Search This Blog

IB WORKSHOP - HISTORY: PUTTING THE COURSE TOGETHER

This page contains writing done in the IB workshop History: Putting the Course Together.



External Assessment - I'll eventually comment on this one!


IB INTERNAL ASSESSMENT
October 3rd

I began with some questions on this section.

Is there some kind of IB format that teachers have to guide students in the process of learning to write the essay? (ie) proper topic and transition statements. What’s the rationale for the weighting of the marks? Why is there only one chance for the teacher to go over the first draft before the final copy must be submitted? (or have I misinterpreted something?)

Going over the History Guide, I have to admit I like a lot of what I’ve read, more explicitly the demand for academic integrity, and that this assignment is embedded in the course, rather than an add-on. Is 20 hours enough to complete this? (or am I mistaken again)

A classmate, Paul made a good point in the cultural style acceptable – Have you ever seen a Japanese essay? Very, very different. The IB is “international”, isn’t it?

Looking at the marking criteria, the expectations are clear as to what skills are required: investigation, summary of evidence, evaluation of sources, analysis and a conclusion. These are all clear to me. I’d like to see a writing style / prose built into this. Is there even a writing guide for the historical essay? I think young people need to be taught to learn how to write a good essay in terms of format/ style, not only in the skills needed by the historian.

SAMPLE ANALYSIS
In terms of the criteria in relation to the marked samples, I can see how the marks were given, though I do have several thoughts.

After looking at the sample papers and comments I saw that one student (2nd sample) lost 3 points for going over the length. How much longer was it? One hundred or five hundred words? The word count wasn’t indicated. I’d have given one point for the writing (unless it was ridiculously long). Perhaps this student wasn’t properly guided to success? (then again, maybe they were lazy)

Not surprisingly, the evaluation of sources and analysis were the weak spots for students. Only the last student (sample 5) had a grasp of both. This is an area I think as social studies teachers we may need to improve upon. It’s been four years since teaching my last social studies class, but in retrospect, although I made a great effort to teach critical thinking, reading between the lines, and understanding things like bias, I don't recall doing a good job teaching students to analyse the resources they use. (yes, they had to learn to evaluate the value of a source for use, but not explain why it’s a good source, and why it’s good compared to others) This goes back to learning the skills and methods of historiography, as well as presenting and argument based on research, not just giving a narrative.

My only fear of this system is that the comments are quite short, and very straightforward. For a lengthy essay, where exactly were the problems? How do you improve the areas a student was lacking in? It goes back to the teacher to interpret the statements. “The is some analysis of material presented in section B, some referencing, and a lot of new narrative and descriptive material that should have been included in section B.” for some reason this doesn’t seem to helpful in terms of how one can improve. From sample 4 “There is some evaluation of the sources but reference to their origin, purpose, value and limitation is limited.“ It’s a fair statement, but how can someone learn from it? Maybe it’s just me.



COMMAND TERMS
October 1

I like the idea of "Command Terms" in the IB program. Here are my reflections from the workshop. 

In Route 1 I’ve found most of the command terms to be of the compare, compare & contrast nature. There is a lot of use of discuss, examine, analyse and evaluate. In Route 2 I found far more reference to justifying an opinion: “in what ways”, “for what reasons” and “to what extent” is frequently used. Examinees are also asked to “assess” more. It appears to me (though I may be missing something) that there are more higher order thinking questions. Students may confuse “examine” and “analyse”. They may also be confused with “explain” and “discuss” which are frequently used.

In terms of confusing chronology, one question on comparing and contrasting women in Medieval Europe and the Islamic world may lead to confusion, as the can arguably have different periods represented. (ie) the early development of Islam vs the High Renaissance. Questions with reference to 20th century wars extend over a hundred years. Comparing and contrasting questions seem to be flat. What are students to compare? Any of these questions are quite open.

Questions need to be detailed and specific. (as do rubrics) The historical skills are in the command terms, but maybe not clear in the questioning. The “what and why” questions are clearly looking for knowledge and understanding. These are straight-forward. Something that may hinder students is how much detail is expected. Perhaps the length of the question or its simplicity/ complexity may lead students to make proper assumptions, but maybe not. Perhaps students may answer too much by not focusing on the required task. Being expected to examine a policy as opposed to explaining the content of it are two different expectations.

Teaching the meaning of these terms, and also in the IBO examination context is critical. This goes for any questioning techniques. They have to be repeated throughout a course in order to make them second nature. I have my greatest experience with the Ontario Curriculum, which has very specific skills that students of Social Studies are supposed to learn and develop. In this same sense students had to practice throughout a course and be very deliberate about what terms they were using regularly. 


HISTORY BLOGS & IT
September 23rd 

I personally prefer web sites to blogs, but that’s not the focus of this writing. Academic blogging has a higher level of responsibility attached to it, as opposed to someone blogging for personal satisfaction or use. I’ve not taught History for a while, so I don’t have any “favourite” blogs. I think blogs are a valuable source (I’ll explain why I like each one below) but when sources aren’t given I can’t really see them as valuable for reseach.

A Blog About History is written by a diligent individual. She provides news related to history, many, many topics, and a global nature, meaning that she doesn’t focus on a single period in History nor a specific region. The fact that she has 25,000 Twitter followers speaks volumes in itself. I’d like to see more images. The ones she provides are usually the same linked to newspaper articles in which she finds news stories. The writing is suitable for students. There isn’t a lot of engaging content and the sidebar list is not in alphabetical order, which isn’t really convenient for researching.

Harlots, Harpies and Harridans is a blog dedicated to women. Something I tried to do in all of my past history teaching was to include the roles of women, non-Caucasians, and others ignored by history. The author seems to have a good sense of humour, too. There is a good amount of content, though the theme is infamous women in history. She provides a good amount of visual aids to support the writing. She needs to source her work though. 

I like interesting anecdotes in History, so The Beachcomber’s Bizarre History Blog is a fun one. Students are engaged with strange history, if it’s true. This author has many photos to reinforce his writing, and provides a bibliography. (though it’s a straight-up bibliography for all writing – not for each specific posting) There is a wide variety of topics and the writing in the small samples I read appear to be unbiased. 

Wonders and Marvels is along the same thread as Beachcomber, but it has a variety of contributors, which is appealing in that we get a variety of writing and researching styles. They also have a newsletter.

The blog, History and the Sock Merchant, provides a variety of topics, though they seem random. He provides images, which always gives the reader a stronger image of the history. More images would be effective. His writing is also not too academic in nature, but not childish either, so it would be good for secondary students. Though this blogger has interesting features such as links to recommended books and a list of history sites/ blogs, I didn’t notice a lot of sourcing of resources.

IT
I use a lot of IT in my class. The two schools I’ve spent most of my career (16 years) are both laptop campuses fully connected to the Internet. I have recently set up a googe web site for my yearbook class, as well as a teacher’s blog for students to follow. I use online mind mapping, idea sharing (ie) with Today’s Meet, and set up web pages for courses. Tomorrow I’ll be guiding Grade 9 students through setting up a google web site for an ancient history travel blog. We use PowerPoint , Keynote, and Pages to produce work.


HOW USEFUL IS WIKIPEDIA FOR STUDENTS?
September 19th

Wikipedia has been a fun debate for a while. Most of us bashed it in the past and still do. We all know educators who outright ban it. Though I’m not a user of Wikipedia and recognize its drawbacks, nor do I endorse its use, I do feel there are some benefits for learning. So, what are the pros and cons? (you’ll not a wide range of cons, but in comparison to other alternatives)

The fact that it allows for collaboration worldwide is obvious, but I question how valuable that collaboration is. How many of us know someone who has actually created a Wikipedia page or submitted additions or corrections? More constructive collaboration can be found with “classroom” wikis, blogs, online mind mapping, social networking sites, etc. These provide more tailored collaboration, with the teacher and students determining the sources for learning. The mere fact that Wikipedia is a widely shared open source, then the quality of information is greatly compromised.

If an article is on a subject that is generally well known and agreed upon in content, Wikipedia may be a good place to start. General knowledge such as dates and names may be a safe bet, but they still have to be verified, and Wikipedia isn’t an authority. Some may suggest that articles on pop culture may be fine, but when it comes to academic subjects it’s probably best to avoid it. Any good researcher is going to seek multiple sources, and dig for the origin of the sources used. In this sense Wikipedia can be a good place to teach students to evaluate sources. (see pdf file) The idea is to see that students remain skeptical and be able to identify bias and differentiate between fact, fiction and opinion. (not to mention a plethora of mistakes, from factual errors to spelling errors) To Wikipedia’s credit, it does have the following sections: References, Notes, Sources and Further Reading, and External Links. Regardless, citing Wikipedia as a source isn’t a good idea. (the rules for writing aren’t exactly solid; see linked article at the end)

In terms of sources, there are so many better-recognized, reliable, and trusted online research databases. These kinds of sources may be longer or shorter, but are likely better for an academic endeavor, written by recognized academics. Though one can argue these kinds of databases seldom contain original scholarship, Wikipedia is definitely not a source of original scholarship.
This brings us to the authors: how do we know these people are an authority? Most academics who are an authority on as subject aren’t writing for Wikipedia. (that’s just my assumption, mind you)

What goes into a source? This can be said about anything, really. I had a look at the term “History” and scrolled down to “Historical Methods”. I like the summary box to the right, but are the six points all there is to know? The danger here is a student taking those six elements and basing their work around that alone. This is an example of the danger of using Wikipedia as a source. I used to have my own history web page (which I want to re-develop), and even what I put into is based on the time I have, the resources I have, and what in a topic interests me. My own Social Studies web page was tailored to the classes I taught, and beyond that random areas of my interest – hardly a great source of knowledge. (but useful for teaching my classes!) Further browsing through Wikipedia with a more critical eye I found myself wondering how many images are properly identified.

I’ll end with these observations when I searched only three of the suggested topics within Wikipedia:

The “Totalitarianism” page: “neutrality of this article is disputed”
The “Capitalism” page: “…section needs additional citations for verification”
The “Limited War” page: “needs additional citations for verification” & “examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view”

For humour’s sake have a look at The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which includes the fifth pillar “Wikipedia does not have firm rules.”

Here’s a short article you may enjoy.

Footnote: This Wikipedia evaluation  activity serves as a remind that students have to develop skills in evaluation and assessment of sources. Not only this, but also how to navigate through a source, be it online or a traditional textbook. (I actually do an activity in my classes where students "navigate" their textbook - images, bolded text, additional resources, etc) We navigate and evaluate online sources, image sources - everything.


ASSESSMENT IN MY CONTEXT
September 16th

We have something called “Common Assessments”. In this, those sharing a section of a course have Planning and Collaborative Time (PACT) to determine what summative assessments will be administered across the curriculum. Other summative assessments are determined by the teacher independently. This happens in AP courses, although the exams are administered according to AP guidelines. Using Faculty Access Web (FaWeb) we can give formative assessment comments at any point in the year, and give a formative assessment to students not achieving a minimum of C in a course. For most teachers, assessments are varied: observation, quizzes, essays, tests, exams, presentations (oral, audio, video, written such as essay or response), graded discussions, reflections statements. The DBQ structure is taught in a way that students may have a peer-assessed DBQ (or more) to practice before an assessment becomes summative. Daily or frequent quizzes given for students to “figure out” what they know/ don’t know, or can/ can’t do. This includes writing strategies/ formats, and skills such as critical thinking. Students have a chance to learn and practice before a summative assessment.

Again, faculty sharing sections of a course collaborate to develop criteria for assessment, rubrics, and grading standards. Regular department meetings are held in order to share ideas and to develop common standards for grading Document-Based Questions, as well as skills that will be assessed. (ie) evaluating sources, identifying bias, choosing the most relevant information, etc. Grades are given twice per semester, though access to progress is available to students and parents/ guardians online through FaWeb.

Not cognitive but assessment of the affective domain, all classes at the school have attitude and behaviour evaluations/ assessments referred to as Attitude Towards Learning (ATLs). Each department meets to determine three ATLs each year, either to revise or recreate ATLs.

THE SCHOOL'S APPROACH TO DELIVERING HISTORY COURSES
Based on Rubicon Curriculum Mapping, each program in the school, including History courses, follow these guidelines for planning units: (1) Essential Questions, (2) Content (what they will “Know” and “Understand”), (3) Skills, (4) Assessment, (5) Strategies & Activities, and (6) Resources. For History courses, these guidelines have been developed with AP standards in mind. Students will have to succeed in external AP examinations, and thus the courses must provide the framework that allows for these skills, understandings and knowledge to be developed over the 4 years they are in high school. 

The school’s policy is to have classes taught as closely as possible, though the reality is teachers tend to adapt these curriculum maps to suit their style, and ultimately, the people in their classes. In this sense the policy is flexible. Common Assessments and the relevant skills/ content must be taught as closely as possible and similarly assessed. The Social Studies Department meets regularly during the above mentioned PACT days, as well as informally, to discuss course delivery. The most recent major change was including the Grade 10 AP World course, in which several teachers met frequently to develop the course for delivery in the subsequent year.