Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- start [2014/09/24 14:06]
kai [Part 1: The Essay (10 marks)]
+++ start [2015/01/07 01:08] (current)
kai [Support Material]
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Theory of Knowledge ======
+----
 ===== Topics =====
-  - **[[kinds|Kinds of Knowledge]]**
+**[[definition|What is Knowledge?]]**
-  - **[[definition|What is Knowledge?]]**
 === Ways of Knowing ==
@@ Line 25: / Line 24: @@
 **[[positions|Life Positions]]**
-===== Assessment Criteria =====
+===== Assessment =====
+The IB expects Theory of Knowledge to have been taught for at least 100 hours in class. The assessment at the end has two components, which count equally towards the final grade.
+The final grade for both Theory of Knowledge and for the Extended Essay will be a letter from A to E. For the combination of those two grades, a Diploma student can gain up to 3 extra points. If a Diploma student achieves only a grade E for __one of these,__ he/she will need a total of 28 points in their subjects to be awarded the Diploma. Achieving only a grade E in __both of them__ is a failing condition, and no Diploma will be awarded.
 ==== Part 1: The Essay (10 marks) ====
@@ Line 39: / Line 42: @@
   * quality of analysis of knowledge questions.
-The TOK Essay Assessment Instrument:
+The TOK Essay Assessment Instrument of the IB:
 |   Does the student present an appropriate and cogent analysis of knowledge questions in discussing the title?   ||||||
 | Level 5\\ Excellent\\ 9--10 | Level 4\\ Very good\\ 7--8 | Level 3\\ Satisfactory\\ 5--6 | Level 2\\ Basic\\ 3--4 | Level 1\\ Elementary\\ 1--2 | Irrelevant\\ 0 |
 | There is a sustained focus on knowledge questions connected to the prescribed title and ?? are well chosen -- developed with investigation of different perspectives and linked effectively to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. | There is a focus on knowledge questions connected to the prescribed title -- developed with acknowledgement of different perspectives and linked to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. | There is a focus on some knowledge questions connected to the prescribed title -- with some development and linking to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. | Some knowledge questions that are connected to the prescribed title are considered, but the essay is largely descriptive, with superficial or limited links to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. | The essay has very limited relevance to the prescribed title -- relevant points are descriptive. | The essay does not reach a standard described by levels 1--5 or is not a response to one of the prescribed titles on the list for the current session. |
-| Arguments are clear, supported by real-life examples, and are effectively evaluated; counterclaims are extensively explored; implications are drawn. | Arguments are clear, supported by real-life examples, adn are evaluated; some counterclaims are identified and explored. | Some arguments are clear and supported by examples; some counterclaims are identified. | Arguments are offered but are unclear and/or not supported by effective examples. | Assertions are offered but are not supported. | ::: |
+| Arguments are clear, supported by real-life examples, and are effectively evaluated; counterclaims are extensively explored; implications are drawn. | Arguments are clear, supported by real-life examples, and are evaluated; some counterclaims are identified and explored. | Some arguments are clear and supported by examples; some counterclaims are identified. | Arguments are offered but are unclear and/or not supported by effective examples. | Assertions are offered but are not supported. | ::: |
 |   Some possible characteristics:   ||||||
 | Cogent\\ Accomplished\\ Discerning\\ Individual\\ Lucid\\ Insightful\\ Compelling | Pertinent\\ Relevant\\ Thoughtful\\ Analytical\\ Organized\\ Credible\\ Coherent | Typical\\ Acceptable\\ Mainstream\\ Adequate\\ Competent | Underdeveloped\\ Basic\\ Superficial\\ Derivative\\ Rudimentary\\ Limited | Ineffective\\ Descriptive\\ Incoherent\\ Formless |  |
+==== Prescribed TOK Titles, May 2015 ====
+**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 six titles (questions) provided overleaf. You may choose any title, but are recommended to consult with your teacher. Your essay will be marked according to the assessment criteria published in the Theory of Knowledge guide. The focus of your essays should be on knowledge questions. Where appropriate, refer to other parts of your IB programme 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 be direct quotes. It is appropriate to analyse 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 have a maximum of 1600 words, it must be double spaced and typed in size 12 font.
+**Titles**
+  - There is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
+  - "There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment." To what extent do you agree with this statement?
+  - "There is no reason why we cannot link facts and theories across disciplines and create a common groundwork of explanation." To what extent do you agree with this statement?
+  - With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.
+  - "Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments." To what extent do you agree with this statement?
+  - "The whole point of knowledge is to produce both meaning and purpose in our personal lives." To what extent do you agree with this statement?
 ==== Part 2: The Presentation (10 marks) ====
 Required:
   * One presentation to the class by an individual or a group (a maximum of three persons in a group). Approximately 10 minutes per student is allowed for the presentation.
-  * One written presentation planning document (TK/PPD) for each student.
+  * One written presentation planning document {{tkppd_e.pdf|TK/PPD}} for each student.\\ (It may be advisable for the student to download and complete the .pdf-file, and then give it to their teacher either as a soft copy or in printed form. In either case, the student and the teacher have to sign a hard copy of the document.)
-The marking has changed to global impression judgement, the main //question// being: "Do(es) the presenter(s) succeed in showing how TOK concepts can have practical application?" More specifically, has the student
+The global impression judgement of the TOK essay is shaped by the following question: "Do(es) the presenter(s) succeed in showing how TOK concepts can have practical application?" More specifically,
+has the student
   * described clearly the real-life situation that forms the launching point for the presentation?
@@ Line 60: / Line 86: @@
   * related the findings of and insights from the analysis back to the chosen real-life situation and showed how they might be relevant to other real-life situations?
-The IB provides the following //assessment instrument//:
+The TOK Presentation Assessment Instrument of the IB:
 |   Do(es) the presenter(s) succeed in showing how TOK concepts can have practical application?    ||||||
 | Level 5\\ Excellent\\ 9--10 | Level 4\\ Very good\\ 7--8 | Level 3\\ Satisfactory\\ 5--6 | Level 2\\ Basic\\ 3--4 | Level 1\\ Elementary\\ 1--2 | Irrelevant\\ 0 |
-| The presentation is focused on a well-formulated knowledge question that is clearly connected to a specific real-life situation. The knowledge question is effectively explored in the context of the real-life situation, using convincing arguments, with investigation of different perspectives. The outcomes of the analysis are shown to be be significant to the chosen real-life situation and to others. | The presentation is focused on knowledge question that is connected to a specific real-life situation. The knowledge question is explored in the context of the real-life situation, using clear arguments with acknowledgement of different perspectives. The outcomes of the analysis are shown to be significant to the real-life situation. | The presentation identifies a knowledge question that that has some connection to a specific real-life situation. The knowledge question is explored in the context of the real-life situation, using some adequate arguments. There is some awareness of the significance of the outcomes of the analysis. | The presentation identifies a knowledge question and a real-life situation, although the connection between them may not be convincing. There is some attempt to explore the knowledge question. There is limited awareness of the significance of the outcomes of the analysis. | The presentation describes a real-life situation without reference to any knowledge question, or treats an abstract knowledge question without connecting it to any real-life situation. | The presentation does not reach the standard described by levels 1--5. |
+| The presentation is focused on a well-formulated knowledge question that is clearly connected to a specific real-life situation. The knowledge question is effectively explored in the context of the real-life situation, using convincing arguments, with investigation of different perspectives. The outcomes of the analysis are shown to be be significant to the chosen real-life situation and to others. | The presentation is focused on a knowledge question that is connected to a specific real-life situation. The knowledge question is explored in the context of the real-life situation, using clear arguments with acknowledgement of different perspectives. The outcomes of the analysis are shown to be significant to the real-life situation. | The presentation identifies a knowledge question that has some connection to a specific real-life situation. The knowledge question is explored in the context of the real-life situation, using some adequate arguments. There is some awareness of the significance of the outcomes of the analysis. | The presentation identifies a knowledge question and a real-life situation, although the connection between them may not be convincing. There is some attempt to explore the knowledge question. There is limited awareness of the significance of the outcomes of the analysis. | The presentation describes a real-life situation without reference to any knowledge question, or treats an abstract knowledge question without connecting it to any real-life situation. | The presentation does not reach the standard described by levels 1--5. |
 |   Some possible characteristics:   ||||||
 | Sophisticated\\ Discerning\\ Insightful\\ Compelling\\ Lucid | Credible\\ Analytical\\ Organised\\ Pertinent\\ Coherent | Relevant\\ Adequate\\ Acceptable\\ Predictable | Underdeveloped\\ Basic\\ Unbalanced\\ Superficial\\ Derivative\\ Rudimentary | Ineffective\\ Unconnected\\ Incoherent\\ Formless |   |
+==== Support Material ====
+**[[https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/server2/rest/app/tsm.xql?doc=d_0_tokxx_tsm_1305_1_e&part=4&chapter=1|TOK assessment]]** from the Teacher Support Material of the IB (but no less useful for students!)

Theory of Knowledge

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools