IB1 - May 7th, Sample IO Grading

IB1 - May 7th, Sample IO Grading

Agenda + HW

• Checking in

• IO materials - whats the global issue

• Listening and discussion on portion one - evaluation

• Listening and discussion on portion two - evaluation

• Final marks + reflection

• HW: Read essay #3 in "A Small Place" for Monday

Sample IO Grading #2

"We the People" + "Home"

Keep in mind the rubric - we will be grading this at the end

Instructions -

• Listen to the following IO - stop at the end of the individual analysis

• Consider while you listen:

• What is well done/not covered enough

• Is there too little context? Too much?

• Do they reference the actual extracts enough? Too little?

• How is the language? Organization?

• I find it helpful to keep a bulleted list of notes to help me focus while listening

Open Ended

Overall impressions on this IO - what do you think was well done? What wasn't?

Portion #2

• Continue listening to the recording through the discussion portion

• Think to yourself - why is the teacher asking these questions?

• How are his responses? Do they do a good job addressing the questions?

• It could be worth writing down these questions - it will also help you focus in

Poll

Criteria A: Knowledge and Understanding

• 9-10

• 7-8

• 5-6

• 3-4

• 1-2

6/10

There is good knowledge of the contexts of both of the extracts, but there is little to no reference to the literary work (Shire) or body of work (Fairey) from which the extracts were taken. This is a problem. References to the Brexit vote and Trump vote help give the texts meaning. While, interpretations are not consistently relevant to the global issue of ‘immigration’, they are insightful and effective. There are frequent and appropriate references to the extracts throughout the oral. There should be equal reference to the work and body of work.

Poll

Criteria B: Analysis and Evaluation

• 9-10

• 7-8

• 5-6

• 3-4

• 1-2

6/10

The oral clearly focuses on how meaning is constructed through the language of this poster and poem. The student’s analysis of the texts is stronger than the student’s evaluation of the texts. How effective are the texts as political pieces? Comments on layout, structure and colour, in relation to the poster, are especially insightful. But here, too, the student does not analyse or evaluate the entire body of work or literary work. Where else does Warsan Shire comment on the refugee experience?

Poll

Criteria C: Coherence, balance, and organization

• 9-10

• 7-8

• 5-6

• 3-4

• 1-2

8/10

There is a clear thesis statement and sense of organisation. At times the oral seems to wander off topic, such as the example about the Obama poster. Nevertheless, it regains focus quickly. The analysis of the poem is not as thorough as the analysis of the poem. It feels rushed when the candidate explores a list of quotations and stylistic devices.

Poll

Criteria D: Language

• 9-10

• 7-8

• 5-6

• 3-4

• 1-2

8/10

The language is fluent, proficient, appropriate and accurate. At times, simplistic language slips into the oral, such as “It’s kind of sad that Muslims are perceived as terrorists.” This happens more in the dialogue than the presentation part of the oral. For the most part, however, the use of language is very effective in delivering the candidate’s message. 

Open Ended

The final score for this candidate was a 28/40. Are you surprised by this? How does listening to this oral and seeing the final score make you feel?