There are nine key
concepts around which the course will be structured: scarcity,
choice, efficiency, equity, economic well-being, sustainability, change,
interdependence and intervention. The initial decision to dump the
theory of the firm and market structures thankfully does not seem to be the
case as section 2.11, in the January 2019 updated syllabus outline, is on
Market Power.
Since to teach market power,
and to ensure that students do understand its meaning and implications,
the basics of the theory of the firm and of market structures are necessary, I
assume that they will also be present in the new syllabus. We'll
see.
Otherwise, there is little in
the latest outline to fully grasp the differences between the new and the
current syllabus.
In the area of assessment, what
makes me wonder a bit is where it is stated that in the 'new' Paper 3:
"students will work with new quantitative and qualitative data demonstrating a deeper understanding of a real-world issue scenario, using the theories, models, ideas and tools of economics and culminating in policy advice"
"Policy
advice"! I know a few governments (😜) that
would need some good policy advice now! This new expectation is both
interesting and will be a nightmare to mark (and to come up with an appropriate
MS and provide guidance to examiners ). We'll also see how this one
works.
The last item that makes me a
bit curious (I was initially going to use the word 'worried'...) refers to the
Internal Assessment. It states in the outline:
"Each of the three commentaries should use a different
key concept as a lens through which to analyse their
commentaries"
The 10 'key concepts' are in
italics above. First of all, I would assume that a commentary can 'use'
more than one 'key concept'. But I am not at all sure what exactly the
verb 'use' means. Most, if not all of these concepts permeate all of
economics. And, of course, the question is how can a teacher or a
moderator judge whether (and to what extent) a commentary does
indeed 'use' a key concept'?. We'll also see this one in practice.
A more general point.
I've been teaching for a long-long time Economics (IB for 25+ years) and I have
a decent (terminal degree) background in pure Economics. I have to admit
that I am not so sure what much of the language used in curricula and other IB
guides/documents really means. I am afraid that the program has been
hijacked by many who have basically a solid background in Education (but a
minimal background in a discipline) and who are forcing fashionable concepts
and terms without a clear knowledge of how exactly these apply to each
discipline. More like buzzwords...
I do know that a solid
background in Physics is needed to teach Physics and a solid background in
Economics is needed to teach Economics. Sometimes, it seems, this
background is just not there. Einstein had said that 'if you can't explain
it to a six year old, then you don't understand it yourself'.
I am afraid that lots we lately
find in many IB documents cannot be explained to a six year old.
PS: I had promised that I would
maintain this blog last year (and, I am afraid the year before). I
didn't. Let's see if I keep a new promise to maintain it this time.
The fact that real world examples are lately in such high demand by examiners
and what's going on in the real world will be even more important when teaching
the new syllabus, makes me hopeful that I will at least try harder this time
around. The goal is to facilitate both students and colleagues of IB
Economics . 😁
1 comment:
I was wondering whether any of your books will become available for the new syllabus (first assessment 2022)?
Post a Comment