Philosophy 1 HL IB and Philosophy 2 HL IB

Philosophy 1 HL IB and Philosophy 2 HL IB

Summer reading assignment

Summer 2008

Mrs. Johnson and Dr. VanderWilt

Objectives:

Students will consider the core theme and the optional themes in the IB Philosophy curriculum by way of reading a fictional account of men and women engaging in philosophical dialogue.
Students will compare and contrast the thought of several central philosophers on the core theme and optional themes as presented in the various scenes of the novel.
Students will prepare written evidence of having read and interacted with the text, of having considered and responded to the various philosophical themes and questions raised by the characters in the novel.
Students will engage the themes and questions on a fun and entertaining level to prepare for some of the “heavy lifting” we plan to do during the coming year.

All students will read the following novel:

Eyre, Lucy. If Minds Had Toes. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2007. ISBN: 1-59691-300-2. $12.95. 281 pp.

All students will prepare a dialectic journal including at least 40 entries similar in length and style to the sample shown below. Students are asked to prepare their journal entries using a variety of the metacognitive reading strategies suggested below.

Assessment of the selected texts and journal entries will be based on the attached rubric on a scale of 0 to 40 points.

The journal will be due within the first week or two of Fall semester. Scores will be included in the Fall semester homework grade.

It is estimated that this book should take from 14-15 hours to read. (at 3 minutes per page)

It is estimated that the journaling assignment should take an additional 6 to 7 hours. (at 10 minutes per entry)

Metacognitive Reading Strategies

When you read, try the following strategies to help you engage the text and raise your reading comprehension beyond the literal, summary level:

CONNECT/COMMENT – Does what you just read remind you of anything in your experience, or something you have read or viewed? Name the connection and describe it in shorthand.

QUESTION – Do you have a question resulting from what you just read? It may be related to something else associated with what you read, or about the reading itself, or about the vocabulary word. Write the question and your best guess at an answer in shorthand.

COMPARE and CONTRAST – Note the similarity or difference between what you are reading, and what you have read, heard, or viewed about the topic in the past. Write your observation in shorthand.

APPLICATION – Can you apply what you have just read to another situation or other information that you may know, creating a new level of understanding for what you have just read? Write your application in shorthand.

EVALUATE/JUDGE – Do you find yourself making a judgment or evaluating what you have just read, i.e., questioning the validity of an idea or action, based on your belief system and value set? Write your evaluation in shorthand.

SYNTHESIZE – Are you relating the information you have read to other information you have read, viewed, heard, to come up with a “new” theory of how to use or understand what you have read, even coming up with potential alternative answers to questions being asked by the text? Write your synthesis in shorthand.

PREDICT – Do you find yourself predicting what will happen next, or what point will come next, or anticipating the conclusion? Write your prediction in shorthand.

CLASSIFY/SORT – Do you find yourself classifying what you have just read, and sorting into a category or heading of information? Write your category classification with a shorthand description.

INFER – Do you find yourself using information that you already know, combining it with what you just read, and coming up with meaning that is not in the printed text? Write what you think the text is getting at, what if infers but does not state explicitly, in shorthand.

Dialectic Journal for Student Response

“’Do they?’ Wittgenstein asked. ‘Certainly not properly. But do you really think people need this kind of philosophy in their lives? Do you think normal people worry about the metaphysical problem of free will? No, they worry about how to pay off their debt. How to live the good life? No, they care about their sex life. The true nature of reality? No, they just want a promotion. How does the mind work? Absolutely not! At most, they ponder what car to buy. It’s all they’re good for.’”
(9) / He’s probably right about most people, because they think of philosophy as some kind of ethereal, not for them kind of thing. But, really, if you think about it, answering the questions of free will affect the choices you make, so it might affect your promotion, your sex life, or buying a car. Ditto, for good life. So, it’s really about perception and semantics, which I think Wittgenstein (linguist that he is) should have picked up on.
Strategies I used:
EVALUATE, QUESTION, SYNTHESIZE

ACTIVE READING: Dialectic Journal Rubric

Pts. / Short-Takes / Comprehension Demonstration / Critical Thinking and Active Reading Demonstration
36 to 40 / Impression of “seamless” understanding of text. / 1.Complete. Selection demonstrates literal understanding, with a minimum of 40 thoughtfully selected quotes.
2. Thorough. Commentary gives impression of a rigorous effort to convey full range of meaning and understanding, including reader connections, reflections, questions, and possible theories.
3. Discriminating. Selected quotes are not indiscriminate and convey a definite sense of purpose and theme.
4.Comprehension. Text not taken merely at face value. Commentary reveals effort to understand nuances, paradoxes, bias, and inconsistencies in text. / 1.Full range of "meaning-making" strategies (connect, reflect, evaluate, compare/contrast, ask questions, predict, apply/conclude, summary or re-statement) employed consistently.
2.A thread that connects the text begins to be woven, creating a unified structure to the interpretation of meaning.
3.More than one such thread exists, so that multiple readings / meanings begin to emerge.
4. Commentary reflects logical, strong support for the interpretation, reflections, evaluations, etc., and/or ask reflective questions in need of thinking and discussion with attempt at hypothetical answer.
5. Commentary is of the necessary depth/length so that the reasoning is clear to the reader.
32 to 35 / Hit all the keys, but missed some deeper
understandings / 1. Complete and thorough as in the A level.
2.Differentiation from the A level is the sense of “seamless’ understanding, lacking full attempt to deal with nuance and paradox, and perhaps missing bias or inconsistencies of text; little attempt to question the text. / The B Level has the range and coherency of the A, but lacks as much depth. Sense that more could have been explained for the meaning to be fully realized in the mind of the reader.
25 to 31 / An even mix of hits and misses / 1. Selection and density of quotes gives impression that reader recognized the central ideas and supporting details, but the subtle passages seem to have escaped attention.
2.Some selected passages lack a sense of clear purpose.
3. Commentary creates impression that comprehension does not go beyond the more overt, explicit detail. / 1. No clear use or inconsistent use of “meaning-making” strategies.
2. A thread exists, but it has a couple of places where it loses its focus.
3. The support, in a couple of spots, does not add up logically or does not balance with other details. Few questions are asked of the text.
4. More needs to be written in the commentary to get a sense of full understanding.
20 to 24 / You missed far more than you hit / 1. Selection and density of quotes is inconsistent or incomplete: a little here; a little there.
2. Though sparse, selected passages are sufficient to give impression that student has read entire text, though with limited attention.
3. Numerous selected passages lack a clear purpose behind it.
4. Commentary reveals only the most minimal grasp of the central ideas of the reading. / 1. The use of "meaning-making" strategies has been reduced to an over-reliance on one or two particular strategies.
2.No clear, focused thread has been woven.
3. There are obvious gaps in the logic of the support. No questions are asked of the text.
4. Commentary has been reduced to a few words throughout, leaving the reader to attempt to figure out meaning or understanding.
0 to 19 / Oh no! Your highlighter ran dry! Time to buy a new one! / 1. Incomplete and lacking thoroughness. Selected quotes suggest that between 10% and 33% (or more) of the selection was skipped or unfinished.
2. No attention to detail—gives impression of trying to create appearance that material has been read; random, scattered. / 1. No "meaning-making" strategy has been employed effectively.
2.No clear, focused thread has been woven.
3. There is no clear logic in the support of the insights. No questions asked of the text.
4. Commentary has been reduced to a few sentences or phrases.