You are on page 1of 25

I.B.

Philosophy Program

Approaching the Internal


Assessment

South Island School : IB Philosophy


Introduction

Higher level (20%) and standard level (30%) of mark

AIM:

‘Students will demonstrate their philosophical


knowledge and understanding to real-life
examples or situations, and how non-philosophical
material can be treated in a philosophical way and
challenge their philosophical reflection.’
IB Philosophy Subject Guide
Guidelines

• Internal assessment consists of a philosophical


analysis of 1600-2000 words.
• Word limit does not include: bibliography, references
or 200-word description that is necessary for lengthier
non-philosophical material.
• Students should identify an issue raised by the non-
philosophical material and analyse it in a philosophical
way.
• Analysis must relate to a philosophical issue or
argument raised by the study of the course.
Choosing your material…

• Novels, plays, poetry, song lyrics


• Films/movies, television and radio shows
• Cartoons, paintings, photographs or other visual
images
• Newspaper articles/letters
• Internet sites
• Advertisements
• Pamplets
• propaganda
Guidelines for material choice

• A newspaper article can stand alone but where


novels or plays are used, no more than two
pages should be selected for analysis.
• For TV or radio shows, film/movie or play, no
more than two scenes should be used.
• Emphasis should be on depth and quality of the
philosophical analysis, not on length or the
intellectual level of the source material used.
Formal requirements

Students must adhere to the word limit and must provide


the following information.
• Title
• Part of the syllabus to which the exercise relates
• Number of words.
• Bibliography and references
• A copy or description of the source material used for their
philosophical analysis. Texts of over 200 words (poems,
novels, newspaper articles) and film/movie scenes or
television scenes/radio shows (not the whole movie or
show) must be described in no more than 200 words.
BON JOVI – Right Side of Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwydEQUeGo
A friend of a friend needs a favor
No questions asked, there's not much more to say
Me and the wife, we need the money
We've got four kids all hungry, one on the way
Slip these sweat socks in your shirt and pray they think your packin'
Be sure to keep your head down, don't look 'em in the eye
And don't get fancy, Ricky, we ain't Jimmy Cagney
Look at me, let's do the job and let's get home tonight
[ Chorus: ]
I got a half tank of gas and if we run all the lights
We'll slip across the border on the wrong side of right
And just like Butch and Sundance we'll ride until the dawn
Sipping whiskey, singing cowboy songs
On the Right Side of Wrong
We picked a helluva of a night, from the shore I see the skyline
In a couple of hours from now Rick, we're gonna get out of this life
We'll stop for smokes, I brought a six pack,
we'll stop at lookers on the way back
Hell, we'll laugh this off, keep your fingers
[ Chorus: ]
We'll make the grade, they'll know our names,
I need a friend to drive here
Wear my necklace of St. Christopher and talk to him while I go inside
I'll take that suitcase, get the cash and we'll be gone before you know
Wait until we tell the girls we're moving down to the Gulf of Mexico...
[ Guitar Solo ]
A friend of a friend needed a favor
Life was just what happened while we were busy making plans
We never saw nothing, there was a run-in
.9 millimeter steel was coming for the windshield of that Oldsmobile
As the cop said, "Show your hands!"

[ Chorus: ]
Philosophical Issue?

• An analysis of the language


of ‘Right and Wrong’
• Consequentialist vs
Deontological ethics
Criterion A : Expression (5 marks)

• Has the student presented ideas and arguments


in an organized way?
• How clear and precise is the language used by
the student?
• To what extent is the language appropriate to
philosophy?
• Has the students met all the formal requirements?
(word limit and required information)
Criterion B: Knowledge and
Understanding (5 marks)

• To what extent does the student demonstrate


knowledge of philosophical issues?
• To what extent does the student apply the skills of
philosophical analysis to a material of a non-
philosophical nature?
• How well does the student demonstrate an
understanding of the philosophical arguments,
concepts and perspectives used?
Criterion C: Identification and
analysis of relevant material (10
marks)
• To what extent does the student identify stimulus
material that is appropriate for philosophical
analysis?
• How effectively does the student analyse the
stimulus material with the aid of supporting
material from other areas of the course?
• To what extent does the student identify and
analyse appropriate examples and counter
examples?
Criterion D: Development and
Evaluation (10marks)

• Does the student develop the argument in a


coherent way?
• How well does the student develop and evaluate
ideas and arguments?
• How well has the student demonstrated that non-
philosophical material can be treated in a
philosophical way?
• To what extent does the student express a
relevant personal response?
Internal Assessment examples

Example 1: James and the Red Engine

Example 2: Evanescence’s ‘Everybody’s Fool’


Example 1: James and
the Red Engine
Criterion A
• All formal requirements have
been met; the argument is clear
and coherent and uses
language that is effective and
appropriate to philosophy.

SCORE: 4/5
Example 1: James and
the Red Engine
Criterion B
There is a satisfactory level of
knowledge and understanding of
philosophical issues. There is a
satisfactory application of the skills
of philosophical analysis to the non-
philosophical material, but the
student tends to describe or list
information associated with the
philosophical views and approaches
identified in the exercise.

SCORE: 3/5
Example 1: James and
the Red Engine
Criterion C
The stimulus material identified is
appropriate and lends itself to a
thoughtful analysis. Examples
help to support the argument,
and counter-arguments are
identified and described clearly.

SCORE: 7/10
Example 1: James and
the Red Engine
Criterion D
The argument is developed from a
consistently held perspective, with a
good level of evaluation of the ideas
and issues identified and a good
development of the argument. The
argument does not proceed to
compelling, subtle or convincing
levels of evaluation or development.

SCORE: 7/10
Overall Comment
The student has met all the formal requirements and
presents a piece that is clearly organized and formulated
in a coherent fashion. The analysis draws on a non-
philosophical item that allows for a satisfactory treatment
of the philosophical issues drawn from the item. The
student is not always able to move from a description or
exposition of the ideas of a particular philosophical
approach, to the philosophical ideas and/or issues
identified, to a demonstration of a good knowledge of the
significance of the material presented. Similarly, the
student is not able to develop a critical analysis of the
significance of the themes, ideas and issues derived from
the stimulus material. The concluding paragraph shows
that the student is able to formulate a good personal
response to, and appreciation of, the argument presented.
However, a convincing, compelling and well-justified
philosophical treatment of the overall argument is not
present. The student is able to list several positions on
the philosophical issues derived from the stimulus
material, however, the implications of the perspectives
identified are not effectively explored in a developed and
convincing fashion.
Example 2 : Philip Larkin – Trees

The Trees
The trees are coming into leaf
Like something almost being said;
The recent buds relax and spread,
Their greenness is a kind of grief.

Is it that they are born again


And we grow old? No, they die too,
Their yearly trick of looking new
Is written down in rings of grain.

Yet still the unresting castles thresh


In fullgrown thickness every May.
Last year is dead, they seem to say,
Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.
Example 2: Trees

Criterion A
• All formal requirements have been met. The
piece is clearly and coherently organized with
a focused and sustained argument. The
language used is precise and fully appropriate
to philosophy.

SCORE: 5/5
Example 2: Trees

Criterion B
Good knowledge of philosophical issues used in
effective support of the argument presented.
There is a convincing demonstration of the
philosophical analysis of non-philosophical
material and a convincing understanding of
arguments, concepts, issues and perspective
employed in the exercise.
SCORE: 4/5
Example 2: Trees

Criterion C
Clear and appropriate focus on the stimulus
material and a detailed analysis of the
material. Examples, illustrations and counter-
arguments are well chosen and convincingly
analysed.

SCORE: 9/10
Example 3: Trees

Criterion D
The exercise developed from a consistent
perspective with an effective level of evaluation
of ideas and arguments. There is good evidence
of a personal response and good evidence of a
philosophical treatment of non-philosophical
material. There is, however, room for a more
compelling, well-justified level of development.

SCORE: 8/10
Overall Comment
The student has paid close and precise attention to the
fulfillment of all formal requirements. The stimulus material is
concise and appropriate for the development of an effective
critical analysis. Because the language is fully appropriate to
philosophy and allows for a clear articulation of the insights,
the student is able to present an exercise that is clearly,
coherently and effectively organized. The student
demonstrates a good knowledge of the philosophical issues
derived from the source material and focuses in a convincing
manner on the non-philosophical material throughout the
exercise. There is a good application of the skills of
philosophical analysis, and the entire argument is supported
by relevant examples, illustrations and counter-examples. In
particular, the exploration of the various philosophical
approaches used in the analysis of the philosophical themes
derived from the source material is developed in an effective
manner, in which argument is met by counter-argument. The
level of personal response is good and the exercise is
brought to a convincing conclusion. Occasionally, the
student does not differentiate between description and
evaluation or between exposition and analysis. The
bibliography is very thin.
Overall Comment
language is concise and appropriate for the development of an
effective critical analysis. Because the language is fully
appropriate to philosophy and allows for a clear articulation
of the insights, the student is able to present an exercise that
is clearly, coherently and effectively organized. The student
demonstrates a good knowledge of the philosophical issues
derived from the source material and focuses in a convincing
manner on the non-philosophical material throughout the
exercise. There is a good application of the skills of
philosophical analysis, and the entire argument is supported
by relevant examples, illustrations and counter-examples. In
particular, the exploration of the various philosophical
approaches used in the analysis of the philosophical themes
derived from the source material is developed in an effective
manner, in which argument is met by counter-argument. The
level of personal response is good and the exercise is
brought to a convincing conclusion. Occasionally, the
student does not differentiate between description and
evaluation or between exposition and analysis. The
bibliography is very thin.