AP Seminar Curricular Framework

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
AP Seminar Curricular Framework by Mind Map: AP Seminar  Curricular Framework

1. Big Idea 2: Understand and Analyze

1.1. EU 2.1: Authors express their ideas, perspectives, and/or arguments through their works. The first step in evaluating an author’s perspective or argument is to comprehend it. Such comprehension requires reading, viewing, listening, and thinking critically.

1.1.1. LO 2.1A: Employing appropriate reading strategies and reading critically for a specific purpose. EK 2.1A1: Reading critically means reading closely to identify the main idea, tone, assumptions, context, perspective, line of reasoning, and evidence used. EK 2.1A2: Strategies active readers use to preview and prioritize a written text include skimming, scanning, rereading, and questioning. EK 2.1A3: Strategies active readers use to make meaning from texts include annotating, note-taking, highlighting, and reading aloud. EK 2.1A4: Perspectives are shared through written, spoken, visual, or performance texts. A perspective includes the writer’s attitude/tone regarding the subject and is expressed through an argument.

1.1.2. LO 2.1B: Summarizing and explaining a text’s main idea or aim while avoiding faulty generalizations and oversimplification. EK 2.1B1: The main idea of an argument is often expressed in the thesis statement, claim, or conclusion, or implied throughout a work. EK 2.1B2: Artistic works (e.g., painting, film, music, dance) convey a perspective. Analysis of a work’s context, subject, structure, style, and aesthetic is critical to understanding its aims.

1.1.3. LO 2.2A: Explaining and analyzing the logic and line of reasoning of an argument. EK 2.2A1: Authors use reasons to support their arguments. The line of reasoning is composed of one or more claims justified through evidence. EK 2.2A2: An argument’s line of reasoning is organized based on the argument’s purpose (e.g., to show causality, to define, to propose a solution). EK 2.2A3: Inductive reasoning uses specific observations and/or data points to identify trends, make generalizations, and draw conclusions. Deductive reasoning uses broad facts or generalizations to generate additional, more specific conclusions about a phenomenon. EK 2.2A4: A lack of understanding of the complexities of an argument (tone, implications, limitations, nuance, context) can lead to oversimplification and/or generalization. EK 2.2A5: Effective arguments acknowledge other arguments and/or respond to them with counterarguments (e.g., concession, refutation, rebuttal).

1.2. EU 2.2: Authors choose evidence to shape and support their arguments. Individuals evaluate the line of reasoning and evidence to determine to what extent they believe or accept an argument.

1.2.1. LO 2.2B: Evaluating the relevance and credibility of evidence used to support an argument, taking context into consideration. EK 2.2B1: An argument’s context (time and purpose) and situation (in relation to other arguments) inform its interpretation. EK 2.2B2: Writers use qualitative and/or quantitative evidence (e.g., facts, data, observations, predictions, analogies, explanations, opinions) to support their claims. Evidence has varying degrees of validity. EK 2.2B3: Authors strategically include evidence to support their claims. EK 2.2B4: Writers appeal to (or possibly manipulate) readers through a variety of strategies and techniques (e.g., language, authority, qualifiers, fallacies, emphasis). EK 2.2B5: Evidence may be used to identify and explain relationships (comparative, causal, or correlational) and/or patterns and trends. EK 2.2B6: Credibility is compromised when authors fail to acknowledge and/or consider the limitations of their conclusions, opposing views or perspectives, and/or their own biases.

1.2.2. LO 2.2C: Evaluating the validity of an argument. EK 2.2C1: An argument is valid when there is logical alignment between the line of reasoning and the conclusion.

1.3. EU 2.3: Arguments have implications and consequences.

1.3.1. LO 2.3A: Connecting an argument to broader issues by examining the implications of the author’s claim. EK 2.3A1: The implications and consequences of arguments may be intended or unintended.

1.3.2. LO 2.3B: Evaluating potential resolutions, conclusions, or solutions to problems or issues raised by an argument. EK 2.3B1: Arguments are significant and have real-world impact because they can influence behavior (e.g., call one to action, suggest logical next steps).

2. Big Idea 1: Question and Explore

2.1. EU 1.1: Personal interest and intellectual curiosity inspire investigation of topics or issues that may or may not be clearly defined. A well-crafted investigation explores the complexity of an issue or topic. Further inquiry can lead to unexpected conclusions, resolutions, innovations, or solutions.

2.1.1. LO 1.1A: Contextualizing and identifying the complexities of a problem or issue. EK 1.1A1: Examining the perspectives and ideas of others often leads to questions for further investigation. Inquiry begins with narrowing scope of interest, identifying a problem or issue and its origins within that scope, and situating the problem or issue in a larger context.

2.1.2. LO 1.1B: Posing questions and seeking out answers that reflect multiple, divergent, or contradictory perspectives. EK 1.1B1: Effective research questions lead to an examination taking into account the complexity of a problem or issue. EK 1.1B2: The inquiry process allows one to draw upon curiosity and imagination to engage with ideas or explore approaches to complex issues.

2.2. EU 1.2: Strengthening understanding of a concept or issue requires questioning existing ideas, using what is known to discover what is not known, and making connections to prior knowledge.

2.2.1. LO 1.2A: Retrieving, questioning, organizing, and using prior knowledge about a topic. EK 1.2A1: Understanding comes not only through collection of information but also from a variety of other factors (e.g., experience, external sources, cultural context, assumptions). EK 1.2A2: A variety of strategies (e.g., brainstorming, concept mapping, prewriting, exploration of space, drafting) can be used to illustrate, organize, and connect ideas. EK 1.2A3: Inquiry confirms or challenges one’s existing understandings, assumptions, beliefs, and/or knowledge.

2.3. EU 1.3: The investigative process is aided by the effective organization, management, and selection of resources and information. Appropriate technologies and tools enable the scholar to become more efficient, productive, and credible.

2.3.1. LO 1.3A: Accessing and managing information using effective strategies. EK 1.3A1: Information used to address a problem may come from various secondary sources (e.g., articles, other studies, analyses, reports) and/or primary sources (e.g., original texts and works, material culture, or personally collected data such as from experiments, surveys, questionnaires, interviews, observations, personal narratives). EK 1.3A2: Online databases (e.g., EBSCO, ProQuest, JSTOR, Google Scholar) and libraries catalog and house secondary and some primary sources. EK 1.3A3: Advanced search tools, Boolean logic, and key words allow scholars to refine, focus, and/or limit their searches based on a variety of factors (e.g., date, peer-review status, type of publication).

2.4. EU 1.4: The relevance and credibility of the source of information is determined by the context of its use.

2.4.1. LO 1.4A: Evaluating the relevance and credibility of the source of information and data in relation to the inquiry. EK 1.4A1: The scope and purpose of one’s research and the credibility of sources affects the generalizability and the reliability of the conclusions. EK 1.4A2: Credibility of evidence depends on use of sources and data that are relevant and reliable (current, authoritative). EK 1.4A3: Determining the credibility of a source requires considering and evaluating the reputation and credentials of the author, publisher, site owner, and/or sponsor; understanding and evaluating the author’s perspective and research methods; and considering how others respond to their work. Scholarly articles are often peer reviewed, meaning the research has been reviewed and accepted by disciplinary experts.

2.5. EU 1.5:There are multiple ways to investigate questions, problems,and issues. Methods should be aligned with the purpose of the inquiry.

2.5.1. LO 1.5A: Identifying the information needed for the context of the inquiry. EK 1.5A1: The way the problem is posed, situated, framed, or contextualized will guide the inquiry process and influence the type of information needed and the appropriate method of gathering it.

3. Big Idea 3: Evaluate Multiple Perspectives

3.1. EU 3.1: Different perspectives often lead to competing and alternative arguments. The complexity of an issue emerges when people bring these differing, multiple perspectives to the conversation.

3.1.1. LO 3.1A: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting multiple perspectives on or arguments about an issue. EK 3.1A1: An individual’s perspective is influenced by his or her background (e.g., experiences, culture, education), assumptions, and worldview, as well as by external sources. EK 3.1A2: Perspectives are not always oppositional; they may be concurring, complementary, or competing.

3.2. EU 3.2: Not all arguments are equal; some arguments are more credible/valid than others. Through evaluating others’ arguments, one’s own arguments can be situated within a larger conversation.

3.2.1. LO 3.2A: Evaluating objections, implications, and limitations of alternate, opposing, or competing perspectives or arguments. EK 3.2A1: Critical thinkers are aware that some arguments may appeal to emotions, core values, personal biases and assumptions, and logic. EK 3.2A2: When evaluating multiple perspectives or arguments, consideration must be given to how one’s own personal biases and assumptions can influence one’s judgment.

4. Big Idea 4: Synthesize Ideas

4.1. EU 4.1: Scholarly works convey perspectives and demonstrate effective lines of reasoning that have been selected for the intended audience, purpose, and situation.

4.1.1. LO 4.1A: Formulating a well-reasoned argument, taking the complexities of the problem or issue into consideration. EK 4.1A1: Effective arguments use reason and evidence to convey a perspective, point of view, or some version of the truth that is stated or implied in the thesis and/or conclusion. EK 4.1A2: Effective arguments are supported and unified by carefully chosen and connected claims, reasons, and evidence. EK 4.1A3: Qualifiers place limits on how far a claim may be carried. Effective arguments acknowledge these limits, increasing credibility by reducing overgeneralization or oversimplification. EK 4.1A4: Effective arguments acknowledge other arguments and/or respond to them with counterarguments (e.g., concession, refutation, rebuttal).

4.2. EU 4.2: Scholars responsibly and purposefully engage with the evidence to develop a compelling argument or aesthetic rationale.

4.2.1. LO 4.2A: Interpreting, using, and synthesizing qualitative and/or quantitative data/information from various perspectives and sources (e.g., primary, secondary, print,non-print) to develop and support an argument. EK 4.2A1: Evidence can be collected from print and non-print sources (e.g., libraries, museums, archives), experts, or data gathered in the field (e.g., interviews, questionnaires,observations). EK 4.2A2: Evidence is used to support the claims and reasoning of an argument. Compelling evidence is sufficient, accurate, relevant, current, and credible to support the conclusion. EK 4.2A3: Evidence is strategically chosen based on context, purpose, and audience. Evidence may be used to align an argument with authority; to define a concept, illustrate a process, or clarify a statement; to set a mood; to provide an example; to amplify or qualify a point. EK 4.2A4: The evidence selected and attributed contributes to establishing the credibility of one’s own argument.

4.2.2. LO 4.2B: Providing insightful and cogent commentary that links evidence with claims. EK 4.2B1: Commentary connects the chosen evidence to the claim through interpretation or inference, identifying patterns, describing trends, and/or explaining relationships (e.g., comparative, causal, correlational).

4.3. EU 4.3: Responsible participation in the scholarly community requires acknowledging and respecting the prior findings and contributions of others.

4.3.1. LO 4.3A: Attributing knowledge and ideas accurately and ethically, using an appropriate citation style. EK 4.3A1: Accurate and ethical attribution enhances one’s credibility. EK 4.3A2: Plagiarism is a serious offense that occurs when a person presents another’s ideas or words as his or her own. Plagiarism may be avoided by acknowledging sources thoroughly and accurately. EK 4.3A3: Source material should be introduced, integrated, or embedded into the text of an argument. EK 4.3A4: Quoted and paraphrased material must be properly attributed,credited, and cited following a style manual. Quoting is using the exact words of others; paraphrasing is restating an idea in one’s own words. EK 4.3A5: Academic disciplines use specific style guides for citing and attributing sources (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, AMA).

4.4. EU 4.4: Forming one’s own perspective and reaching new understandings involve innovative thinking and synthesis of existing knowledge with personally generated evidence.

4.4.1. LO 4.4A: Extending an idea, question, process, or product to innovate or create new understandings. EK 4.4A1: Innovative solutions and arguments identify and challenge assumptions, acknowledge the importance of content, imagine and explore alternatives, and engage in reflective skepticism.

4.5. EU 4.5: Arguments, choices, and solutions present intended and unintended opportunities, and consequences.

4.5.1. LO 4.5A: Offering resolutions, conclusions, and/or solutions based on evidence considering limitations and implications. EK 4.5A1: When proposing a solution, the advantages and disadvantages of the options and alternatives should be weighed against the goal within its context.

5. Big Idea 5: Team, Transform, and Transmit

5.1. EU 5.1: How a perspective or argument is presented affects how people interpret or react to it. The same perspective or argument may be developed and presented differently depending on audience, purpose, and context.

5.1.1. LO 5.1A: Planning, producing, and presenting a cohesive argument, considering audience, context, and purpose. EK 5.1A1: An argument may include the following elements: ▶ Introduction: engages the audience by providing background and/or context ▶ Thesis: conveys the main idea of an argument ▶ Reasons, evidence, and commentary: provide support for the argument ▶ Counterargument, concession, refutation, and rebuttal; acknowledge and/or respond to opposing arguments ▶ Conclusion: synthesizes reasoning, considers possible implications for the future, and ties back to the introduction ▶ Bibliography: identifies works cited EK 5.1A2: Coherence is achieved when the elements and ideas in an argument flow logically and smoothly. Transitions are used to move the audience from one element or idea to another by illustrating the relationship between the elements or ideas.

5.1.2. LO 5.1B: Adhering to established conventions of grammar, usage, style, and mechanics. EK 5.1B1: A writer expresses tone or attitude about a topic through word choice, sentence structure, and imagery. EK 5.1B2: Effective sentences create variety, emphasis, and interest through structure, agreement of elements, placement of modifiers, and consistency of tense. EK 5.1B3: Precision in word choice reduces confusion, wordiness, and redundancy. EK 5.1B4: Spelling and grammar errors detract from credibility.

5.1.3. LO 5.1C: Communicating information through appropriate media using effective techniques of design. EK 5.1C1: Effective organizational and design elements (e.g., headings, layout, illustrations, pull quotes, captions, lists) may aid in audience engagement and understanding by calling attention to important information and/or creating emotional responses in the audience. Ineffective use or overuse of these elements disrupts audience engagement and understanding. EK 5.1C2: Data and other information can be presented graphically (e.g., infographics, graphs, tables, models) to aid audience understanding and interpretation. EK 5.1C3: Effective communication requires choosing appropriate media (e.g., essay, poster, oral presentation, documentary, research report/thesis) according to context, purpose, and audience.

5.1.4. LO 5.1D: Adapting an argument for context, purpose, and/or audience. EK 5.1D1: Arguments can be adapted by strategically selecting and emphasizing information considering audience, situation, medium, and purpose.

5.2. EU 5.2: Teams are most effective when they draw on the diverse perspectives, skills, and backgrounds of team members to address complex, open-ended problems.

5.2.1. LO 5.2A: Providing individual contributions to overall collaborative effort to accomplish a task or goal. EK 5.2A1: Knowing and communicating one’s strengths and challenges to a group allows one’s contributions to be more effective.

5.2.2. LO 5.2B: Fostering constructive team climate, resolving conflicts, and facilitating the contributions of all team members to address complex, open-ended problems. EK 5.2B1: Teams are built around tasks. Low-risk teambuilding activities and simulations enhance a team’s performance. EK 5.2B2: Teams function at their best when they understand the diversity of their social–cultural perspectives, talents, and skills. EK 5.2B3: Teams function at their best when they practice effective interpersonal communication, consensus building, conflict resolution, and negotiation. EK 5.2B4: Effective teams consider the use of online collaborative tools.

5.3. EU 5.3: Reflection increases learning, self-awareness, and personal growth through identification and evaluation of personal conclusions and their implications.

5.3.1. LO 5.3A: Reflecting on and revising their own writing, thinking, and creative processes. EK 5.3A1: Reflection is an ongoing and recursive process in inquiry, often leading to changes in understanding. Strategies for reflection may include journal writing, self-questioning, drawing, exploration of space, and/or guided contemplation. EK 5.3A2: Learning requires practice through an iterative process of thinking/rethinking, vision/revision, and writing/rewriting.

5.3.2. LO 5.3B: Reflecting on experiences of collaborative effort. EK 5.3B1: Reflection acknowledges the impact of actions on both the group and individual contributions, noting the reasons for such actions, assumptions made, and whether or not such actions and assumptions hindered or helped the achievement of the group’s and individuals’ tasks.