Personal Response

Personal Response Student sample responses

Student A

This statement is a typical example of how people can generalize the world’s problems today. In the statement there are some good points too that give you some information about today’s world, but the generalizations and lack of specifications make the statement vague. Firstly the statement claims that “the most serious problem facing the world today is unemployment.” This is a generalization at its best.

Firstly how can you measure what it the most serious problems in the world. What kind of research or measure approves this point of view? Also, the phrase lets people assume that there is unemployment everywhere you go and it is the biggest issue there. This is certainly not true. For example, in parts of Africa and Middle- East poverty is the major problem due to economical and/or political implications.

Secondly, the statement claims that there is a “danger that an entire generation of young people, in all kinds of society”. This is very biased because the population structure of each country differs from each other. For example, Japan does not have a young generation due to healthy living habits.

Thirdly, it says that “this could be profoundly damaging for the relationships”. I do not believe this. I believe that age, gender and the home country you come from have no link for in building of bad relationships. A rather absurd statement in my opinion.

Overall, the statement was a vague generalization of the world’s problems which gives reader’s a black and white insight on the “real world” and its problems. 255 words

Student D

According to this statement I believe this is true. The most serious problem facing the world today is unemployment and according to John Smith there is a particular issue with youth unemployment. John Smith said that a big percentage of young people will grow up feeling disappointed and useless, without a real future.

The BBC channel interviewed some students looking for summer jobs asking how hard it is to find during the summer and most of them replied the same way: “From where I come from, it is extremely hard to find a job that is not cleaning houses or babysitting”. Many committees are trying the best to encourage young people to find a job that pleases them. “We are trying to encourage companies to give a chance to young people to work” said the coordinator. We believe that his could be profoundly damaging for the relationships on with social life depends. This could be a danger for an entire generations according to the BBC we are trying our best. 170 words

The commentaries

I assume that there must be general agreement that student A's script is significantly better than student B's. The issue is how much better, and for what reasons. Let us analyse each script in some detail, then consider a list of comparisons. Student A

The student uses a wide range of useful skills to handle the Personal Response well:

Clear 'angle' ... the first two sentences present clearly the student's chosen response to the stimulus - that it is rather too generalised. This overall viewpoint is returned to, neatly, in the final sentence / conclusion.

Viewpoint developed and supported ... the student's general position is broken down into three sub-sections, giving more detailed reasons for holding that point of view

Use of quotes from the stimulus ... each of the three detailed argument is based on precise quotations from the text, which are then commented on

Clear strategy of paragraphing ... there are 5 paragraphs, and each is there for an evident purpose

Appropriate use of cohesive devices ... in this case, sequence markers ("firstly...secondly..." etc)

Concise and clear sentence structure ... each step of the various arguments is clearly structured (if not always clearly explained - see below)

Command of appropriate phrasing and vocabulary ... mostly, the language used is appropriately formal / intellectual - with some problems (see below)

However, some parts of the argument are really not very clear, principally due to language weaknesses, it would appear:-

Some vocabulary is imprecisely used ... see "information" (l.3) - the stimulus text does not have much actual information , but rather 'views about', 'comments on', 'judgements of'; and "implications" (l.11) - is 'causes' intended?

Some phrasing is really unclear ... see "...Japan does not have a young generation due to healthy living habits..." and "...age, gender and the home country you come from have no link for in building of bad relationships..."

I would argue that these weaknesses should be penalised under Criterion A Language, and not under Criterion B Message - the quality of analytical thought in most of the script is very high (e.g. see the intelligent critical questions in the second paragraph), and so the unclear examples cited above are more likely to spring from a failure to control language than from a sudden access of stupidity.

Student D

The problem is that the student doesn't actually provide much 'response' - the first sentence indicates agreement, but then there is a simple summary of the stimulus text (ll.1-5), followed by a lengthy parallel example - the "BBC channel" (ll.6-14). There is no real critical analysis and assessment of the stimulus by the student. So ...

Very basic POV ... the student does express a point of view, but it is not developed in any detail

Little critical thinking ... there is a lack of development because there is no questioning of the stimulus Support is external to the stimulus ... the 'BBC channel' (source is not adequately identified - some programme watched in class?) is relevant to the stimulus text, but does little to develop the argument or comment on it

Structure is simple ... there are only two paragraphs (unsurprisingly, since there are really only two ideas), and there are no cohesive devices - such limited structural elements indicate the rather limited nature of the intellectual response itself

However ...

Language is well-handled and quite sophisticated ... a wide range of vocabulary is used, and sentence structure is complex and effective

Quotation is well-inserted ... even if the last two sentences are unclear as to whether they are quotes or not

Comparisons

> A has a clear paragraph structure of 5 paragraphs; B has 2 paragraphs, for no very clear reason > A uses cohesive devices ("firstly" ...etc); B doesn't > A quotes from the stimulus text; B quotes from some other, imprecise, source > A has a developed view about the stimulus text; B simply agrees with it. > A's three sub-arguments are developed in some detail; B's single illustration is developed quite well, but its relevance is not entirely clear > A's language is unclear at times; B's language is almost always clear > A's vocabulary and sentence structure are (deliberately) quite simple and clear; B's vocabulary and sentence structure suggest some complexity

Possible marks

Student A

Criterion A Language : 8/10 ... the use of language is generally very effective (the fact that few complex sentences are used should not be penalised, if one assumes that the whole style of the piece is to be succinct and clear). The 9/10 band is ruled out because the blurred meaning at a couple of points (see Commentary) is assumed to be due to temporary lapses in language command, caused by trying to be overly concise.

Criterion B Message : 10/10 ... the argument is, overall, very methodical, coherent and organised - slight confusions at a couple of points have been attributed to language problems.

TOTAL : 18/20 ... Assumed grade = 7

But is this a bit generous? May it turn out that examiners will be more demanding in both Criteria? Might it be more challenging to keep these markbands, but only accept the lower marks - i.e. 7 + 9 = 16 (Grade 6, probably) ? Student D

Criterion A Language : 9/10 ... the command of language is pretty sophisticated, with some evidence of complex range - but the edge is taken off by the blurred last two sentences.

Criterion B Message : 5/10 ... the development of ideas is clear enough as far as it goes - which is not much, given that the student's response to the stimulus is simply agreement plus a bit of anecdotal evidence

Total : 14/20 ... Assumed grade = low 6

But is the ungenerous mark for Criterion B fair? The mark is low because I am assuming that 'response' should involve some active critical thinking, not just bland acceptance ... saying 'I agree' does not suggest much "engaging" ..."development of ideas". But can this be assumed as what the IB will expect ? Does 'response' have to mean 'critical thinking' - or could it also mean 'whatever I associate with the stimulus text' ? Issues to discuss and clarify here ...