Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

IOP English IOP structure

Recommended Posts

hey guys. i've got my mock IOP in three days and i've sort of picked my topic or the whole theme on which i'll base my presentation. but i don't know how to go about it.. i mean the structure of the presentation. i was wondering if someone could list, in order, the way i should frame this whole presentation.. for example the intro first, then perhaps summarising the works ?

thanks,

Vidit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to summarise the book! Your task is not: Summarise the book.

Your task is: Discuss the theme of loyalty within book X.

Really that's all you have to talk about. You will need to summarise certain parts of the novel (as the background to then discussing loyalty) for instance describing the reason why the protagonist has split loyalty, who the loyalty is to, who the characters are and briefly how they relate to each other - basically anything which logically the audience would need to understand in order to therefore appreciate the points you're making in your presentation. You can introduce the whole thing in a couple of minutes, max. Just don't deviate off and start talking about things which aren't relevant to your topic. At the end of the day, time you spend re-explaining the storyline to your class unnecessarily is time you could have spent picking up marks. If it's not about loyalty or helping the audience understand what's going on, then don't say it. There's no point in describing the protagonist UNLESS you need to do so in order to elaborate a point about loyalty. I hope that makes sense: you need to give a bit of background but keep it strictly relevant.

Think of your presentation as an analysis rather than a narrative. You're not there to tell people about what happens, you're there to dissect what's happening, why and how it's being done. For this reason there's no set structure because the content is going to be so different for different presentations. None of the stuff you say relating to loyalty would make sense if you instead did the presentation on the symbolism of flowers within the novel or something like that (clearly making this up). Don't get bogged down in trying to come up with some sort of set of rules for the structure, just introduce it and then make the structure into whatever best helps you elaborate on your topic. Then conclude.

With regards to the member above, that format is fine but I would expect to have a lot more than just 2 points to make. I think I had at least 12-13 in mine. You want to really explore the topic, pick out as many examples as you can and do a really thorough job of it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my final one this Tuesday and I'm really excited!!

Intro- mention the title/author + thesis statement and perhaps a sentence or two about the story line that relates to your thesis

Body- Then start your analysis straight away!! I like using PEE. Make a point or talk about the context, add a quote, find literary devices in that quote and talk about why the point you made matters

I have four major points to discuss in my IOP (I'm doing mine on the theme of honour in Chronicle of a Death Foretold)...you can choose to have around 3-4 such points as well analysed in depth...your speech doesn't have to be in chronological order but do make sure that everything you say links back to your thesis. In fact, I would recommend that in every 'paragraph' you have, you should mention your key word at least once. This is the main thing that you have to ensure if you want a good structure.

Conclusion- brush up the last point you made, express your opinion or just mention the purpose of your speech. Why was honour so significant in my book for example?

*IOPs are meant to be fun and since yours is only a mock, don't stress about it too much. I think making some mistakes in this try will be good for you so know what exactly your teacher wants from you!

Good Luck,

Simran ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every teacher expects a different strategy to accomplish this. My teacher advised us to do this:

  • A 2 minute introduction on the work(s) and the topic to be examined
  • A 4 minute analysis of the first point in the argument
  • A 4 minute analysis of the second point in the argument
  • A 2 minute conclusion on the IOP as a whole.

If you want, I can give you an example as to how I did that using my IOP

B.E.P. i wouldn't mind looking at the example.. thanks :D

You don't need to summarise the book! Your task is not: Summarise the book.

Your task is: Discuss the theme of loyalty within book X.

Really that's all you have to talk about. You will need to summarise certain parts of the novel (as the background to then discussing loyalty) for instance describing the reason why the protagonist has split loyalty, who the loyalty is to, who the characters are and briefly how they relate to each other - basically anything which logically the audience would need to understand in order to therefore appreciate the points you're making in your presentation. You can introduce the whole thing in a couple of minutes, max. Just don't deviate off and start talking about things which aren't relevant to your topic. At the end of the day, time you spend re-explaining the storyline to your class unnecessarily is time you could have spent picking up marks. If it's not about loyalty or helping the audience understand what's going on, then don't say it. There's no point in describing the protagonist UNLESS you need to do so in order to elaborate a point about loyalty. I hope that makes sense: you need to give a bit of background but keep it strictly relevant.

Think of your presentation as an analysis rather than a narrative. You're not there to tell people about what happens, you're there to dissect what's happening, why and how it's being done. For this reason there's no set structure because the content is going to be so different for different presentations. None of the stuff you say relating to loyalty would make sense if you instead did the presentation on the symbolism of flowers within the novel or something like that (clearly making this up). Don't get bogged down in trying to come up with some sort of set of rules for the structure, just introduce it and then make the structure into whatever best helps you elaborate on your topic. Then conclude.

With regards to the member above, that format is fine but I would expect to have a lot more than just 2 points to make. I think I had at least 12-13 in mine. You want to really explore the topic, pick out as many examples as you can and do a really thorough job of it.

okay, sure. thanks a lot for this info.. i doubt i will include 12-13 points, but i should try to include at least 7-8.. anyway, thanks

I have my final one this Tuesday and I'm really excited!!

Intro- mention the title/author + thesis statement and perhaps a sentence or two about the story line that relates to your thesis

Body- Then start your analysis straight away!! I like using PEE. Make a point or talk about the context, add a quote, find literary devices in that quote and talk about why the point you made matters

I have four major points to discuss in my IOP (I'm doing mine on the theme of honour in Chronicle of a Death Foretold)...you can choose to have around 3-4 such points as well analysed in depth...your speech doesn't have to be in chronological order but do make sure that everything you say links back to your thesis. In fact, I would recommend that in every 'paragraph' you have, you should mention your key word at least once. This is the main thing that you have to ensure if you want a good structure.

Conclusion- brush up the last point you made, express your opinion or just mention the purpose of your speech. Why was honour so significant in my book for example?

*IOPs are meant to be fun and since yours is only a mock, don't stress about it too much. I think making some mistakes in this try will be good for you so know what exactly your teacher wants from you!

Good Luck,

Simran ;)

hey, what's PEE ?

and thanks for the above, but how are you going to start ? i mean, i don't get how to come up with the intro and thesis and everything altogether, i don't know why but i feel it's like bringing it up out of nowhere..

Edited by Sandwich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEE's Point Example Explanation- google it, this is a universal thing ;)

My intro was:

“On the day they were going to kill him” (1), they kill him. The calm, exquisite moneyed man, Santiago Nasar, is slayed precariously using a pig knife by two twins to restore their sister’s lost virginity. In most scenarios, this crime would be frowned upon in society and be subjected to severe legal retributions. However, in the antiquated Columbian town of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, penned by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, the brothers, are surprisingly acquitted on a seemingly absurd theory.

They protest that their behaviour is just a “legitimate defence of honour” and that they are “innocent before God and before men”. Moreover, as light falls on many circumstantial details of the murder, one valid conclusion can be derived: there is no falsity in the aforementioned parallel words of the Vicario brothers; honour is truly the motivating force behind Santiago Nasar’s death.

My topic was honour and Santiago Nasar's death :) This might help I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEE's Point Example Explanation- google it, this is a universal thing ;)

My intro was:

“On the day they were going to kill him” (1), they kill him. The calm, exquisite moneyed man, Santiago Nasar, is slayed precariously using a pig knife by two twins to restore their sister’s lost virginity. In most scenarios, this crime would be frowned upon in society and be subjected to severe legal retributions. However, in the antiquated Columbian town of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, penned by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, the brothers, are surprisingly acquitted on a seemingly absurd theory.

They protest that their behaviour is just a “legitimate defence of honour” and that they are “innocent before God and before men”. Moreover, as light falls on many circumstantial details of the murder, one valid conclusion can be derived: there is no falsity in the aforementioned parallel words of the Vicario brothers; honour is truly the motivating force behind Santiago Nasar’s death.

My topic was honour and Santiago Nasar's death :) This might help I guess...

hey, that sounds pretty cool.. how many marks did you get for it ?

and how does the conclusion work ? i mean in my case i'm talking about loyalty in general, depicted by various characters and the indian tribe.. i don't think i'll have to conclude by saying that they ARE loyal.. what could it be ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEE's Point Example Explanation- google it, this is a universal thing ;)

My intro was:

“On the day they were going to kill him” (1), they kill him. The calm, exquisite moneyed man, Santiago Nasar, is slayed precariously using a pig knife by two twins to restore their sister’s lost virginity. In most scenarios, this crime would be frowned upon in society and be subjected to severe legal retributions. However, in the antiquated Columbian town of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, penned by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, the brothers, are surprisingly acquitted on a seemingly absurd theory.

They protest that their behaviour is just a “legitimate defence of honour” and that they are “innocent before God and before men”. Moreover, as light falls on many circumstantial details of the murder, one valid conclusion can be derived: there is no falsity in the aforementioned parallel words of the Vicario brothers; honour is truly the motivating force behind Santiago Nasar’s death.

My topic was honour and Santiago Nasar's death :) This might help I guess...

hey, that sounds pretty cool.. how many marks did you get for it ?

and how does the conclusion work ? i mean in my case i'm talking about loyalty in general, depicted by various characters and the indian tribe.. i don't think i'll have to conclude by saying that they ARE loyal.. what could it be ?

Haven't got my marks yet...just did it yesterday and it went pretty well- am expecting a 6 or 7 *fingers crossed*

Ok conclusion, lots of my friends were asking me about this too and I don't really have an answer. You can choose to give your personal interpretation of the characters in the tribe, why you think certain characters are important...I basically ended by expressing in formal language that the society is full of freaking retards ;) And yep, you don't really have to conclude with "they are loyal", but just ensure that your conclusion doesn't contradict what you went about for 15 or so minutes!

Cheers,

Simran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEE's Point Example Explanation- google it, this is a universal thing ;)

My intro was:

“On the day they were going to kill him” (1), they kill him. The calm, exquisite moneyed man, Santiago Nasar, is slayed precariously using a pig knife by two twins to restore their sister’s lost virginity. In most scenarios, this crime would be frowned upon in society and be subjected to severe legal retributions. However, in the antiquated Columbian town of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, penned by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, the brothers, are surprisingly acquitted on a seemingly absurd theory.

They protest that their behaviour is just a “legitimate defence of honour” and that they are “innocent before God and before men”. Moreover, as light falls on many circumstantial details of the murder, one valid conclusion can be derived: there is no falsity in the aforementioned parallel words of the Vicario brothers; honour is truly the motivating force behind Santiago Nasar’s death.

My topic was honour and Santiago Nasar's death :) This might help I guess...

hey, that sounds pretty cool.. how many marks did you get for it ?

and how does the conclusion work ? i mean in my case i'm talking about loyalty in general, depicted by various characters and the indian tribe.. i don't think i'll have to conclude by saying that they ARE loyal.. what could it be ?

Haven't got my marks yet...just did it yesterday and it went pretty well- am expecting a 6 or 7 *fingers crossed*

Ok conclusion, lots of my friends were asking me about this too and I don't really have an answer. You can choose to give your personal interpretation of the characters in the tribe, why you think certain characters are important...I basically ended by expressing in formal language that the society is full of freaking retards ;) And yep, you don't really have to conclude with "they are loyal", but just ensure that your conclusion doesn't contradict what you went about for 15 or so minutes!

Cheers,

Simran

oh nice!! good luck (Y)

yeah i'll work on that.. i read your first post and i guess i'll end mine in a similar way, talking about the significance of loyalty in this novel..

anyway, thanks a lot :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEE's Point Example Explanation- google it, this is a universal thing ;)

My intro was:

“On the day they were going to kill him” (1), they kill him. The calm, exquisite moneyed man, Santiago Nasar, is slayed precariously using a pig knife by two twins to restore their sister’s lost virginity. In most scenarios, this crime would be frowned upon in society and be subjected to severe legal retributions. However, in the antiquated Columbian town of Chronicle of a Death Foretold, penned by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Pedro and Pablo Vicario, the brothers, are surprisingly acquitted on a seemingly absurd theory.

They protest that their behaviour is just a “legitimate defence of honour” and that they are “innocent before God and before men”. Moreover, as light falls on many circumstantial details of the murder, one valid conclusion can be derived: there is no falsity in the aforementioned parallel words of the Vicario brothers; honour is truly the motivating force behind Santiago Nasar’s death.

My topic was honour and Santiago Nasar's death :) This might help I guess...

hey, that sounds pretty cool.. how many marks did you get for it ?

and how does the conclusion work ? i mean in my case i'm talking about loyalty in general, depicted by various characters and the indian tribe.. i don't think i'll have to conclude by saying that they ARE loyal.. what could it be ?

Haven't got my marks yet...just did it yesterday and it went pretty well- am expecting a 6 or 7 *fingers crossed*

Ok conclusion, lots of my friends were asking me about this too and I don't really have an answer. You can choose to give your personal interpretation of the characters in the tribe, why you think certain characters are important...I basically ended by expressing in formal language that the society is full of freaking retards ;) And yep, you don't really have to conclude with "they are loyal", but just ensure that your conclusion doesn't contradict what you went about for 15 or so minutes!

Cheers,

Simran

oh nice!! good luck (Y)

yeah i'll work on that.. i read your first post and i guess i'll end mine in a similar way, talking about the significance of loyalty in this novel..

anyway, thanks a lot :D

Awesome! Good Luck (:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.