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 nonphilosophical 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

A friend of a friend needs a favor No questions asked, there's not much more to say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwydEQUeGo

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 nonphilosophical 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 nonphilosophical 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 nonphilosophical 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

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 nonphilosophical 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.

Overall Comment

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 counterarguments 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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful