AP Seminar Exam Review Flashcards
AP Seminar End of Course Exam Scoring
How to Use
Read over how to answer questions.
Read over the sample responses.
Check out the 2022 exam responses via the AP Seminar 2023 link.
Part A: Question 1 - Identify the Argument, Main Idea, or Thesis
Must have all 3 parts in a word-for-word quote or paraphrase.
0 points: Does not meet the criteria for one point.
1 point: The response misstates the author’s argument, main idea, or thesis.
2 points: The response identifies, in part and with some accuracy, the author’s argument, main idea, or thesis.
3 points: The response accurately identifies the author’s argument, main idea, or thesis.
Possible response: "Despite the big demand for it, a study showed that full-day kindergarten is not worth the expense. While it may benefit disadvantaged students, it had either no effect or negative outcomes for most students, including those with special needs, so should not be implemented."
Part A: Question 2 - Explain the Line of Reasoning
Identify the claims.
Identify the claim with a direct quote or paraphrase.
Connect how the claim supports the Main Claim aka Thesis.
+/- 300-word count.
0 points: Does not meet the criteria for two points.
2 points: The response correctly identifies at least one of the author’s claims.
4 points: The response provides a limited explanation of the author's line of reasoning by accurately identifying some of the claims AND identifying the connections or acknowledging a relationship among them.
6 points: The response provides a thorough explanation of the author's line of reasoning by identifying relevant claims and clearly explaining connections among them.
Possible Claims to explain:
Historically, the first kindergartens were seen as controversial/something to be suspicious of. (Sets up historical context for contrast with present.)
Today, there is increasing demand from governments, parents, and teachers’ unions for full-day kindergarten. (Provides context of widespread demand.)
Actual benefits of full-day kindergarten are hotly debated. (Introduces the controversy.)
The Ontario government touted the benefits of full-day kindergarten based on academic studies it commissioned. (Provides examples of positive claims by public officials.)
When the full studies were released, results were a “grave disappointment”. (Provides stark contrast to positive claims in the previous section.)
Studies showed improvement for some students (low income and/or poor test scores) but for others results ranged from “negligible to abysmal”. (Concedes some advantages for some students but rebuts claim it is good for all.)
For many students, the half-day kindergarten system was more advantageous than spending all week at school. (Provides specific examples of policy failure to rebut argument it is good for all.)
Full-day kindergarten impedes the social and emotional development of some children by removing them from family care too early. (Provides specific examples of policy failure to rebut argument it is good for all.)
Gains identified for some children attending full-day kindergarten are likely temporary. (Provides supporting evidence for another reason to question the efficacy of the policy.)
It doesn’t make financial sense to provide full-day kindergarten to all families universally (should be more targeted). (Conclusion)
Part A: Question 3 - Evaluate Effectiveness of the Evidence
Implementation Plan:
Brainstorm and devise new strategies to leverage strengths and opportunities.
Develop a multifaceted approach integrating marketing, sales promotions, and customer engagement.
Evaluate effectiveness of the evidence – strengths and weaknesses of source credibility/evidence
Give strength/weakness of credibility
Strength /weakness of the actual evidence
400-500ish word count
Source Credibility, Evidence, and Relevance
No source: German educator Friedrich Fröbel opened the world's first kindergartens in the mid-1800s. Prussia banned his schools in 1851 because of socialist subversion and radicalism.
No source: Five-year-olds in British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island all attend full-day kindergarten. Supports the claim that today most governments want more kindergarten, not less.
No source: Ontario is currently in the fourth year of a five-year rollout for full-day junior and senior kindergarten. Supports the claim that demands for full-day kindergarten in Canada are heard regularly in provinces that do not provide it
Provincial news release Unspecified source: "In every area, students improved their readiness for Grade 1 and accelerated their development," Supports the claim that actual benefits of full-day kindergarten are hotly debated (sets up the grand claims made by the press to contrast with the actual results of the study).
Liz Sandals, Education Minister: The results, which tracked students in both half-and full-day kindergarten over two years, [were] "nothing short of incredible." Supports the claim that actual benefits of full-day kindergarten are hotly debated (sets up the grand claims made by public officials to contrast with the actual results of the study).
Charles Pascal, “The driving force behind Ontario's full-day program”: "It [the studies] shows the program is truly a life-changer." Supports the claim that actual benefits of full-day kindergarten are hotly debated (sets up the grand claims made by public officials to contrast with the actual results of the study).
Globe and Mail Newspaper – front-page story: "Landmark study" Supports the claim that actual benefits of full-day kindergarten are hotly debated (sets up the grand claims made by the press to contrast with the actual results of the study).
According to full reports of the studies mentioned in the text No direct source: Ontario's full-day kindergarten experiment cost 1.5-billion-a-year full-day kindergarten experiment. Supports claim that it doesn’t make financial sense to provide full-day kindergarten to all families universally.
Provincial studies No direct source: children attending schools marked by low income and/or poor test scores showed improvement in some categories after participating in full-day kindergarten. Supports the claim that asides from disadvantaged students, the Ontario results ranged from negligible to abysmal for everyone else.
James Heckman, Nobel laureate economist: early intervention can improve school readiness for disadvantaged children Supports the claim that asides from disadvantaged students, the Ontario results ranged from negligible to abysmal for everyone else
The [provincial] report No direct source: "To be clear, some children appear to have done worse with [full-day early learning kindergarten].” Supports the claim that asides from disadvantaged students, the Ontario results ranged from negligible to abysmal for everyone else.
The [provincial] report No direct source: The biggest failings were in the categories of emotional maturity, communication skills, and general knowledge. Supports claim that full-day kindergarten impedes the social and emotional development of some children by removing them from family care too early.
Researchers [of the report] No direct source: "The children with special educational needs showed superior outcomes on the measures of social competence and emotional maturity in non-[full-day early learning kindergarten] programs." Supports claim that for many students, the half-day kindergarten system was more advantageous than spending all week at school.
Philip DeCicca, McMaster University economist: Any positive academic effects arising from full-day kindergarten are largely gone by the end of Grade 1 Supports claim that gains identified for some children attending full-day kindergarten are likely temporary.
Charles Milligan, “Full-Day Kindergarten Effects on Later Academic Success.” SAGE Open, 2012 (study on California’s school system): "There were no significant differences in students who attended the allday kindergarten program and students who attended a traditional kindergarten program." Supports the idea that there are no benefits to full-day versus half-day kindergarten programs.
No direct source No direct source but easily verifiable: Alberta announced tabling plans for province-wide kindergarten because of budgetary constraints. Supports claim that it doesn’t make financial sense to provide full-day kindergarten to all families universally.
Perfect High Score Responses
Question 1 (3/3)
Gillis argues that although full-day kindergarten can be helpful for those lower-income children, because of the large financial burden and negative or lack of impact it has on most students, it should not be implemented into countries as a whole.
Question 2 (6/6)
Gillis starts off by comparing kindergarten schools when they were just founded to today's schools. He uses places such as British Columbia, Quebec, and New Brunswick to convey how many have moved their kindergarten students to full-time. Plus, he showcased Ontario's school system that has been successful for 4 full years, going onto 5. Then, he compares to those areas that don't have full-day programs which hear many wishes to move to a full-day kindergarten. He then leads into how this issue at hand has become quite the hot topic for debate.
To begin, his first claim resolves around Ontario, the country that we learned had a very successful full-day program, and how their government had put out a study where it showed the effects that full-day Kindergarten had. This study showed that it had helped prepare students for 1st grade. Additionally, it supported this claim by having educators and government officials rave about this program with the backing of this new study.
However, in his next claim, it explains that there was no actual study to read, as they only published a fraction of the actual report. They only picked the parts that were supporting the full-time kindergarten. This is due to the study actually showing that a full-day kindergarten is negatively affecting the kids and government from both a pedagogical and financial perspective.
In Gillis's next claim, he explores how full-time kindergarten affected those children apart of households that are financially burdened. He referenced multiple studies where it showed that those who are less fortunate were able to benefit from the full-time school system. However, this then led us to look at the middle and upper-class students. He then analyzed those middle to upper-class students and found that the Ontario results found that the benefits from a full-time kindergarten program ranged from negligible to abysmal. For example, in the full Ontario report that he analyzed, it showed that some children appeared to have done worst with full-day kindergarten in emotional maturity, communication skills, and general knowledge.
He then connected it to the complaint that some had about those programs affecting them socially and emotionally as they are being removed from familial care too early. Then his next claim focused on those students with special needs struggling in the full-day programs. With support from the Ontario report's researchers, finding that they did much better in non-full-day kindergartens.
Furthermore, he compares this performance to how many supporters of the full-day program described the program as being, in the start when only the partial report was published. To further prove his point, Gillis explained that those who did benefit from a full-day kindergarten only experienced these benefits momentarily. As other studies had shown that these "benefits" are typically largely gone in a few years.
Gillis then concludes by explaining while it may be good for children who come from lower income families, it is not a wise choice for the country as a whole to move towards a full-day kindergarten. Additionally, warns us the readers, as taxpayers to avoid this move to a full-day kindergarten.
Question 3 (6/6)
To begin with, Gillis references Friedrich Froebel who opened the first kindergartens and how he had a negative relationship with government officials, due to those governments disagreeing with the idea of schools. However, he then goes onto explain that now most governments are promoting extending kindergartens. He then goes onto explain that areas such as British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island all attend full-day kindergarten. This supports the idea of how the evolution of education is pushing towards going to a full-day kindergarten program as these well-known areas having adopted this practice.
Then in his second point, he explains how the Ontario government claimed to have a study proving the effectiveness of their full-day kindergarten. This study had shown evidence of the program better preparing a student for 1st grade. To add onto that, educator minister Liz Sandals and Charles Pascal had praised this study describing it as "nothing short of incredible" or "it shows the program is truly a life-changer". However, these people were not good sources as they had supported the full-day education program before this study was released.
On the other hand, in Gillis's next claim, he explains that the whole study was not fully published from the start. This was due to this study actually finding that a full-day kindergarten had negative impacts. This publication of only a partial report even further proves the point that those who spoke up before like education minister Liz Sandals were not good sources.
Gillis then goes on to analyze how children from all walks of life responded to the full-day kindergarten program, looking at the full Ontario study. First, he shows that those who were low income actually responded positively to this system of learning. With Nobel laureate economist James Heckman further agreeing.
However, then he analyzed those who came from an average household and found that they got either negative effects or none at all from the full-day education program, which he found based off of the Ontario study. Then, to further prove his point, looking at the same source, he found that those with special needs did far worse with the full-day system. With the main pieces of evidence being from the Ontario study, and minimal outside sources, it still supports the claim of those more average households and those who are special needs, not needing full-day education. It would have further proven the point if there were more sources supporting the Ontario study.
Then, to support his claim that these positive effects that some may receive from a full-day kindergarten, he pulls upon studies conducted by McMaster University economist Philip Decicca and a study conducted on California's school system which found that these full-day kindergartens hadn't even given long-lasting effects. These studies were not from the Ontario study which had provided the primary source of evidence for this document. It helped further prove the point that full-day education would be a negative for a multitude of environments.
Gillis then concludes by explaining while it may be good for children who come from lower income families, it is not a wise choice for the country as a whole to move towards a full-day kindergarten. Additionally, by showing how Alberta was going to move to a full-day kindergarten and then decided not to due to budgetary constraints, he showed that after further thinking, this may not be the wisest move.
Middle Score Responses
Question 3 (4/6)
The first piece of evidence that the author uses is "in every area, students improved their readiness for Grade 1 and accelerated their developments, nothing short of incredible." Giving a counter perspective by an Educator Minister Liz Sandals. Which the author promptly rebuts with "Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman, "To be clear some children appear to have done worse with [full-day kindergarten]…" Which is very effective as it shows exactly what a full day of kindergarten is not doing, developing children to be better. However, an economist talking about kindergarten is not credible. Furthermore, children with special education showed superior outcomes with a non-full-day of kindergarten. The credibility is questionable since the researchers are not named and no degrees or fields are listed. The evidence is really effective as it connects and develops the argument, but the lack of credibility takes some of that away.
Question 1 (2/3)
The author, Charlie Gillis', argument in the passage, "Why full-day Kindergarten is failing our children" is when most governments send young children to spend a full-day at kindergarten, it is a poor use of tax money since the children are prevented from developing socially and emotionally because they are removed from their family's care too soon. This results in a lack of developing emotional maturity, communication skills, and general knowledge.
Question 2 (4/6)
The author starts out by addressing the German Educator who opened the world's first kindergarten, who frequently found himself at odds with suspicious government officials and that most modern governments want more kindergartens, not less, and for a longer period of time. This builds the context to the authors' argument. Next, the author brings up how the benefits that a full day at kindergarten are being debated. Connecting to their argument that a full day at kindergarten does not benefit children and it is a waste of tax money. Furthermore, children did not receive a distinct advantage of spending all week at school and some did worse, showing the connection between claims and evidence. Lastly, some poor or disadvantaged children did derive short-term benefits but it is not something that anyone with common sense should do, connecting to their argument by showing that it does not make sense to send children to kindergarten for more day and longer time.
Sad Score Responses
Question 1 (1/1)
It can be difficult to adapt and learn in an environment that you are unfamiliar with especially at a young age.
Question 2 (2/6)
When explaining how this system is going to work, these children are getting separated from their parents for the entire day to better their educational learning. As a child who spends all time with their parents or guardians being taken away from them at an age such as 3 or 4 for continuous hours is going to be extremely difficult and will most likely end up with the child having behavioral issues in response to not being able to express their emotions.
Question 3 (2/6)
When some agree that these children get put into all day kindergarten classes will ensure improvement in their learning abilities there are statistics to prove the opposite. In the article conducted by Charlie Gillis (2013), it was found that "This aligns with complaints that full-day programs impede the social and emotional development of some children by removing them from familial care too early." As a child you don't completely understand what is occurring in your surroundings just yet, so to be taken away from your parents or guardians and being put in an unfamiliar environment with strangers can understandably make the child upset and confused.
Part B: Mini IWA Argumentative Essay
Introduction
Context about your topic, question/statement of your topic, main argument aka thesis statement you are fighting for
Body
(try for 3 or 4)
T - Topic sentence/claim
E - Evidence-YES cite the credibility, use the sources as many times as you can (the more the merrier),
A - Analyze how it supports your claim
L - Authors in conversation
Place Counterclaim where you see fit followed by a rebuttal
Mini solution: Write a solution to the problem or a call to action on what “people” could or should do
Conclusion
Wrap up your best claims with your final opinion
Part B: High Scoring Sample
According to authors Zurab Pololikashvili and Young Tae Kim of the World Tourism Organization and International Transport Forum, carbon emissions from travel-related tourism totaled at a significant 982 million tons in 2005, posing several environmentally challenging outcomes. Due to such discoveries in recent times, discussions about the prevalence of global warming from human activity have rapidly outpaced even the yearly increase in the planet's actual temperature. Warming being a hotly debated theme, with some arguing for stricter regulations on greenhouse-related human activity and others for more complex solutions like a simulated environment, it is apparent that finding a solution requires cooperation and dialogue from various parties. However, in more closely considering the argument of the latter group, a possibly elevating question emerges: To what extent can modern nature simulation technologies be used to satisfy both desired human activity and responsible environmental outcomes?
In answering this question, it appears that many pieces of relevant data point to one conclusion: Simulating outdoor activities using modern technology immensely benefits the terrestrial environment by reducing carbon-emitting activity while making positive therapeutic and escapist outcomes more accessible for diverse user groups.
Beginning with the user benefits of adapting nature using simulation, it appears it both provides cognitive benefits and makes nature more accessible. For instance, according to authors Matthew H. E. M. Browning et al. of Frontiers in Psychology, for people such as the 40 million Americans who are daily restricted from the sweet gift of nature due to their disability, an "inexpensive and convenient" solution is virtual reality (Source A). They find many of the therapeutic effects of real nature are carried over through simulations, suggesting that they improve "mood, cognitive functioning, and physiological stress levels" (Source A). Because the authors place such certainty in the immersiveness of such simulations, they demonstrate that virtual nature can offer humans an inexpensive but highly effective form of natural therapy. In corroboration to these positive mental effects is author Katka Lapelosova of Fodor's Travel, who writes that outside escapism is "an exciting privilege" that "'grounds you in the present and requires you to deal with virtually everything that is normally mindless back home" (Source D). Connecting this to the possibilities offered by simulated nature, it is apparent that simulating the outdoors can also make retreating from normal life more accessible for users.
Beyond simply allowing disabled patients to enjoy the outdoors, it can even allow users of diverse populations to enjoy otherwise unattainable escapist fun. As such, the use of simulated environments, whether they are simple nature settings or even other activities (such as traveling) can hold accessible positives for user cognition and escapist desire.
Furthermore, it seems such an attempt, which has proven to equally benefit humans, enables the preservation of nature by overall reducing carbon-emitting human activity. For instance, the aforementioned idea about users being able to simulate escapist travel or tourist destinations is expanded upon by authors Pololikashvili and Kim of the World Tourism Organization, who find that tourism-related emissions contributed to about 1.597 million tons of CO2 in 2016 (Source C). Thus, they stress that humans are unsuccessfully managing the "great responsibilities" that come with tourism activity. However, as evidenced by Browning et al., the need for carbon-emitting tourism can be wholly eliminated by simulating outdoor environments using virtual reality (Source A). Therefore, the two sources collectively support the stance that simulated nature can be expanded to tourism, eliminating a form of human activity currently producing undeniably negative environmental outcomes. Thus, it can be said that virtual reality can be used to achieve positive environmental ends while retaining the psychological integrity of the outdoor experience.
Having established both the need and possible opportunities to implement nature simulations, it is necessary to more clearly explore the intricacies of the solution itself. For instance, it is apparent that 360-degree virtual reality systems have made demonstrably strides in mitigating stress and "[improving mood]" (Source A) in users, according to Browning et al. Therefore, it is imperative that users spread awareness of technology and spur future development. If such a plan is adopted, it is self-evident, for the reasons outlined above, that environmental positives would soon manifest. For instance, the pandemic was an isolating experience for many, and using its lessons learned can drive future dialogue about the implementation of virtual reality systems in the general public.
Although the crisis was viral at the time, it can be extended to the global warming crisis today. In this sense, another solution could involve prompting legislation to provide a given number of virtual reality systems to households. Such a solution, although more involved, can result in greater strides toward balancing positive psychological outcomes and positive environment outcomes nationwide (or even internationally). In a sense, the systems themselves are both the solutions and resolutions to the question at hand about compromising between human and environmental goals.
However, not everyone may see eye-to-eye in this regard. For instance, a popular argument in the process of such a solution's implementation may pertain to its excessive costs. However, this can simply be refuted by understanding that, as claimed by Browning et al., virtual reality systems - especially if legislatively managed - are "inexpensive and convenient" (Source A). Despite this, some may complain that the physical, not psychological benefits, of outdoor activity are lost. However, according to the same source, the therapeutic effects of virtual reality simulated outdoor environments can be extended to broader "physiological stress levels," whose effects rest beyond simple cognition. In any case, the immense positive incomes for the environment and great escapist and mental positives for most are enough to argue that the positives of such a plan largely outweigh the negatives.
Thus, it is apparent that adopting virtual reality systems to simulate nature and outdoor experiences can combat global warming by reducing carbon-emitting human activities while maintaining the integrity and positive physiological effects of the outdoors. While many continue to contest the implementation of such solutions and demand greater, more restrictive legislation, the need to formulate a practical solution that will be accepted by a democratic majority grows salient. Therefore, the largest consideration and solution the above research provides is to spread awareness about environmental issues and combat them using human solutions. As such, it is important to approach the subject with both tact and literacy. (1178)
Part B: Middle Scoring Sample
When problems occur in someone's life, their most common response is to run. In Source C, it says that, "In 2030, the total number of tourist trips is expected to reach 37.4 billion". While vacations can be a great escape from reality, they are also a way for someone to avoid their mental health problems and the traveling results in global pollution. Some people may not have access to new places because they are in the hospital or in assisted living with a limited view. Recently therapists have been studying Virtual Reality (VR) and the effects it has on mental health. In Source A, it says that, "Numerous studies have shown that 360-degree nature videos are therapeutic and improve mood with 6, 9, or 15 min.". This is a good solution for people who are stuck in an area, but what if it could be used for everyone? This leads people to wonder if traveling virtually can decrease the pollution in the world while still giving people an escape. If people can use the VR more frequently to deal with their mental health and enjoy a beautiful trip, they may take fewer trips which could decrease carbon emissions and result in less global pollution. This could be a more accessible way for people to deal with their mental health.
The Nature Virtual Reality can improve someone's mental health by giving them a quick break from reality to decrease their stress. In Source D, DR. Carla Marie says, "In psychology, escapism is generally defined as a desire or behavior to ignore, evade or avoid reality,". The purpose of many trips is for people to express their escapism. When people use VR they may escape for a short time to calm themselves so they can have a better state of mind when they return to reality to face their problems. In Source A, it says, "Recent advances make it easier for people to acquire and use this technology for therapeutic uses.". Going on vacation is a fun way to improve mood but it also takes planning and time. VR is accessible from home and can be changed to different locations quickly. The new technology helps improve mood much faster and can be done frequently to help overall mental health. When people don't travel as much, they also decrease the amount of carbon emissions that are released by those vehicles.
Less traveling will decrease the amount of carbon emissions and will result in less global pollution. In Source C it says, "All in all, from 2005 to 2016, the total transport-related emissions from tourism over the total man-made emissions grew from 3.7% to 5%,". This percent almost doubled in 11 years due to the crazy increase in traveling. The number of trips taken is predicted to keep increasing and so will the carbon emissions. In Source C it says, "In 2016, eleven years later,… an estimated 20 billion tourist trips were taking place. This number translates into transport-related emissions from tourism of a total of 1,597 million tonnes of CO2,". Traveling can be beneficial for mental health but to what extent. The extreme number of travelers is ending up polluting the world and making it less beautiful. While transportation is a big polluter, traveling takes up a large part of that.
Traveling is still a huge priority for some people and they may not be accepting of the VR technology. Even if people start to use the technology to replace some of their trips, it will decrease carbon emissions. Transportation is a large part of the pollution but we can't cut down all of it unless everyone stays home. That is not feasible because many occupations need people to be there in person. In Source D, it claims that by 2030 that the total pollution-related tourism from transport emissions will be 23%. If some people can resort to cutting down on traveling and using the Virtual Reality, it will help global pollution overall. This can still improve mental health struggles while also helping to save the planet. (677)
Tips for the Exam
Part A:
10ish min. to Read & annotate for main argument, claims to support argument and evidence.
Answer question 1 last
Part B:
10 minutes to review material
Pick 2 sources to use and develop a major claim
Introduction is short and sweet,
2-3 Body = CEAL, remember 2 pieces of evidence to keep the peace
1 counterclaim and solution paragraph
use your best vocabulary