1. Instructions for Socials 10 Exam JUNE 2016

2. Part 1: Note Taking (Suggested Time 30 Minutes) Using the resource package, prepare comprehensive notes as if you were preparing for a Harkness discussion based on these focus questions: 1.Question 1 2.Question 2 3.Question 3 4.Question 4 5.Question 5 Your notes could be Cornell or another style of point form notes, or on-text annotations. Your notes should respond to 2 of the discussions questions and reference 5 of the provided sources. Effective notes may include a combination of: o Summarizing and direct text reference o Connections to course, life o Relevancy/Connection to question o Applying relevant concepts o Personal response Effective annotations include: o An obvious system of note taking o Direct interaction with the text (highlighting, symbols, notations) o Critical interaction with the text (connections, responses)

3. Part 2: Analysis (Suggested Time: 30 minutes) Compare X to Y. Your response can be in the form of your choice: paragraph, chart, diagram, etc. Note this is not a full essay response if you chose to write a paragraph.

4. Part 3: Critical Writing (Suggested Time: 40 minutes) With strong references to the concepts and experiences from this year, respond to one of the quotes below focussing on themes of: relationships with land, relationships with people, and relationship with leadership in Canada in the past and in the present. Structured essay response format is expected, as is an outline. Use the remaining pages to create your outline and response.. Quote 1 OR Quote 2 ConceptsExperiences  sustainability  resources and resource management  geographical thinking (5 themes)  adopting a perspective and simulations  oral history and qualitative research  sources of tension and agreement in Canada  role of government  nation-building  historical significance  thesis construction and evidence  reflective and critical thinking  GIS  Physical geography of Canada  Red Chris Mine simulation  Civic Mirror  Oral History Project  Harkness discussions  Sea to Sky experiences *the designed/intended experience and the lived/personal experiences

5. Excelling  A to A + Advancing  B+ to A - Emerging  C+ to B Basic  C to C + Limited  IP to C- Overall Descriptors Accomplished, Discerning, Unique, Creative, Insightful, Compelling, Deep, Connective. Relevant, Thoughtful, Credible, Coherent, Analytical, Connections, Informed. Summative, General, Opinionated, Incomplete, Descriptive. Underdeveloped, Rudimentary, Incorrect. Unjustified, Insufficient. Research Skills (Analysis of sources, incorporation of qualitative or quantitative evidence, identifying patterns, critique of sources.) Expertly gathers data/evidence and uses a mixture of original phrasing and quotations. Sophisticated source analysis. Advanced description of subtle patterns, outliers. Identification of absent data, questioning of research methods, etc. Highly effective identification and incorporation of qualitative and quantitative data. Effectively gathers data/evidence and relies on original phrasing or quotations. Effective source analysis. Recognises major patterns and exceptions. Asks questions of the data, source, etc. Effective use of qualitative and quantitative data sources. Gathers data/evidence, relying on quotations from source. Able to use emphasised data, misses some central data or patterns. May not see beyond the data the source provides. Relies on one type of data source, resulting in an incomplete data set. Uneven ability to recognise and use data or evidence. Misses or misuses data or patterns. Data appears to be ignored or unconsidered. Insufficient evidence of research skills or use of data. Communication Skills (Construction of hypothesis/thesis statement, structure, mechanics, use of vocabulary, development and explanation of ideas). Responses are highly polished, without error that impedes meaning, showing careful preparation and revision techniques and processes. Responses are highly organized and expand in a meaningful and interesting direction from the prompt. Big ideas are explored, and productive academic risk is taken. Advances sophisticated ideas that are authentic and unique, while referencing a diverse set of external voices. Advanced structure, hypotheses/thesis statements are complex, relevant and meaningful. Evidence is right, relevant and compelling. Responses are carefully constructed with minor errors that do not impede overall meaning. Evidence of some revision techniques and use of a mostly effective writing process. Responses are organized, focused on prompt and able to extend to larger relevant ideas. Ideas reflect a variety of concepts and experiences from class and life. Effective structure, hypothesis/thesis statements are relevant. Evidence is mostly right, relevant and compelling. Responses are generally well organised with logical flow and are mostly focussed directly on the given prompt. Responses remain at a descriptive/synthesis level and do not expand or grow. Hypotheses are accurate responses to the prompt, and may be missing an important component. Evidence is a good combination of right, relevant and compelling but may be uneven. Ideas trend general in scope, and miss opportunities to connect to concepts from class and life experiences. Products lack focus and appear to be random or unrelated streams of details. Responses are underdeveloped and miss opportunities to show learning and understanding. Hypotheses/thesis statements do not show expected characteristics. Evidence is incorrect, irrelevant or not compelling. Insufficient evidence of communication skills present.

6. Excelling  A to A + Advancing  B+ to A - Emerging  C+ to B Basic  C to C + Limited  IP to C- Critical Thinking (development of questions, making decisions, justification of decisions, extension of ideas, ability to make connections) Identifies the most important arguments, considers multiple perspectives and identifies the lens or rationale underlying the differing sides. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions based on clear and original evidence and logic. Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons. Makes attempts at novel or unique connections; questions or identification of uncertainty in thinking. Identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) addressing multiple sides or perspectives on the issue. Offers analyses and evaluations of obvious alternative points of view. Draws warranted, well documented conclusions based on presented evidence and logic. Statements reasonably follow evidence/logic presented.. Makes attempts at connections to academic learning, life experience or current events. Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc. Fails to identify or superficially evaluates relevant counter- arguments or points of view. Maintains or defends views that do not fit evidence explored or experienced in course work. Largely descriptive with unclear or unsupported statements. Based on self-interest or preconceptions with selected supporting evidence Offers no interpretation of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information or the points of view of others. Fails to identify, dismisses or superficially evaluates relevant counter- arguments or alternative points of view. Does not justify results or procedures, nor explain reasons. Exhibits close- mindedness or ignorance of reasonable evidence. Insufficient evidence of critical thinking skills. Content Knowledge (relevant vocabulary, application of relevant concepts, explanation of concepts) Consistently uses specific, relevant knowledge and terminology to respond to questions. Shows an advanced understanding of both essential themes/questions and specific concepts. Addresses a variety of topics in a highly integrative and thoughtful manner that reflects full engagement and consideration of all topics and experiences. Generally uses specific, relevant knowledge and terminology to respond to questions. Shows an effective understanding of essential themes/questions and specific concepts. Generally understands targeted knowledge with minor gaps or omissions of topics and experiences. Uses generic or slang language to respond to questions. Shows an imbalanced understanding between essential themes/questions and specific concepts. Demonstrates large gaps in understanding with major omissions of topics and experiences. Uses inappropriate or generic language to respond to questions. Shows a limited understanding of essential questions/themes and specific concepts. Demonstrates a lack of understanding of topics and experiences. Insufficient evidence of acquisition and application of content knowledge.