifies as “method”.

Criterion B – Summary of evidence

Many of the historical investigations were well researched and the evidence clearly presented and referenced, though not always thoroughly or consistently. Referencing seemed to be improved slightly but there continues to be concerns due to a lack of referencing which limits the amount that can be awarded for this section to a maximum of two marks. Candidates continued to blend sections B and D, with analysis demonstrated in the summary of evidence, section B, and new evidence being used in section D, analysis.

Criterion C – Evaluation of sources

In this session strong candidates evaluated two sources adequately, explicitly developing origin, purpose, value and limitations. A number of candidates clearly identified their sources’ origin and purpose yet their actual evaluation was often limited to a consideration of the sources’ content and consequent utility, with little or no assessment of the sources’ possible reliability in terms of their origin and purpose. Many candidates lacked detailed knowledge of the sources and included assertions and speculative points which they do not successfully support. Allegations of bias were seldom supported by evidence. Many candidates also made a poor choice of the sources to evaluate. There seems to be an increase in selecting small excerpts from a larger source and then evaluating the excerpt and not the actual source.

Criterion D – Analysis

At the upper mark level candidates successfully utilized critical analysis of the evidence presented in section B with explicit references to the significance of the sources evaluated in section C. At the lower mark levels critical analysis was often limited with many candidates not fully analyzing the evidence presented in section B or demonstrating explicit awareness of the significance of the sources evaluated in section C. There seems to be an increase in new evidence being placed in this section which attempts to compensate for a lack of evidence in section B. The candidate would improve the quality of the summary of evidence as well as receiving credit for the material if it was correctly placed. In samples where research questions were not clearly stated, the resulting analysis was unfocused and lacked depth. There continues to be a lack of understanding by some candidates and centres that it is necessary to include references to be awarded a mark above two.

Criterion E – Conclusion

The majority did have a consistent conclusion, supported by the evidence presented. Even though the majority were consistent there seemed to be an increase in inconsistent conclusions.

Criterion F – Sources and word limit

Many candidates produced a list of sources using a standard citation and referencing method consistently yet there was some variation in the presentation of bibliographies with a number of candidates needing more guidance concerning the necessary conventions. A few candidates exceeded the word limit when a small amount of editing would have allowed the sample to stay within the limits of the investigation. There seemed to be fewer candidates this year that did not place the word count on the title page.

Pre-ToK Makeup assignment for Junior Diploma Candidates

Students who missed Pre-ToK session #2 should do the following makeup assignment:

Read the book “A Drop of Water” from the Skyline Library.  When you’ve considered the knowledge in the book and compared that knowledge to what you knew already, respond to the following prompt:

“Knowledge gives us a sense of who we are.”  To what extent is this true in the Human Sciences and one other Area of Knowledge?

Your essay will be marked according to the assessment criteria published in the Theory of Knowledge guide. The focus of your essays should be on knowledge issues. Where appropriate, refer to other parts of your IB programme and to your experiences as a knower. Always justify your statements and provide relevant examples to illustrate your arguments. Pay attention to the implications of your arguments, and remember to consider what can be said against them. If you use external sources, cite them according to a recognized convention.

Respond to the title exactly as given; do not alter it in any way.

Your essay must be between 1200 and 1600 words in length, double spaced and typed in size 12 font.