|
Theory of Knowledge (TOK), an interdisciplinary requirement intended to stimulate critical reflection on knowledge and experience gained inside and outside the classroom, is a course of study unique to the International Baccalaureate Organization and mandatory for every Diploma Program student; it adds coherence to the program. TOK should involve at least 100 hours of teaching time spanning the program’s two years. The origins of TOK lie in a fusion of two divergent educational traditions, one pragmatic and the other placing prime importance on the teaching of philosophy.
In TOK, students are encouraged to reflect on all aspects of their Diploma Program work. It is possible to have informed discussions about the nature and purposes, strengths and limitations of particular knowledge systems, since distribution requirements ensure that course selections include each of the principal domains of knowledge. For example, students are encouraged to reflect on the nature of poetic truth in literature and to contrast such truth with that obtained in other systems of knowledge – the historical fact, the scientific fact, a mathematical proof, and so on. They also examine the grounds for the moral, political and aesthetic judgments that individuals must make in their daily lives. Emphasis is placed on the role of language and thought and on the development of the student’s critical thinking skills.
Students are helped to consider how they know what they know (different ways of “knowing”) and to develop habits of reflection which they bring to each subject, resulting in a deeper intellectual experience. As befits an international program, the TOK course explores various cultural traditions and encourages students to think about the strengths and limitations of different ways of knowing. TOK is not another name for philosophy, which exists as a subject option in its own right, yet in a broad sense the aim of TOK is to encourage a philosophical cast of mind and to promote clarity of thought and good judgment. The IBO devotes considerable energy to training teachers and to providing exemplar (sample) materials.
Assessment of performance in TOK
Each student is required to submit one essay between 1,200 and 1,600 words, from a list of 10 titles prescribed by the IBO for each examination session. In addition, the student makes a 10-minute presentation to the class and writes a self-evaluation report that includes a concise description of the presentation and answers to questions provided by the IBO.
Instructions to candidates
Your Theory of Knowledge essay for examination must be submitted to your teacher for authentication. It must be written on one of the ten titles (questions) provided below. You may choose any title, but are recommended to consult with your teacher. Your essay will be marked for proficiency in the six domains which are described in the assessment criteria published in the Theory of Knowledge guide. Remember to center your essay on problems of knowledge and, where appropriate, refer to other parts of your IBO program and to your experiences as a knower. Always justify your statements and provide relevant examples to illustrate your arguments. Pay attention to the implications of your arguments, and remember to consider what can be said against them. If you use external sources, cite them according to a recognized convention. Note that statements in quotations in these titles are not necessarily authentic: they present a real point of view but may not have been spoken or written by an actual person. It is appropriate to analyze them but it is unnecessary, even unwise, to spend time on researching a context for them. Examiners mark essays against the title as set. Respond to the title exactly as given; do not alter it in any way. Your essay must be between 1200 and 1600 words in length.
Prescribed titles for May 2005
1 For some people science is the supreme form of all knowledge. Is this view reasonable or does it involve a misunderstanding of science or of knowledge?
2 “For it is in the long run that, somehow, truth may survive —through the decay of untruth.” (John Lukacs) To what extent is this the case in different Areas of Knowledge and your own experience?
3 “All of the other Ways of Knowing are controlled by language.” What does this statement mean and do you think it is a fair representation of the relationship between perception, emotion, reason and language?
4 One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence “strong” enough and how can this limit be established?
5 “Doing the right things starts with knowing the right things.” In what ways does responsible action depend on sound, critical thinking?
6 What are the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain”, and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?
7 To what extent may the subjective nature of perception be regarded as an advantage for artists but an obstacle to be overcome for scientists?
8 Which is the more important attribute of the historian: the ability to analyze evidence scientifically, or the ability to develop interpretations of evidence using creative imagination?
9 “All ethical statements are relative.” By examining the justifications for—and implications of—making this claim, decide whether or not you agree with it.
10 Is knowledge in mathematics and other Areas of Knowledge dependent on culture to the same degree and in the same ways?
Prescribed titles for May 2006
1 There are many different authorities, including academics, politicians, global organizations and companies, who make knowledge claims. As an experienced TOK student, what criteria do you use to distinguish between knowledge, opinion and propaganda?
2 “Tell me how you’re conducting your search and I’ll tell you what you’re looking for.” To what extent do the methods used in different Areas of Knowledge determine the scope of the research and the conclusions you can reach?
3 Statistics can be very helpful in providing a powerful interpretation of reality but also can be used to distort our understanding. Discuss some of the ways in which statistics can be used or misused in different Areas of Knowledge to assist and mislead us, and how we can determine whether to accept the statistical evidence that is presented to us.
4 To what extent do personal attributes affect Ways of Knowing and why, if at all, does answering this question matter in the first place?
5 Do questions like “Why should I be moral?” or “Why shouldn’t I be selfish?” have definitive answers as do some questions in other Areas of Knowledge? Does having a definitive answer make a question more or less important?
6 If education means learning to see through the clichés of one’s time, how does learning in the different Areas of Knowledge and in TOK contribute to this education?
7 Some people say that religious beliefs can be neither justified nor refuted by reason. However, while sometimes this claim is used as a reason for rejecting religious beliefs, at other times it is used to conclude that these beliefs are established by faith. To what extent is faith a legitimate basis for knowledge claims, in religion and different Areas of Knowledge?
8 Arthur Eddington noted that an ordinary view of the world, one “which spontaneously appears around me when I open my eyes” is “a strange compound of external nature, mental imagery and inherited prejudice” (Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1928). How accurate a description is this of everyday experience?
9 Compare and contrast knowing a friend to knowing how to swim, knowing a scientific theory and knowing a historical period. What conclusions about the nature of knowledge can you reach?
10 Sometimes we hear reasoned arguments that oppose a view to which we are emotionally committed; sometimes we hear a passionate plea for a view we have good reason to reject. Bearing this in mind, discuss the importance of reason and emotion in distinguishing between belief and knowledge?
Assessment Criteria
The Essay on the Prescribed Title is assessed in the light of six criteria (a total of 40 points):
A Knowledge Issues (0–10)
B Quality of Analysis (0–10)
C Breadth and Links (0–5)
D Structure, Clarity and Logical Coherence (0–5)
E Examples (0–5)
F Factual Accuracy and Reliability (0–5).
The assessment of TOK essays involves qualitative judgments rather than quantitative measurements: a degree of imprecision and flexibility is inherent and the most appropriate level at which judgments are made must be determined. An assessment approach which made explicit every valued characteristic of the essay would not be appropriate, because the essays are too variable to fit the level of detail that would be required, and because the whole of an essay is much more than the sum of its parts. The complexity of such an approach would be unmanageable and increase the level of imprecision.
On the other hand, a holistic approach, such as awarding a single, ‘impressionistic’ point out of 40, would allow too much scope for subjectivity and response variability in the assessment. The assessment criteria are intended to illustrate to teachers and candidates the important features of an essay that are worthy of credit, and to guide assessors in awarding that credit appropriately and consistently. The number of criteria have been determined by the number of different aspects of an essay that can be identified, distinguished and judged in relative isolation (accepting that they will never be truly independent). Each criterion involves a judgment that is recognizably distinct from the others and internally coherent.
The achievement level descriptors within each criterion may each refer to separate but related
features of the work. These features may be connected with ‘and’ or ‘or’. However, assessors are asked to make ‘best-fit’ judgments. The level descriptor to be awarded to the essay is the one most applicable to the work. Assessors will make professional judgments about the relative importance of the different features of a level descriptor in the context of a given essay – some features may be inappropriate or less important for some essays.
External Assessment Descriptors
Criteria A: Knowledge Issue(s) (10 points)
Is/are the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title recognized and understood, and prominently maintained throughout the essay? The phrase ‘problems of knowledge’ refers to possible uncertainties, biases in approach to knowledge or limitations of knowledge, and the methods of verification and justification appropriate to the different Areas of Knowledge. If appropriate, intermediate points (1,3,5,7 and 9) may be awarded by the assessor.
Achievement Level - The candidate has:
0 not recognized any problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title.
2 a very poor recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by
the prescribed title; the development of ideas is irrelevant to the prescribed title.
4 a poor recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the
prescribed title; the development of ideas is generally irrelevant to the prescribed title.
6 a satisfactory recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by
the prescribed title; the development of ideas is generally relevant to the prescribed title,
is a balanced enquiry, and, for the most part, reflects the voice of the candidate.
8 a good recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the
prescribed title; the development of ideas is consistently relevant to the prescribed title in
particular, and to TOK in general; it is a balanced enquiry, and reflects the voice of the
candidate.
10 an excellent recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by
the prescribed title; the development of ideas is consistently relevant to the prescribed
title in particular, and to TOK in general; it is a balanced, purposeful enquiry, and
reflects the voice of the candidate.
Criteria B: Quality of Analysis (10 points)
Do the analysis, and the treatment of counter-claims, show critical reflection and insight in addressing the problem(s) of knowledge? If appropriate, intermediate points (1,3,5,7 and 9) may be awarded by the assessor.
Achievement Level - The candidate demonstrates:
0 no concern with the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title.
2 a very poor level of critical reflection; the discussion is entirely superficial or the arguments are logically invalid; the main points are not evaluated, and there is no acknowledgement of their implications.
4 a poor level of critical reflection; the discussion is generally superficial, or the arguments are logically invalid; some of the main points are justified and evaluated, but there is little acknowledgement of their implications.
6 a satisfactory level of critical reflection and some insight; the discussion is adequately detailed and, in general, the arguments are logically valid; the main points are justified and evaluated, and there is acknowledgement of their implications; counter-claims are identified.
8 a good level of critical reflection and insight; the discussion is detailed, and the arguments are logically valid; the main points are justified and evaluated, and there is acknowledgement of their implications; counter-claims are identified and evaluated.
10 an excellent level of critical reflection and insight; the discussion is detailed, and the arguments are logically valid; the main points are cogently justified and evaluated, and there is effective acknowledgement of their implications; counter-claims are identified and thoroughly evaluated.
Criteria C - Breadth and Links (5 points)
Does the essay reflect an awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different
Areas of Knowledge, and of how they may be linked? The terms ‘Ways of Knowing’ and ‘Areas of Knowledge’ refer to the elements of the TOK diagram. This is not to discourage reference to elements which do not feature on the diagram and which may be equally relevant and appropriate. The word ‘across’ here denotes links and comparisons across elements in the same radial section of the diagram. The word ‘between’ here denotes links and comparisons between elements in different radial sections of the diagram.
Achievement Level - The candidate demonstrates:
0 no awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge.
1 a very poor level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; links are attempted but are inappropriate.
2 a poor level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; some links are drawn either across or between them, but these are not always appropriate.
3 a satisfactory level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; appropriate links are drawn either across or between them.
4 a good level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; appropriate links and comparisons are drawn across and between them.
5 an excellent level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; effective links and comparisons are drawn across and between them.
Criteria D - Structure, Clarity and Logical Coherence (5 points)
Is the essay structured, clear and logically coherent? If the essay is of fewer than 1200 words or exceeds 1600 words in length, zero will be awarded for this criterion. This criterion is not intended to assess linguistic skills. Rather, it is intended to assess the extent to which the main ideas are clearly and coherently conveyed in an appropriately structured form.
Achievement Level - The essay is:
0 unstructured, unclear or logically incoherent or has no relevance to the prescribed title.
1 very poor in its structure, clarity and logical coherence.
2 poor in its structure, clarity and logical coherence.
3 satisfactorily structured, adequately clear and logically coherent enough to convey the main points.
4 well structured, with a concise introduction, and a clear, logically coherent development of the argument leading to a conclusion; concepts and distinctions are defined and clarified.
5 excellently structured, with a concise introduction, and a clear, logically coherent development of the argument leading to an effective conclusion; concepts and distinctions are succinctly defined and clarified.
Criteria E - Examples (5 points)
Is the essay well supported by appropriate examples drawn from a variety of sources?
Achievement Level - The candidate uses:
0 no examples relevant to the prescribed title.
1 very poor (or inappropriate) examples, drawn from narrow sources, not supporting the main points of the essay.
2 poor (rarely appropriate) examples, drawn from a limited variety of sources, to support the main points of the argument.
3 satisfactory (generally appropriate) examples, drawn from a variety of sources, to support the main points of the argument.
4 good (consistently appropriate) examples, drawn from a variety of sources, including the candidate’s own experience, to support the main points of the argument; the examples reflect a degree of cultural diversity.
5 excellent (consistently appropriate and effective) examples, drawn from a wide variety of sources, including the candidate’s own experience, to illustrate succinctly the main points of the argument; the examples reflect a high degree of cultural diversity.
Criteria F - Factual Accuracy and Reliability (5 points) (revised November 2001)
Are the affirmations factually accurate and, if sources were used, were they reliable and correctly cited? There are two strands in criterion F, which can work independently. In this revised version these are separated out, so that factual accuracy becomes one strand, and proper citation the other. The overall score is obtained by adding the levels achieved in the two strands.
Essays that have no relevance to the prescribed title will be awarded zero.
Factual accuracy
Achievement Level
0 The essay contains extensive factual inaccuracy.
1 The essay contains some factual inaccuracy.
2 The essay contains little factual inaccuracy.
3 The essay contains no factual inaccuracy.
Citation Achievement Level Non-original ideas, quotations and verifiable facts should be cited by candidates in a way that enables their sources to be traced.
0 No workable information about sources is given.
1 Most sources are adequately cited.
2 All sources are cited in a thorough and systematic fashion, or the essay requires no citations.
|
North Atlanta
