HL challenges and interventions
แนะนำใหม่| English | ความหมาย |
|---|---|
| intervention/ˌɪntəˈvenʃn/ | มาตรการ干预 |
| feasibility/ˌfiːzɪˈbɪlɪti/ | ความเป็นไปได้ |
A decision you can investigate
- A public clinic proposes a digital-only booking app to shorten queues.
- The intervention 干预措施 may save staff time while excluding people who have no workable device.
Build the explanation
- HL studies challenges in global well-being, governance and human rights, and sustainable development.
- A justified evaluation names the evidence it uses, a tradeoff it accepts or refuses, and a condition that would change the recommendation. Recognising a definition does not finish that task.
Work through the evidence
- Evidence pack for this original clinic case: 40 in 100 patients live more than 20 km away. An 8-week pilot of SMS reminders plus a staffed phone line raised completed bookings from 52 in 100 to 71 in 100 among 180 patients with no smartphone. A digital-only app would cost less to staff after the first year. 46 in 100 of that same group still had no reliable data. Two staff can answer the phone for 4 hours a day; a longer line needs one part-time post. SMS numbers stay on the clinic server. The app vendor would store appointment and location data outside the country.
- Worked recommendation: extend the SMS-and-phone channel for patients without smartphones, and offer the app only as an extra route. Evidence used: the rise from 52 to 71 completed bookings, and the 46 in 100 who still lack data. Tradeoff faced: the app is cheaper to staff, but a digital-only rule drops the group the service was meant to reach. The recommendation would change if a later count showed almost all of that group had working data and the phone line was unused for a full month.
Which outcome best tests whether the clinic's access intervention is working?
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
The worked clinic case measures completed bookings in the group that lacked access. A lower bill and a download count do not show that those patients could book.
Test the limits
- A weaker draft says only: "Choose the digital-only app. It costs less to staff after the first year." That draft uses the cost figure and leaves out the pilot and the data gap.
- This clinic is original preparation. The pre-released brief anchors Paper 3; memorising this clinic does not answer that session task. The local subject brief is three pages. It is not the full guide, so this page does not claim a session markscheme.
The draft says: "Choose the digital-only app. It costs less to staff after the first year." Using only the clinic evidence in this lesson, rewrite the recommendation. Name the evidence you use, one tradeoff the draft omits, and one condition that would change your recommendation.
Compare your paragraph with the model. Several wordings can fit. The draft is only partly supported because it stops at cost.
Memorising this clinic recommendation answers the Paper 3 task for every session.
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Paper 3 is anchored by that session's pre-released brief. This clinic is original preparation. The three-page subject brief is not the full guide.
Apply and explain your answer
- Unfamiliar case, not the clinic: a city library may replace printed homework slips with an AI chatbot in three languages. About 35 students queue in the evening, with two librarians. A six-week staffed three-language desk cut average wait from 28 minutes to 11 minutes and needs one extra evening librarian. The chatbot's annual fee is lower. In a 40-student trial, answers were called useful 70 in 100 times, but 9 of 12 students who asked about local scholarship deadlines received a wrong date, and the bot shows no sources. 8 of the 35 regular students said they would not type a question on a screen classmates can see.
- Recommend from these library facts. The clinic's booking counts are not evidence for this library.
Using only the library evidence in this lesson, recommend what the library should do next. Name the evidence you use, one tradeoff, and one condition that would change the recommendation. Do not use the clinic's booking counts as your evidence.
The library facts are not the clinic pilot. A recommendation that only says the bot is cheaper omits the wrong dates and the public screen.
Use the terms precisely
- Later review, different again: a cooperative of 60 smallholders may buy soil sensors that text irrigation advice. 22 farmers can receive SMS and 11 have smartphones. A shared pump fails about twice a month. A paper rota cut failed watering days from 14 to 6 in one month. The vendor cites a 30 in 100 water saving on one large farm with steady power. These pumps lose power for several hours on hot days. The draft contract lets the vendor sell aggregated sensor data to a seed company.
- intervention: an action intended to change a specific problem. feasibility 可行性: whether an action can be implemented with available resources, including power, phones, staff and the data contract.
Using only the cooperative's sensor evidence, recommend a next step. Name the evidence you use, one tradeoff, and one condition that would change the recommendation. Do not reuse the clinic booking result or the library chatbot result as your evidence.
This case is a later review. Remembering the clinic's SMS-and-phone recommendation does not answer the pump, power and contract facts.
Match the terms to their precise meanings.
Difficulty 2/5 · 140 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Feasibility here includes staff time, devices, power and what the contract allows, not a slogan that any digital tool is possible.
Clinic recommendation: keep SMS and the phone line for patients without smartphones, and do not make the app the only route. The 71 in 100 completed bookings and the 46 in 100 without data are the evidence. Cost is the tradeoff, not the whole decision.
Paper 3 uses the pre-released brief for that session. This clinic, the library and the cooperative are original practice. A three-page subject brief does not set the full-guide rubric.
Name the evidence you use, the tradeoff you omit or accept, and the new fact that would change the recommendation.