TOK Essay Subject Report Comments 02-07
SCORING:
Overall
Presentation
Essay
E
0-18
0-8
0-10
D
19-28
9-12
11-16
C
29-37
13-15
17-22
(italics = important)
B
38-47
16-18
23-29
A
48-60
19-20
30-40
Overview Issues

There were 203 examiners who assessed the +/- 38,000 TOK essays. (07)

Respond to the title exactly as given; do not alter it in any way. Answer all parts of the prompt. Students must UNPACK the terms of the prompt. (07)

Students should use at least size 12 font in 1.5 or double spacing. Students must add their names and page numbers to all sheets. (06)

Teachers are reminded that referencing must be such that the original document can be traced, so that references to particular teachers’ handouts, or to
websites without a date, are not satisfactory. (06)

Additional care should be given to connect material within the text of the paper with the sources identified in the bibliography. (03)

While the TOK essay is not a research essay, facts that are not “common knowledge” should be traceable. The term “common knowledge”, while
somewhat open to interpretation, is intended to distinguish between cases such as “Roger Federer is a champion tennis player” and “Scientists believe
the wind-farms are a threat to eagles”. The former needs no reference, but the latter does, and if in doubt it is wise to include a reference from a
reputable source. (07)

Reputable news or academic sources are very much preferred to blogs or personal websites. (07)
General Tips

Choose examples carefully and vary your sources. (05)

Foster in students deeper and richer understandings of knowledge problems and issues (04)

Students seem quick to deconstruct knowledge, but then are unable to reconstruct it – to make a measured judgment noting that although there are
dangers, there are times when we DO claim to have knowledge. An overly deconstructive approach focusing solely on problems of knowledge to the
detriment of strengths of knowledge is a recurring issue that we hope will to some extent be addressed by the new assessment model in which a focus on
“Knowledge Issues” replaces “Problems of Knowledge”. Students and teacher should closely consult the new TOK subject guide. (07)

Teachers should work with students to ensure sensible interpretations, particularly of central terms. “Reason” for example, can be taken to mean the
psychological motivation behind an action, or a way of knowing; “perception” can be used in the sense of “perspective” or of “sense perception”. In each
case the latter interpretation is strongly recommended as likely to lead to more sophisticated responses. (07)

An introduction should not reiterate the prescribed title in detail; nor should it spell out in great detail the exact course of an essay. Introductions
should, instead, show a sense of what the question is about and provide an indication of the directions chosen. Some of the more sophisticated essays
used a specific example in the introduction to highlight an issue/topic and then returned to the example in the conclusion to show what progress had been
made. (07)

The strongest conclusions do not simply reiterate the main points of the essay, but instead put the findings into context and take a broader perspective on
the significance of the issue. (07)

Some students had good TOK points in individual paragraphs, but did not manage to make them cohere. Attention to the narrative flow through an
essay was often lacking, and further guidance from teachers in this area is advised. (07)

Over-reliance on rhetorical questions is to be avoided. (07)

It is worth nothing that a high score under the new criterion C, “Quality of Analysis”, requires identification of assumptions within a question. (07)

The use of examples is clearly a difficult area for many students. Some avoid them altogether, resulting in essays which are often very difficult to
understand and likely to score poorly. (06)

Another problem is over-reliance on hypothetical examples. Students would be well-advised to rely on specific real-life examples than fictional cases
such as ‘imagine, for example, a man with a starving family. It would be moral for him to steal some bread.’ The examples need to be specific to avoid
gross generalizations, which are often little more than stereotypes – e.g. ‘All scientists believe…’ (06)

Examples provide one way for the voice of the knower to come through strongly and to relate the ideas to everyday experience. ORIGINALITY is
strongly encouraged (06)
What you should do / Strengths
 Examiners are often full of admiration for the best essays, which were sophisticated, reflective and showed a remarkable level of intellectual inquiry.
(07)
 The best TOK essays are genuinely remarkable constructions for students at this stage (of their life). One examiner describes them as ‘creative in
approach, sophisticated in tone and profound in thought’ and another notes the ‘passion and interest’ shown by some of the candidates. These students
were clearly well aware of the specific assessment requirements of the essay, and teachers are advised to ensure that all students are familiar with the
criteria before they embark on the essay. (06)
 Only the very best essays managed to avoid an insipid ‘so there are many forms of knowledge’ conclusion which added little to what preceded it. (06)
 The best essays explored possible links in a branching manner, coming to a conclusion via extended analysis rather than by fiat (06)
 Assessors were impressed and felt privileged to have had the opportunity to read work they described as insightful, thoughtful, careful and mature. The
best essays are characterized by a strong sense of the candidate’s voice, and engagement with the topic, clear connections to the candidate’s experience of
the world, critical reflection about knowledge claims and an exploration of the relationships between Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge. (05)
 The stronger essays grounded arguments in examples and made links to Areas of Knowledge… Weaker essays tended to lack a range of examples so
tended toward the abstract and general. (05)
 Very good essays were by candidates who appreciated how different Areas of Knowledge might operate in distinct and specific cultural contexts (05).
 Assessors stated “it was enjoyable to have a glimpse at the wisdom of candidates as they grapple with the complexities of evaluating, analyzing,
reflecting on and discussing knowledge issues”; “it is a mark of their students’ developing skills of critical thinking and analysis that they were able to
respond to the topics with a PASSION and INTEREST beyond the ordinary” (04).
 The best essays were truly outstanding and A PLEASURE TO READ and demonstrated great sensitivity towards problems of knowledge and a
sophisticated, rigorous and critical treatment of them. (03)
 Higher quality essays do not simply list the elements of the TOK diagram but instead define, explore and compare Ways of Knowing and Areas of
Knowledge in a purposeful manner. Teachers would do well to encourage candidates to select the Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge that are
relevant to the prescribed title they have chosen to pursue, and to develop a sustained comparison between and amongst these. (03)
 Conceptual clarity is an integral part of what constitutes sound analysis. (03)
 Students do well when examples are actual, personal and documented, for example when a candidate describes her expertise on the oboe, what happened
when interviewing victims of Hiroshima, or when a candidate uses quotations from their own reading.” In contrast, essays went up in flames when
examples did not move beyond Hitler, hypothetical cases, etc…(03)
 The best candidates showed personal, complex, creative and critical thinking & personal involvement with the problems of knowledge being written
about.02

The first responsibility of candidates is to tease out of a prescribed title problems of knowledge that are relevant to it and hopefully to him or her as well.
Though some students display a high level of understanding of many problems of knowledge implicit in the selected title, other essays show none
whatsoever… These are the kind of essays that make assessors wonder if students really took part in a TOK course, as the essays display only the most
colloquial and often parochial notions of knowledge, belief, validity, truth, certainty, evidence, proof, reason, science and art, to name some of the
concepts most frequently reported on by assessors in this regard (05).
 There is an invitation within the rubric to use a broad range of examples – to include personal experience and perspectives from other cultures to
complement the more usual academic references. (02)
What to avoid / Weaknesses
o
Many examiners commented on the poor use of definitions in essays. While seeking clarity of terminology is admirable, it rarely helps to resort to
dictionary definitions of difficult terms. (07)
o
Avoid dogmatism (06) – Examiners are not looking for a particular view – but the position must be justified, weaknesses/limitations must be faced and
alternatives must be considered for the essay to be a good TOK essay. Students must engage in intellectual SELF-criticism for the term critical
thinking to have the level of impact TOK seeks to encourage. (06)
o
Some students have relied on ‘blanket or idiot skepticism.’ TOK is about a considered and appropriate skepticism … to say that ‘science is just the
opinion of scientists and their views are just as biased as anyone else’s’ is extraordinarily inauthentic (and intellectually lazy) – avoid both. Students
can, of course, argue for skepticism if they wish, but they need to be aware of the arguments against this position, and to counter them rather merely
assert their skepticism. (06)
o
The lack of counter-claims was especially noticeable with respect to religion… often with ludicrously stereotyped caricatures of each other’s positions.
Teachers should remind students that the principle of charity – whereby we seek to credit opposing views with as much sense as we can – is a good one
by which to work (06)
o
Another prevalent concern this year regards entire packets of essays from schools containing versions of one and the same essay, in terms of structure,
areas of knowledge compared, examples used and even conclusions reached. Students should not be coached. Teachers are reminded that essays must
reflect the students’ own thinking on and about a prescribed title. (05)
o
Assessors reporting their disappointment to find that many students in a school write versions of “the same essay” in terms of argument, structure,
examples and/or sources. (04) Assessors lamented the mediocrity and lack of originality of the essays (05)
o
Assessors have reported on an uncritical approach that is fairly widespread in student work, and which is anathema to the aims and objectives of TOK.
This defect takes many forms, including over-generalization, over-simplification, superficiality and too often simply making sweeping claims… Weaker
students show no awareness of potential sources of error or bias in their own information. (05)
o
Assessors noted there was a heavy reliance on religious doctrine with no exploration of alternative approaches and no sense of awareness of the possible
problems of knowledge involved in the stances taken. More than a few assessors commented on the “lack of researched information about religions”,
going so far as to conclude that “some students think that they can make generalizations about religions or religious matters without any reference to
history or facts.” (05)
o
Another weakness was to “pigeon-hole people according to their profession or field of study.” According to one assessor, “if one believed what is
written, all scientists behave in certain ways simply because they are doing science, all historians are victims of severe bias, and – without question – all
adherents of any religion whatsoever possess blind, perfect faith in whatever their religion might tell them to believe.” Again, the aims of the TOK
course run completely counter to this kind of limited thinking and teachers would be wise to do everything possible to draw their students’ attention to its
shortcomings and dangers. (05)
o
Another concern relates to some of the ways that candidates avoid using (or searching for) their OWN voice. (05)
o
Students are too often inclined to treat a quoted author as an authority and consider their points to be proven – they aren’t; everything should be
critically considered. (05)
o
Weaker essays were narrowly focused on either the pros or cons of the topic with no counter-arguments being offered and very few links made to other
Areas of Knowledge. (05)
o
Many essays were poor because they were so very general and lacking any clear TOK focus. (05)
o
The weaker essays were often “history/survey of math” approaches that faltered through their expository, descriptive format and lack of critical analysis.
(05)
o
The most common problems were: 1) failure to answer the whole prescribed title and question as set; 2) repetition of common misconceptions
and inclusion of sweeping generalizations (for example, “humans have been doing science for hundreds of years” or “All Muslims are…”); 3)
abuse of quotes skimmed from the web as replacement for reflection/critical thinking; 4) failure to examine basic concepts in the title (04); AND
o
1) absence of personal voice – it is crucial for teachers to stimulate the idea of TOK as, in the words of one assessor, “a personal intellectual
journey.”; 2) lack of critical analysis – attention still needs to be given to developing arguments in greater depth, envisaging and responding to
counter-arguments, probing assumptions (03)
o
Candidates have no difficulty providing claims and taking positions, but oftentimes do not analyze reasons or arguments in favor of them. The
identification and evaluation of counter-claims would seem to be the most difficult element of the quality of analysis rubric descriptor to tackle
successfully. (03)
o
Weaker students produced circular arguments or contradicted themselves. Some assessors were disappointed to read generalizations involving cultural
stereotyping, a clear mark of some students’ having failed to reach anything more than a superficial understanding of the question. (04)
o
Avoid a “mechanical” mode of thinking and expression. The mechanical essay exhibits correct but rote thinking; commonplaces are repeated and are
rarely questioned or illustrated in a manner that shows personal engagement with the topic at hand or awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences.
(02)
o
Many of the weaker and middle mark essays include generalization that are left to stand on their own and receive no critical reflection. (02)
o
Another weakness was the lack of counter-claims. According to one examiner, “candidates wrote as if only one point of view was possible and their
role was to present it”… since students cannot be given higher than a 6 if no counter-claims have been identified, that is a skill that needs continued
training and enforcement. (02)
o
A considerable number of students used attribution as explanation – citing an example and leaving the reader to make the leap of relevance. Students
need to be made aware that this is not good practice – an illustration of an argument needs to be set in its context by the writer; it is not the reader’s job to
make the connections.
MUST avoid:

Thankfully, the unsupported claim “we can know nothing” was far less common this year. (07)

Original examples are still in short supply. “1+1=2”, the flat earth, and Guernica remain favorites and some examiners noted that there was more
reliance on standard textbook examples… Fresh examples offer more opportunity to open up, develop and shape analysis… Originality is therefore
strongly encouraged as seen in the new subject guide. (07)

“Can we strongly discourage hypothetical examples? – Many students seem to think that a pseudo-example ‘let’s say a man’ constitutes proof of a
claim!” Many assessors have asked that teachers discourage their students from using as examples the alleged flat earth paradigm, Galileo,
Copernicus, Darwin, Newton and his apples… (05) OR ‘Can we outright forbid any mention of Hitler and Stalin?’ (06)

Please avoid a shallow sense of intercultural awareness or cultural stereotyping or gross cultural misrepresentation. (05)

Avoid writing an essay that seems as if it often could have been written without having pursued the TOK course at all. (03)

Avoid internet plagiarism since it can cost your IB diploma given the Honor Code (02)