Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 5

Archive #2

Can we archive sections 1-9 ("criticism" through "copied from article") as they date from May and appear to be inactive? La mome (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Job done! Ewen (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ewen! Next time, I'll try to figure out how to do it instead of asking someone else. I am slowly learning the ins and outs of editing. Cheers La mome (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAS

A while back someone who identified himself/herself as a student changed the CAS hour requirement from 150 to 180. I linked this http://www.ibo.org/ibaem/conferences/documents/JohnCannings.pdf where it clearly states a minimum of 150 hours during the course of 18 months. Cheers La mome (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the CAS section as there is no 150 hour requirement. This was so until the current academic year but it changed. --Candy (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with eliminating what actually constituted a "standard" (150 hours) of some sort for one of the IB DP's "Core" requirements. It just goes to prove that the 3 Core requirements are the fluff and nonsense part of the DP. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY.- Perhaps read the changes before you add a comment? --Candy (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you made a small novel out of the CAS section, especially since IB students seem to be very proud of being able to "fake" CAS. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=903969 Way too much information. ObserverNY (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

There's no need to be sarcastic, everyone!

The CAS section is getting a little long now that it's been updated. The new requirements seem a little harder to express concisely? I'd suggest using the specific page for more detail.

As an aside, it's useful having protagonists in different time zones isn't it? It gives people time to calm down and think before answering. It's a conscious effort to keep civil sometimes but we're managing it more often than not.

Ewen (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonist? Moi? Not a propagandist? Oh that's good, I must be moving up the evolutionary scale. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Candy-The changes you made to the CAS section are fine with me. I think there still is a guideline of a minimum of 150 hours, but as you have said, there is more of a focus on the learning outcomes. La mome (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi la Mome. FYI. The quote from Section 1 page 6 of the guide I referenced is' "This focus on learning outcomes emphasizes that it is the quality of a CAS activity (its contribution to the student’s development) that is of most importance. The guideline for the minimum amount of CAS activity is approximately the equivalent of half a day per school week (three to four hours per week), or approximately 150 hours in total, with a reasonable balance between creativity, action and service. “Hour counting”, however, is not encouraged." --Candy (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all -

The entire CAS section can be reduced to the following and cut out all of the IB flowery jargon:

CAS

Main article: Creativity, Action, Service

CAS is an acronym for Creativity, Action, Service. Students are required to engage in three roughly equally balanced areas of unpaid activities involving social or community work (Service), participation in sports or physical activities (Action), and initiative in creative or artistic activity (Creativity). The guideline for the minimum amount of CAS activity over the two year programme is approximately 150 hours in total. "Hour counting”, however, is not encouraged. [12]

CAS performance and records are documented by the student using official forms (CAS/AEF Forms) which are retained by the school. CAS/CP forms are submitted to the IB regional offices by 1 May and 1 November. If the Diploma Programme candidate does not complete the requirement within two years, the Diploma will not be awarded, even if all other requirements have been satisfactorily met. [13]

There was redundant/conflicting information re 18 mo/2 yrs and also re non-completers. I would like consensus on the above section, please. ObserverNY (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Candy--I can't seem to open the #12 link for CAS. ObserverNY--What flowery jargon? You cut out the part about the learning outcomes, which is the essence of CAS, not forms and hours. La mome (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Mome - You can't open a book reference! It's the CAS curriculum Guide published by the IBO. My understanding is that original sources are quite valid as material in Wikipedia. --Candy (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy--I had no idea (obviously)---thanks for pointing that out! Good to know. So, we can cite the guides that we can access either through the OCC or purchasing at the IB store. Can you take a look at the changes I made in the EE section and add the citation for the current EE guide? I am new to this and have problems citing sources. Cheers La mome (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaMome - My proposed revision for the CAS section does indeed cut out what you call the "learning outcomes" but what I call IB subjective rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims. The aims of CAS are to develop students who are reflective thinkers who understand their own strengths and limitations; who identify goals and devise strategies for personal growth; who are willing to accept new challenges and new roles and are aware of themselves as members of communities with responsibilities towards each other and the environment; who are active participants in sustained, collaborative projects and enjoy and find significance in a range of activities involving intellectual, physical, creative and emotional experiences. This entire passage is full of biased adjectives that are unsubstantiated with any specific sources outside of IB's salespitch. "Reflective, find significance, personal growth, enjoy, new challenges, creative and emotional experiences" - a link to the CAS guide like the EE guide can provide anyone who is interested access to reading these "aims" instead of cluttering up the article with IB educationese. I posted a link in this section from students who claim CAS is a "joke" and how they successfully "faked" the requirement. If you want to leave that section in, then I recommend you locate a source which substantiates the claim. Of course, then I expect to be allowed to include the student opinion which contradicts your claim.

-)ObserverNY (talk) 12: 11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - This is not the place to discuss CAS, people who claim to have cheated in their academic studies, the academic integrity of particular students but to discuss improving the article in an encyclopedic way. This is also not a bargaining area or place of tit for tat. --Candy (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candorwein - It's not? Gee, I would have thought a sub-section titled CAS on the discussion page would have been the appropriate place to discuss the CAS portion of the article, but if you can point me to a more appropriate arena, I'm all eyes. Otherwise, I am still awaiting feedback re: my proposed revision to the section as posted above. Since you were the one to insert the flowery "aims" of the component, either defend them with a source which quantitatively confirms IB's "aims", or agree to the revision which factually and more succinctly describes the design of the component. ObserverNY (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Since when are you calling the shots here, ObserverNY? I happen to think the CAS section is fine the way it currently is. Others can speak for themselves but I haven't seen anyone else here object to the current wording. You may not like the aims part, and that's too bad, but it accurately describes the goals of the program according to the IBO. Some students will always find a way to game the system and cheat; this does not mean most do, nor does it make CAS and its goals any less meaningful. Candy is right, quit using this discussion page as a platform for your propaganda. I have yet to see any edits of yours that have actually improved the article. Tvor65 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Candy means here is not the place to discuss approval or disapproval of CAS, but to discuss how best to incorporate CAS in an encyclopedic manner. A couple of suggestions to tighten the section: consider moving the sentences re: CAS form submission to the CAS sub-article; consider reworking very long sentence #2. Because the reference is titled "For students graduating in 2010 and thereafter" (in other words students beginning year one of DP now or in the fall), the CAS section must reflect current CAS requirements, aims, and philosophy, with which I agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthkeeper. "Because the reference is titled "For students graduating in 2010 and thereafter" (in other words students beginning year one of DP now or in the fall)" ... Just to clarify, I understand this to mean students currently in year one of the programme in the Northern Hemisphere (just coming to the end of their first year) and all subsequent students (until the guide changes). I'm "on the run" atm but happy for you to try out some changes to see how it looks and others respond if you want to. (Nothing ventured nothing gained). :) --Candy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ObserverNY You can either tag the part you are not happy with for a cite or delete it. I will, however, when I have time in the next few days, put an appropriate cite on. You've read the WP guidelines so you know what is appropriate. --Candy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAS hours can always be falsely reported anyway. I know a few classmates who did precisely 0 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So true, YellowMonkey. However, IB advocates seem to think CAS merits a mini-tome's worth of description in the article. Since they finally put the IB language in quotes, I'll not fight it any further. Intelligent people can sift through the IB rhetoric and discern the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The article does seem to be overbloated, given that CAS is pretty straightforward and out of around 60 fellow students that I overlapped with, none ever failed it (although some should have) whereas exams and subjects are a much bigger deal. Also, for "action" it isn't just "physical sports", debating and chess are apparently allowed; if they are not, I and a few of my classmates who correctly and transparently declared this ought to have failed. For service, most people went to a lunchtime charity/fundraising club at school, sat at a table and ate their lunch and got their 1 hour's service per week; even though the lunch break was 40minutes I think they all claimed 1 hour YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

Much of the above conversation can be avoided by adhering to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. Regarding fees: ObserverNY found a good source for fees. However, the document only needs summarisation. Anything not supported in that document (teacher training, IB coordinator, online curriculum centre) must either be referenced (via a different source) or not included in the article. Regarding WP:SOURCE : each source must be assessed as per source policies and requirements. Also, when adding references/sources it's helpful to add a page number in long documents such as the one that's currently linked in the EE section. I'll clean up ref syntax as needed to add to the quality of the inline citations and footnotes in the article. In my view sticking to the policies makes everything much less murky. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Truthkeeper. So, if I understand correctly, the OCC homepage should be included as it is mentioned in the document on fees, but obviously not clear as to its purpose and rights to access for some people. The teacher training costs vary from school to school, so assigning a random average is not accurate. I think the OCC home page should be linked after "educational resources" and the last line should read as follows: "Additional ongoing costs will vary and may include teacher professional development at IB workshops, the position of the Diploma Programme coordinator (at least 25% release time is recommended), Extended Essay supervision, educational resources and postage for examination mailings[32]" The IBC does not have to be a teacher and can be an administrator who assumes the duties of IBC. 25% release time is recommended---not required. La mome (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion about including the OCC page, Truthkeeper never mentioned OCC ObserverNY (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

PS--the document in the EE section is an outdated EE guide. This violates copyright as all guides are found on the OCC (password protected) or at the IB Store. The EE section needs some serious updating. La mome (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It (IB EE guide) is posted on a school's website and if it violates "copyright" then the onus is on the school, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, you have no proof that any portion of the EE requirements have changed and therefore it cannot be "outdated". ObserverNY (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

For example, re: teacher training, I chose this random document. The hotel cost is stated, as are transportation and food costs. One could add all the costs based on such a source and come to a conclusion: but it's a tricky business. How much does the plane ticket cost? Does the attendee need airfare? Does the attendee need hotel accommodation? Will the attendee arrive late or early? Too many variables make using such sources problematic. The source currently linked to teacher workshops has no cost/fee in the document, so it should be replaced with another.

Regarding OCC: the online curriculum centre is mentioned in this document and thus there doesn't seem to be a problem to use the link Candy provided on June 14? or June 15?.

If the reference in the EE section does not adhere to the policies for WP:SOURCE then it's best to avoid using it. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either Candy or I will post the reference for the NEW EE guide, unless you would rather do that yourself, ObserverNY? Linking the reference to the hardcopy of the guide does not violate copyright, according to Candy. La mome (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, without the discussion it would have flown below the radar -- but I've pulled this source to add currency info for consistency and noted the source is only for IB North America. In my view, the source must reflect the subject of the article, i.e. International Baccalaureate, rather than one specific region. Perhaps there's another source? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper - Since IBO claims that its programmes represent an "international standard", it shouldn't matter whether the documentation was issued for IBNA or the Asia-Pacific region - the "programmes" and elements thereof, are supposed to be the same. ObserverNY (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

HI ObserverNY. I seem to be unfamiliar with the IB claiming that its programmes "represent an "international standard"". Could you supply the source of your quote so I can read and consider what you are saying please? I'm also confused as to why a parochial comment should be accepted as an internationally encompassing comment because it is about an international organisation? From my own recent experience KFC is pretty horrible for me in Cairo but I find it excellent in Shanghai. Do you think either of my experiences should be taken as representative of all KFC franchises around the world? I don't. So, in order to help me understand what you mean could you explain how your comment above should relate to the entire IB Diploma programme? Thanks. --Candy (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Candy - the following is an official IBO "action kit" for educational leaders which addresses all three IB programmes globally: ^[1]. On page two you will find the following: The three programmes help schools to: Add international perspectives to their academic offerings - Measure teaching and learning against an international standard . I can also provide you with numerous press releases which tout the same, but I thought you would prefer an official IBO statement. ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

It would have surely made more sense to have said that it allows a standard to be applied internationally. --Candy (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy - With all due respect, the only reason we are discussing this is because Truthkeeper questioned the citing of an IBNA document vs. one which represents IB globally. I am presenting the "action kit" as evidence that IBO represents its three programmes as "a measure of teaching and learning against an international standard", that international standard being the IB programmes! Ergo, a Vade Mecum for EE or CAS by IBNA should be absolutely the same as a Vade Mecum for the Mid East or Asia Pacific or Europe. You said you were "unfamiliar" with IBO claiming its programmes "represent an international standard". While the implementation of IB programmes in various schools may indeed vary greatly based on the quality of the teachers and administrations just like the various cooks at the KFC's you have visited vary in quality and talent, both organizations work off of an "original recipe". It is IB's "original recipe" that I seek to accurately portray in the Wikipedia article. IB is topheavy with rules and regulations, we haven't even addressed the student's intellectual property which IBO claims "absolute control" over once a student has submitted work to IBO for assessment. Transparency, or lack thereof, is something which I may want to add a section on. I'll have to think about it.. ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(edit conflicts) Hi ObserverNY: I asked about this source because, for consistency, the article should indicate each currency for the various fees, but the IB North America source only shows USD amounts so it's useless for other currencies as a source. Do you know whether another source exists showing the annual fees in each currency? If so, we'll replace sources; otherwise we'll leave as is for now. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ObserverNY-The Handbook of Procedures (no longer called the vade mecum) is issued from Cardiff. There is no such thing as one from IB Americas (no longer IBNA) and one from each of the other regions. Truthkeeper clarified nicely why the fees document was pulled, so I hope you understand now what the article needs in terms of referencing documentation of costs. I am curious to see the proof you provide that IB (no longer IBO) has absolute control over intellectual property. I hope you will post it here before you try to incorporate it into the article, along with your thoughts on transparency, to avoid embarassing yourself any further.

La mome (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I suppose the entire article on IBO must be deleted and rewritten since NONE of the original IBO/IB terminology/legal organization is valid, eh?

Truthkeeper I guess I misunderstood you because your comment followed LaMome's reference to the EE citation. No, I don't have another reference at this time, sorry. Perhaps you might want to include a monetary conversion site? ObserverNY (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(trying again) I've cleaned the fees/cost section and sorted out the references & sources. Currently no source has been provided to cite application fees in currencies other than USD so I've left as is for now. The workshop source does not provide fee information so I've pulled it for now. Yes, in fact, I referred to the source in the cost flying below the radar, but not to worry because it's all sorted out for now. (Here's hoping I can post without an edit conflict) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper I have added an IB workshop link which addresses every region and every currency. The cost of the workshops can be determined by clicking on each individual workshop. I feel that the way you minimized and obfuscated this cost by eliminating the "$595 to $1039, not including travel and course materials" (which is by far the greatest cost to schools that buy IB), is not being entirely honest. Furthermore, IB teacher training is NOT an option, it is a requirement as spelled out in the Application forms which is why I changed "may be" to "are". ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY--what on earth are you talking about? Could you please fill in the gaps where your line of reasoning leaps from one document not being current to the entire article being deleted and rewritten?

La mome (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one nit-picking over IBO vs IB, IBNA vs. IB Americas, it seems to me that if you want to be so picayune then the article titled "International Baccalaureate Organization" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate should be retitled or pulled. ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY - With respect, it seems much of your information is out-of-date and you misuse what you do have in order to PPOV or make grandiose suggestions such as renaming this article or rewriting it. Please try to be constructive in improving this article. Thanks --Candy (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]