# Introduction

## Purpose of this document

### About this publication

A guide to the new theory of knowledge (TOK) course was published in March 2006 with first assessment taking place in May 2008. The new course was constructed following a review that concentrated particularly on assessment, recognizing a number of concerns with the previous course. Following trials of three different models, a set of four new assessment criteria for the externally assessed essay was developed.

The essays and comments presented in this publication are an attempt to clarify how the assessment criteria for this component work in practice. The essays come from those submitted in the first examination session in May 2008. Each is accompanied by comments from senior examiners explaining the marks awarded.

### New criteria for externally assessed work

Although the four new assessment criteria were conceived largely as a better way to present the elements of the previous six criteria, what has emerged is a significant refocusing, particularly in the new criterion B, “Knower’s perspective”. This gathered elements from several of the earlier criteria but resulted in a productive emphasis on students’ own approaches to knowledge issues. The new criteria have been widely welcomed as being easier to understand and more “transparent” in application.

In any assessment scheme there is a balance to be struck between validity and reliability. Validity means that the scheme measures what it is meant to be measuring (and in this case, also that it promotes appropriate classroom practice); reliability means that the scheme yields consistent scores at different times and with different examiners. The curriculum review group responsible for the new set of criteria were determined to preserve the validity of the assessment in TOK. Greater reliability was also a goal but it is one that has proved elusive. Essay-based assessment is always difficult, and it may be that the TOK essay is more difficult to assess than most: it is inherently complex and lacks the “stabilizing” element of an expected factual content, such as might be found in a response to, say, a history or economics examination question.

However, despite some perceptions to the contrary, analysis has shown that the accuracy of teachers’ grade predictions in TOK is comparable to that in other subjects (over 40% exactly right; over 90% within one grade). This evidence suggests that assessment in the course overall is rather more reliable than is sometimes supposed.

### Presentation of material

These support materials are available in English, French and Spanish, with each version including at least one essay in each grade. Since it was not appropriate to translate student work, the essays and comments are different in each language. If teachers are familiar with more than one of these languages, it may be worthwhile for them to look at the other language versions.

Each essay has been anonymized but otherwise is in its original format, apart from the addition of line numbers for ease of reference. In one instance a slight change was necessary for copyright reasons.

For information, the five TOK essay grades, with mark ranges as set in May 2008, are as follows:

Grade A | Excellent | 30–40 marks
Grade B | Good | 23–29 marks
Grade C | Satisfactory | 17–22 marks
Grade D | Mediocre work | 11–16 marks
Grade E | Poor | 0–10 marks

### Using this publication

There are various ways of using this publication. You may wish to read one or two essays, with comments, then try “marking” others for yourself to see how closely your assessments agree with those of the senior examiners. You may wish to ask your students to mark one or two of the essays as a way of helping them to understand what they need to aim towards, or what to avoid, in their own essays.

We would be surprised if you agree with all the judgments presented here. Nevertheless, we hope they demonstrate a consistent approach with its own rationale. We would be interested to know whether the publication is useful to you, and indeed, how you have used it. Any comments about the publication or suggestions for changes to the assessment scheme can be made via the TOK discussion forum on the IB’s online curriculum centre (OCC).

# Assessed student work

To view the various elements of this sample, click on the icons on the right of the screen.

## Overview

Example | Essay title
--- | ---
1 | Our senses tell us that a table, for example, is a solid object; science tells us that the table is mostly empty space. Thus two sources of knowledge generate conflicting results. Can we resolve such conflicts?
2 | “...we will always learn more about human life and human personality from novels than from scientific psychology”. (Noam Chomsky) To what extent would you agree?
3 | “Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean there is no such thing as truth?
4 | Are some ways of knowing more likely than others to lead to truth?
5 | Does language play a role of equal importance in the different areas of knowing?
6 | “Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean there is no such thing as truth?

## Example 1

Written work (pdf)

### Examiner comments

Grade awarded: A

Criterion A | 10
Criterion B | 10
Criterion C | 9
Criterion D | 9
Total | 38

This is an outstanding essay with clear personal voice and a detailed and fresh analysis. Consistently clear, relevant and engaging, it critically draws on concepts of truth, language, authority and reason in a sophisticated manner. The student’s approach largely follows the lead given in the prescribed title (clashes between science and sense perception, using the table as an example). Although most excellent essays would go beyond an example given in the title (in this case, that would mean examining other potential conflicts among ways of knowing and areas of knowledge), the student’s decision to focus heavily on this one is justified by the depth and sophistication of the treatment.

#### Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 10

The essay is entirely focused on the prescribed title and issues of perception are identified from several perspectives: the everyday (for example, lines 28-29, line 45); the scientific (for example, line 63); the linguistic (for example, lines 33–44); and the philosophical (for example, lines 76–79 with references to Descartes and line 106). The student applies a related knowledge issue, the degree to which science is seen as an authoritative area of knowledge (lines 45–72), in order to enrich the discussion. As a result the essay makes effective links and comparisons, and the multifaceted approach shows clear evidence of sophisticated understanding of knowledge issues.

#### Criterion B: Knower’s perspective

Mark Awarded: 10

Much evidence of independent thought can be seen in the way the essay plays with important distinctions (for example, line 28, “reducing our conception…”; line 32, “The title question seems to…”; line 115 “a thorough….”). The shaping of the essay, in drawing on and developing a range of ideas, indicates reflective exploration, as shown by the one extended example (lines 45–72), which is explored in detail and with a clear sense of purpose and inquiry. Self-awareness as a knower is clear overall and specifically in line 77 (“However, since…”) and lines 90–101 in the discussion of myopia.

#### Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 9

The inquiry into knowledge issues shows a high degree of insight, exploring distinctions in an open but coherent and compelling manner (for example, lines 28–29, lines 39–40, and lines 105–106). The overall argument (that the conflict is more apparent than real) is convincing and shows an ability to question the assumptions of the prescribed title. Implications are mentioned at the end of lines 77–79 (“however…”). The discussion of the microscope in lines 84–89 does, however, feel somewhat contrived and perhaps is better described as a straw man than a serious consideration of a counterclaim. In the context of this example, the uses of the terms “fabrication”, “fraud” and “fake” seem overblown and unjustified.

Counterclaims are explored and evaluated throughout the essay, mainly by dissolving the tension between scientific and sensory knowledge either by explicit linguistic analysis, as mentioned above, or by appeal to pragmatic issues. The student appeals to the use of reason as the way forward in reaching some resolution on several occasions (lines 22–24, 56–60, 106–109, 110).

#### Criterion D: Organization of ideas

Mark awarded: 9

The essay is very well structured and organized, especially conceptually. Concepts are well explained and refined as the essay progresses. However, certain structures are not entirely well used (for example, the three truth criteria in line 18), and there are areas where the language used is open to question. In line 4, for example, it might be argued that the juxtaposition of science and empiricism is a category error—comparison of an area of knowledge and a position about knowledge. However, in the holistic context of the essay, the student deserves the benefit of the doubt and line 4 is understood as contrasting “scientific knowledge” with “empirical knowledge”. The use of “necessary” in line 9 is similarly suspect; while some scientists have indeed claimed that a theory of everything might be “necessary” it is not clear that this is what the student means. These issues prevent the award of the top score here in terms of the conceptual clarity strand of this criterion.

In terms of referencing, the ideas of Descartes and Plato do not count as “common knowledge” and as a result need a reference. The essay does not, however, hinge on these ideas, so no major penalty is appropriate. However, the essay does as a result slightly fall short of the top score in the referencing strand of this criterion.

## Example 2

Written work (pdf)

### Examiner comments

Grade awarded: A

Criterion A | 8
Criterion B | 9
Criterion C | 7
Criterion D | 7
Total | 31

This is a very good essay. It explores the prescribed title with originality and insight, drawing on a wide range of examples to support the view that the holistic nature of novels allows them to yield better insights than a reductionist psychology. The student, writing in a second language, is not always completely clear, and the ideas are not always tied together lucidly. For example, what are the links between the “subjective” nature of novels (line 1) and the “objective” approach of psychology (line 17) if they both “affect human experience” (line 12)? Despite this room for further in-depth analysis, the essay explores the ideas well and has an unusual freshness.

#### Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 8

While the essay concentrates on “personality” at the expense of “life”, the student consistently addresses relevant knowledge issues (whether or not we can know the meaning of a novel (lines 1–16), the limits of psychology (lines 18–27, 73–90, 91–106), fallacious reasoning (lines 40–52), scientific method (lines 53–69), reductionism/holism (lines 70–90), what it means to “learn" (lines 38–39, 51–52, 70–90)). Some other knowledge issues are left implicit, but are alluded to (such as the difference between asking “how” and “why”, and the degree to which causal relations can be established through the two media). The comparison between scientific psychology and literature, though uneven throughout the essay, is at times effective (for example, lines 70–90 and also lines 104–106) and best described, overall, as good.

#### Criterion B: Knower’s perspective

Mark awarded: 9

The essay is shaped in a way that shows much evidence of independent thinking, particularly through the varied and effective examples. The examples of the baby (lines 18–26), the John Gray book (lines 40–47), Romeo and Juliet (lines 70–71), the homosexual argument (lines 73–86), Milgram’s experiment and the Holocaust (lines 91–106) show a fine ability to link the ideas of the prescribed title to a broad range of academic and everyday situations in an independent and personal way. The personal stand is especially evident in lines 100–106 where a self-aware moral commitment is brought to bear on the “explanation” of the Holocaust, and in the final few lines where the author clearly understands the personal nature of the search to understand others.

#### Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 7

The analysis of knowledge issues is less effective than their identification and exemplification. The central claim, that the “clinical perspective” of psychology “disrupts the true understanding” (line 111) is explored with some insight in lines 70–106, but there is certainly room for more detailed inquiry. While the essay certainly explores the issues, the exploration is uneven; for example, the discussion of personality development (lines 30–39), while made relevant, is only weakly linked to the narrative of the essay. Counterclaims are implicitly explored throughout the essay by the juxtaposition of the two areas (for example, “explicit terms and definitions” (line 8) versus “complex words and experiments” (line 49)).

#### Criterion D: Organization of ideas

Mark awarded: 7

The essay is generally well structured. It starts by applying ideas of objectivity/subjectivity to the two areas of knowledge (lines 1–29) and goes on to look at how science explains things in general and personality in particular (lines 40–69) before considering two cases where it is argued that science does not give us as much insight as novels (lines 70–106). Concepts are generally, though not always, used clearly and while some issues are linguistic (for example, the inaccuracy of the statement “Novels as a form of art are subjective” (line 1)), other cases require further development (lines 11–12, line 103). Facts are all correct and all sources are acknowledged. While precise links from appropriate points in the text to the bibliography are missing, and a page number is required for lines 77–79, these are not significant deficiencies.

## Example 3

Written work (pdf)

### Examiner comments

Grade awarded: B

Criterion A | 6
Criterion B | 7
Criterion C | 6
Criterion D | 7
Total | 26

This is a good essay. Despite some localized difficulties (for example, lines 10–11, confusion with the truth tests, line 76, error with “a priori”) there is some sense of personal engagement and the essay does consistently identify relevant knowledge issues.

#### Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 6

The essay is consistently relevant to the title and there is evidence of real ambition and some attempt to use profound ideas (specifically Gödel’s ideas (lines 20–26) and the evolutionary ideas of lines 96–97). However, the ideas are not always used effectively; there is clearly some understanding but it falls short of a “good” understanding. In particular, there is awareness that the idea of “truth” is problematic (for example, the introduction and lines 18–19) and its meaning is explored in different areas of knowledge (mathematics, art, history, ethics, religion) and everyday events (the Iraq war, the table), but the handling of the issue is uneven and at times inconsistent.

#### Criterion B: Knower’s perspective

Mark awarded: 7

The essay has a clear student voice, starting with an engaging introduction which understands—but is not prepared to countenance—total skepticism; despite the clumsy formulation (lines 4–5) one senses an awareness of alternative perspectives and a personal stand.

The examples are appropriate, varied and reasonably effective (for example, lines 31–33, the gamelan; lines 20–26, a brave, if not entirely successful, attempt to concisely explain Gödel’s ideas; lines 51–55, Texan law; lines 56–75, Iraq; lines 39–41, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The quality and quantity show that the student can independently link the ideas to personal, academic and real-life situations, and are a strong feature of this essay.

#### Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 6

The analysis of issues is weaker than their identification, and the precise links between “context” and “truth” are not specified (for example, the examples of the gamelan and Dawkins are both potentially rich but undeveloped). While there is a sense of exploring the idea of truth in different contexts, the inquiry lacks depth and detail, and some conclusions are not adequately supported (for example, line 18, the conclusion “However... contexts” is supported by examples from non-mathematical contexts; line 13, “make four because…” is an apparently unaware argument from authority; lines 20–26, Gödel’s ideas are not used adequately; lines 28–30, “Perceptions… view and place” is asserted rather than argued for).

It might be argued that the extensive treatment of the Iraq war, while certainly showcasing the student’s perspective on the issue, might be somewhat polemical rather than carefully argued. Claims of “emotive language, colourful… fallacies" (lines 67–68) are not elaborated upon and, in the overall picture of the essay, this example seems to contradict the overall conclusion that “Margaret Atwood was right when she said that context is all” (line 101).

#### Criterion D: Organization of ideas

Mark awarded: 7

The essay has a clear overall structure, with progression from area to area. Some concepts are explained, even if just locally (for example, “truth” in the opening paragraph, appearance/reality in lines 87–89). The essay is generally easy to follow, despite moments of confusion (for example, “perceptions” in line 28 does not seem to mean “sense perceptions”; lines 46–47, “this demonstrates … events” refers to understanding of truth, which is not the same thing as truth itself; lines 74–75, “we see… viewpoint” suffers from the same problem). The bibliography is adequate (the claims about Iraq may be taken as common knowledge), but references from the text to it (for example, lines 76–97 referring to the TED video) are not adequate, and the footnote on page 2 does not appear in the bibliography. However, the referencing requirements are less stringent than those for the extended essay and, as the sources are all traceable, this is not considered a significant problem.

## Example 4

Written work (pdf)

### Examiner comments

Grade awarded: C

Criterion A | 5
Criterion B | 4
Criterion C | 4
Criterion D | 5
Total | 18

This is a reasonable essay that attempts to anchor ways of knowing to areas of knowledge and is partly successful in doing so. The student, clearly writing in a second language, has a clear thesis and the structure of the essay is easy to follow. Overall the essay lacks depth and detail, and has a superficial account of many areas (for example, lines 36–46, lines 88–89).

#### Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 5

By examining the roles of the four ways of knowing in the six areas of knowledge in turn, the essay is consistently relevant. There are some effective links between areas of knowledge and ways of knowing (for example, lines 13–15, lines 17–19, lines 84–85) but some are tenuous or undeveloped (for example, lines 28–29, lines 67–70). As a result, there is some understanding, but not a good understanding, of knowledge issues.

#### Criterion B: Knower’s perspective

Mark awarded: 4

By attempting to cover all areas of knowledge and ways of knowing, the essay feels rather mechanistic and lacks an original, personal thread. This approach means, in addition, that there is little space in any given part of the essay for the student to demonstrate independent thinking or personal engagement. Some evidence for the latter can be seen in the choice of examples (for example, lines 15–16, lines 32–35, line 43, “partisans of the caliph Ali”, and lines 88–90), though these are only partially explored, and the reader is left with too much work to do to fully understand the points they are supposed to make. The latter two of these examples provide some evidence of awareness of different perspectives, though this aspect is not explored.

#### Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 4

The analysis is limited by the extremely broad scope of the essay, and often the conclusions drawn in the various areas are not adequately supported by previous consideration (for example, lines 21–22, lines 75–77, lines 92–93). So, while there is some coherent argument and justification, the essay only partly explores and partly describes knowledge issues.

Counterclaims are briefly mentioned at points (for example, lines 83–85) but not in detail and the examples are not used as a vehicle for analysis. The 0^0 example (lines 88–90), a potentially fruitful one, is undeveloped; and the example in lines 77–81 is very weak. One might equally argue that reason would say he should be kept alive and emotion would tell us to turn off the machine (for example, to end the drawn out agony of the family). Hypothetical examples such as these are generally not helpful and should be avoided.

The lack of analysis of the central term “truth” is problematic. Had the concept been taken as monolithic and transparent then analysis could have focused on the ways of knowing; however, the claim that “The concept of truth … differs for different areas of knowledge” (line 92) and the inconsistent use of speech marks (“truth” or truth) required attention and elaboration which was not forthcoming.

#### Criterion D: Organization of ideas

Mark awarded: 5

In terms of the conceptual clarity strand of this criterion, the essay structure is clear and satisfactory, with a reasonably clear introduction and conclusion. Concepts are for the most part used clearly, though they are not developed or refined. In particular, the concept of “truth”, though discussed, is not developed, despite constant attention. Local difficulties (for example, line 26, lines 67–69), do not undermine the general clarity.

In terms of the referencing strand of this criterion, references are needed at some points, but the essay does not hinge on them and so no major penalty is appropriate (line 32, “For instance, during an experiment…”, and line 43, “partisans of the Caliph Ali”). Nevertheless, the omission is bad practice and might have pulled down the overall mark for this criterion, had the other strand of this criterion suggested better.

## Example 5

Written work (pdf)

### Examiner comments

Grade awarded: D

Criterion A | 3
Criterion B | 3
Criterion C | 2
Criterion D | 5
Total | 13

This is a weak essay. The slight alteration to the prescribed title from “roles” to “a role” either reflected a limited understanding or contributed to it. In either case the teacher would have been well advised to step in here and advise the student to use the prescribed title in its exact original form. The narrow focus of the essay on language as purely a means of communication has greatly limited the range of ideas that are dealt with. While there is no required content for an answer, the essay might have benefited from a consideration of, for example, issues around language and its relationship to values, thoughts, identity, meaning or experience in the different areas of knowledge. As it stands, one might observe that a student hardly needed a TOK course to realize that language was needed to communicate, and that in the course of the essay so many TOK areas are mentioned that depth of analysis in any one of them is unlikely.

#### Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 3

The essay consistently identifies issues of marginal importance (for example, lines 60–61, that state that NaCl is scientific notation for sodium chloride) or dubious relevance (for example, lines 35–36, “more work may have been put into it”; line 43, “a teleprompter…”) and fails to develop these issues in depth or detail. The surprising claim in lines 52–53 that “neither written nor spoken language have any significant importance to the arts” can be seen, charitably, as the student discussing only dance and music, say, and not considering literature or poetry.

Some relevant knowledge issues are identified, but these are not explored (for example, lines 85–87, “Through documents… the past” and the final lines, “However… differently”). As a result, while the essay is in part relevant, the understanding is best described as rudimentary and the attempted links to ways of knowing are not effective.

#### Criterion B: Knower’s perspective

Mark awarded: 3

While the essay has a clear student voice, it does not connect knowledge issues to the student’s own experience, and the narrowness of focus mitigates against the possibility of independent thinking about knowledge issues. There are some appropriate examples (for example, lines 24–26, baby talk; lines 85–87, Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mayan inscriptions) though they are not well used. There is the glimmer of awareness of different perspectives in the final line and this just pushes the mark for this criterion to a 3.

#### Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 2

This is the weakest aspect of the essay: the initial poor interpretation of the prescribed title has limited the analysis throughout. Promising ideas are undeveloped and seem to have been introduced to little effect. For example, the student mentions symbols in line 5, and then states in lines 32–33 that they “can be understood just by looking at them”. Even where relevant knowledge issues are identified and some conclusion appears to be drawn (for example, lines 52–53, “therefore it can be said…”; line 80 “therefore we can see…”; line 92, “Therefore it can be seen…”; line 95,“To conclude it can be said…”), the conclusion seems to be stated rather than following from what has gone previously. While the student has given the initial impression of having constructed valid arguments, these do not stand up to even cursory scrutiny and the attempts at argument are unsuccessful.

There is some awareness of counterclaims (for example, line 42, “Although…”; line 65, “However…") but these are in general confused and do not provide enough evidence to progress beyond a level 2.

#### Criterion D: Organization of ideas

Mark awarded: 5

This essay’s strongest aspect is its organization. The student makes and explains an initial distinction (graphic/phonic) which is maintained throughout the essay with respect to different areas of knowledge. While this is an unhelpful analytic tool, it does mean that the essay is adequately structured overall, despite the occasional instance where there is a lack of clarity (for example, lines 11-12, “Both spoken… concrete”; lines 42–43). The reference to the Egyptians and Mayans required referencing, but this example is only of marginal importance to the essay and so does not affect the overall score for this criterion.

## Example 6

Written work (pdf)

### Examiner comments

Grade awarded: E

Criterion A | 3
Criterion B | 2
Criterion C | 1
Criterion D | 2
Total | 8

This is a very poor essay. Although it uses the vocabulary of TOK in referring to areas of knowledge, ways of knowing and concepts such as “truth” and “validity”, there is very little evidence of any understanding. It does consistently retain “truth” as a focus, but the scope of the essay (truth in literature, mathematics, reasoning, natural sciences, human sciences, arts, history, emotions) is too broad to allow more than superficial discussion, and the attempt to make conceptual distinctions about different types of truth largely fails. Where discussion does take place, it is often either vague (for example, lines 32–33, line 114) or unclear (for example, line 53).

The essay uses potentially relevant quotes from Einstein, von Mises, Bonaparte et al, but by “parachuting” them in with no explanation they hinder rather than help understanding. While they do appear in the bibliography, they are not adequately referenced in the text or by footnotes.

#### Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 3

The essay is for the most part relevant, despite the weakness of the introduction in this respect. However, the links to areas of knowledge and ways of knowing provide little evidence of understanding beyond the rudimentary level (for example, lines 46–47, lines 60–61, lines 105–107). Where there does appear to be some understanding of a knowledge issue, the effect is sometimes undone by a confusion elsewhere (for example, in lines 73–74, “Centuries ago… it wasn’t” appears to suggest a distinction between truth and belief, but lines 22–24 “The difference… created the different truths” contradicts this).

#### Criterion B: Knower’s perspective

Mark awarded: 2

The essay relies too heavily on clichéd examples (for example, flat earth, 2 + 2 = 4) and Alchin’s text. This can be seen in the quotes, the emperor and dentist example (lines 55–57) and the lists of emotions (lines 120–133). That these are all from one text is less problematic than the very poor use of them; they are neither critically examined nor used as jumping-off points, but simply stated. Elsewhere, personal original examples could have provided evidence of personal engagement (for example, lines 81–88, 89–93, 108–113) but these opportunities were missed.

The essay is shaped to support the claim that “context is all” in all areas. (For example, “‘context is all’ in reasoning is relatively accurate” (line 54); “context is therefore a factor which human sciences depended on to reach a certain truth” (lines 92–93); “context is what makes art… art.” (line 99); “Context in history is all we have…” (lines 112–113); “truth is found in context…” (line 137)), except the sciences (lines 81–93) and, while this claim is very poorly supported, it does provide some evidence of independent thinking and limited personal engagement. There is, however, no real evidence of awareness of different perspectives.

#### Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

Mark awarded: 1

The essay largely describes without making coherent attempts at justification (for example, line 29, lines 39—41, lines 81–82). These few attempts at justification are not coherent (for example, lines 45–57 fail to make a relevant distinction between truth and validity (“the truth in reasoning is based upon the validity of the argument”) and, in the case of the emotions, the essay appears to lapse into pure description with no attempt at argument (for example, lines 119–133 where the emotions are simply listed). In this case, there is a gesture towards language and culture (line 134 “language barrier and difference”), but no development. There is very little evidence of awareness of counterclaims (for example, lines 108–109). The one piece of strong argument (lines 74–75) stands out but is not, in itself, sufficient to pull the essay up from this low score.

#### Criterion D: Organization of ideas

Mark awarded: 2

At the overall level, the essay does have a discernible structure; it tours areas of knowledge and ways of knowing. However, the essay is difficult to understand at several points (for example, lines 137–138) and the central concept of truth is not clarified. As a result the essay feels more like a ramble around the issues than a purposeful exploration. The poor organization is, in this case, more significant than the lack of citations (which is itself highly undesirable).