Posted: February 8th, 2015

Theory of knowledge (TOK)

Theory of knowledge (TOK) Examiner instructions 2013
Theory of knowledge (TOK)
These instructions must be read in conjunction with:
the “External assessment” (pub.xql?doc=EX_instructions_2013_e&part=4&chapter=1) section of these
instructions
the TOK guide (http://xmltwo.ibo.org/publications/EAD/2011-en/guides/TOK_EN.pdf) (March 2006, revised
November 2008)
any additional advice from the chief assessor or team leader.
Important dates
Event Latest arrival date
Examiners have access to all essays 22 March / 22 September
Completion of standardization 27 March / 27 September
Completion of 50% of marking target 10 April / 10 October
Completion of 100% of marking target 1 May / 1 November
All marking claims submitted on IBIS 31 July / 31 January
Marking
The assessment outline
The assessment of theory of knowledge comprises two components, an internally assessed presentation and an
externally assessed essay that is marked by examiners. For this component each candidate writes one essay on a title
chosen from a list of six titles prescribed by the IB for each examination session. The essay should be 1,200 to 1,600
words in length.
The assessment instrument for essays
Before starting to mark, examiners are required to read and assimilate the marking notes supplied for each of the
prescribed titles on the list, and urged to devote sufficient time to an examination of the practice essays that are provided
as part of the standardization package. These resources are important and are intended to contribute to a shared
understanding of the task among examiners at the outset – thus working toward enhanced reliability of assessment.
Candidates’ work should be marked using the four assessment criteria as laid out in the Theory of knowledge guide
(pages 52-56). Examiners are also encouraged to apply the more holistic grade descriptors (available via the “my
marking” tab on IBIS) to the work as a check that they are comfortable with the grade that corresponds to the aggregate
mark awarded. Component grade boundaries for the essay are available in the most recent subject report.
Examiners must ensure that every page of the TOK essay is stamped with the “SEEN” annotation to indicate that the
page has been read.
Irregularities
In addition to the information given below, which is specific to TOK, examiners should refer to the “Irregularities”
guidance notes in the “External assessment” (pub.xql?doc=EX_instructions_2013_e&part=4&chapter=1) section of these
instructions.
Suspected plagiarism
In the event of suspected plagiarism, use of incorrect prescribed titles and other issues, examiners are requested to raise
an exception within scoris and use the appropriate heading.
The essay is not written on one of the prescribed titles
If a candidate’s essay has not been written on one of the titles prescribed by the IB for this session, or if the prescribed
title has been altered in some significant way, examiners should award zero and raise an exception within scoris, then
use the appropriate heading. the IB Assessment Centre will be able to remove the essay and address the issue at the
grade award meeting.
Examiners are reminded that there is no requirement that the essay title is copied out; the essay may be identified only by
its number.
The word count
The TOK essay should be between 1,200-1,600 words in length. Candidates are expected to state the approximate
number of words on the electronic cover sheet. There is no automatic tolerance beyond the permitted word count and
examiners should treat essays that are clearly in contravention of the limits in accordance with the stipulation that the
score for criterion D does not exceed 4 marks.
Slight variations in automatic word counts should be taken into account. However, if an examiner suspects that the
candidate’s word count is not correct, he or she should count the number of words and apply the above instruction if
appropriate. Examiners are not obliged to read appendices or footnotes, and in any case should not read more than
1,600 words.
Use of examples
Examples are specifically mentioned as a strand in criterion B, where they may provide evidence of awareness of a
candidate’s own perspective, or of other perspectives. Note, however, that examples may also provide evidence for
particular strands within other criteria. In such cases, as described below, where examples fulfill different functions, it is
appropriate to award credit accordingly.
Criterion A: Links and Comparisons may be developed through examples or through analysis.
Criterion B: Examples may provide evidence of awareness of a candidate’s own perspective, or of other perspectives.
Criterion C: Counterclaims may be provided by examples and in some cases (for example, literary fields) argument may
be developed through examples.
Criterion D: Factual Information may be provided through examples.
Counterclaims (criterion C) and perspectives (criterion B)
Awareness of a counterclaim will generally emerge when the candidate considers more than one possible answer to a
specific question, and is likely to be localized in a specific paragraph. It occurs perhaps as a result of an evaluation of
arguments and assumptions in the essay and thus relates to the analytical depth of the essay in a logical sense.
Perspective is a broader term: different perspectives may emerge when the candidate considers the views of people
whose background and life experience are different from their own. Sensitivity to different perspectives may be shown in
various ways and is not necessarily localized at a specific point in the essay.
Sources (criterion D)
Attention is drawn to the guidance in the Theory of knowledge guide (page 45) and criterion D. Where sources are used,
academic sources (both electronic and print) are recommended, but the essay is not a research essay and should not be
treated as such (this skill is examined in the extended essay). The key point is that a source is traceable, and, therefore:
There is no penalty for using solely web-sources (e.g. wikipedia.org), as long as the last date of access is given.
There is no penalty for not using standard referencing throughout, or failing to order a bibliography alphabetically.
Untraceable references such as “TOK class notes / lectures” may incur a penalty if too much reliance is placed on
them. Examiners are referred to the paragraph on acknowledgements and references in the Theory of knowledge
guide.
Assessment criteria
These criteria must be used in conjunction with:
the “External assessment” (pub.xql?doc=EX_instructions_2013_e&part=4&chapter=1) section of these
instructions.
A printable version of these criteria may be viewed by clicking here (http://xmltwo.ibo.org/publications/EAD/2011-
en/assessment criteria/TOK_EN.pdf).
Criterion A: Understanding knowledge issue(s) (10 points)
This criterion is concerned with the extent to which the essay focuses on knowledge issues relevant to the prescribed
title, and with the depth and breadth of the understanding demonstrated in the essay.
A relevant knowledge issue is one that directly relates to the prescribed title undertaken, or one that the essay has
shown is important in relation to it.
Depth of understanding is often indicated by drawing distinctions within ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, or
by connecting several facets of knowledge issues to these.
Breadth of understanding is often indicated by making comparisons between ways of knowing and areas of
knowledge. Since not all prescribed titles lend themselves to an extensive treatment of an equal range of areas of
knowledge or ways of knowing, this element in the descriptors should be applied with concern for the particularity of the
title.
Does the essay demonstrate understanding of knowledge issues that are relevant to the prescribed title?
Does the essay demonstrate an awareness of the connections between knowledge issues, areas of knowledge and ways
of knowing?
Achievement level Descriptor
0 Level 1 is not achieved
1-2 The essay includes very little treatment of knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title and demonstrates little understanding of them. If present, areas of
knowledge and/or ways of knowing are merely mentioned.
3-4 The essay includes some treatment of knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title and demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of them. Some links to
areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing have been attempted but they are largely
ineffective.
5-6 For the most part the essay treats knowledge issues that are relevant to the prescribed
title, and demonstrates some understanding of them. Some effective links are drawn
between areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing.
7-8 The essay consistently maintains as its focus knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title. Effective links and some comparisons between areas of knowledge
and/or ways of knowing are drawn, so that the essay demonstrates a good understanding
of the knowledge issues under consideration.
9-10 The essay consistently maintains as its focus knowledge issues that are relevant to the
prescribed title. Effective links and comparisons between areas of knowledge and/or ways
of knowing are elaborated, so that the essay demonstrates a sophisticated understanding
of the knowledge issues under consideration.
Criterion B: Knower’s perspective (10 points)
To what extent have the knowledge issues relevant to the prescribed title been connected to the candidate’s own
experience as a learner?
Does the candidate show an awareness of his or her own perspective as a knower in relation to other perspectives, such
as those that may arise, for example, from academic and philosophical traditions, culture or position in society (gender,
age , and so on)?
Do the examples chosen show an individual approach consciously taken by the candidate, rather than mere repetition of
standard commonplace cases or the impersonal recounting of sources?
Achievement level Descriptor
0 Level 1 is not achieved.
1-2 The essay shows no evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues related
to the prescribed title. There is limited personal engagement with the knowledge issues
and no attempt to acknowledge or explore different perspectives. There are no
appropriate examples.
3-4 The essay shows very little evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. There is some personal engagement with the knowledge
issues. Different perspectives may be mentioned but there is no attempt to explore them.
Examples chosen are sometimes appropriate.
5-6 The essay shows some evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. The candidate has shaped essay in a way that shows
personal engagement with the knowledge issues. There is an awareness that different
perspectives may exist, although there may be little attempt to explore these. Examples
chosen are appropriate, although there may be little variety in their sources.
7-8 The essay shows adequate evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. The candidate has shaped the essay in a way that shows
thoughtful, personal engagement with the knowledge issues and some self-awareness as
a knower. There is an acknowledgment of different perspectives and some attempt to
explore these. Examples chosen are effective, with some variety.
9-10 The essay shows much evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues
related to the prescribed title. The candidate has shaped the essay in a way that shows
both a personal, reflective exploration of the knowledge issues and significant selfawareness
as a knower. There is serious consideration of different perspectives. Examples
chosen are varied and effectively used.
Criterion C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues (10 points)
What is the quality of the inquiry into knowledge issues?
Are the main points in the essay justified? Are the arguments coherent and compelling?
Have counterclaims been considered?
Are the implications and underlying assumptions of the essays’ argument identified?
This criterion is concerned only with knowledge issues that are relevant to the prescribed title. Analysis of knowledge
issues that are not relevant to the prescribed title is not assessed.
Achievement level Descriptor
0 Level 1 is not achieved.
1-2 There is no inquiry into knowledge issues, only description. There are very few attempts at
justifying the main points of the essay. There is very little evidence of any awareness of
counterclaims.
3-4 The inquiry partly explores, but largely described, knowledge issues. There is some
justification of main points and some coherent argument. Counterclaims are implicitly
identified.
5-6 The inquiry explores knowledge issues. Most points are justified; most arguments are
coherent. Some counterclaims are considered.
7-8 The inquiry explores with some insight, in some depth and/or detail, knowledge issues.
All, or nearly all, main points are justified and arguments are coherent. Counterclaims are
explored. Implications of the essay’s arguments are identified.
9-10 The inquiry explores with a high degree of insight, in considerable depth and/or detail,
knowledge issues. All main points are justified and arguments are coherent and
compelling. Counterclaims are explored and evaluated. Implications and underlying
assumptions of the essay’s argument are identified.
Criterion D: Organization of ideas (10 points)
Is the essay well organized and relevant to the prescribed title?
Does the use of language assist the reader’s understanding and avoid confusion? Are central terms explained or
developed clearly in a way that assists comprehension? Note: this task is not a test of “first language” linguistic skills. No
account should be taken of minor errors unless they significantly impede communication.
When factual information is used or presented, is it accurate and, when necessary, referenced? “Factual information”
includes generalizations.
If sources have been used, have they been properly referenced in a way that allows them to be traced (internet
references must include the date on which they were accessed)? Note: Not all essays require sources or references (see
guidance in “Assessment details” section of the guide: Theory of Knowledge
(http://xmltwo.ibo.org/publications/EAD/2011-en/guides/TOK_EN.pdf) (March 2006)).
An essay that fails to meet the word limit of 1,200 – 1,600 words will not score above level 4 on this criterion.
An essay that has no relevance to the prescribed title will score 0 on this criterion.
Achievement level Descriptor
0 Level 1 is not achieved.
1-2 The essay on the prescribed title is very poorly structured, with limited overall
organization. It is difficult to understand what the writer intends. Factual information used
to support arguments may contain significant inaccuracies. Sources of information and
ideas may not be acknowledged and there is no attempt at referencing.
3-4 The essay on the prescribed title is poorly structured, with limited overall organization. It is
sometimes difficult to understand what the writer intends. There may be some attempt to
explain or explore the meaning of terms but this contributes little to conceptual clarity.
Factual information used to support arguments is not always reliable (there may be minor
inaccuracies; sources of more important information may be missing or unreliable). Some
sources of information and ideas are acknowledged; there is some attempt at referencing
but it is not complete, nor sufficiently precise to permit tracing of sources.
5-6 The essay on the prescribed title is satisfactorily structured, with adequate overall
organization. In general, concepts are used clearly: if concepts are explained, explanations
are generally adequate. Factual information used to support arguments is mostly correct.
Most sources of information and ideas are acknowledged; most referencing permits
tracing of sources, although some precision may be lacking. The word limit has been met.
7-8 The essay on the prescribed title is well structured, with a clear overall organization.
Concepts are used or developed clearly: some explanations are included, where
appropriate. Factual information used to support arguments is correct. Sources of
information and ideas are acknowledged; most referencing permits tracing of sources. The
word limit has been met.
9-10 The essay on the prescribed title is very well structured, with an effective overall
organization. Concepts are used clearly and, where appropriate, refined by helpful
explanations. Factual information used to support arguments is correct. Sources of
information and ideas are acknowledged; all referencing permits tracing of sources. The
word limit has been met.
In cases where an essay deserves a high mark for its quality of organization and clarity, but a low mark because of
factual inaccuracy or lack of sourcing (or vice versa), examiners will make a judgment about which level to award. In
general, more emphasis should be placed on the larger issues (organization and clarity) and less on the more minor ones
(factual accuracy and sourcing). An important consideration is the status of the error or unsourced fact in the overall
argument. If it is of marginal significance, little or no account should be taken of it. If it is central to the whole argument
and undermines the value of the entire essay, then it can be argued that the quality of organization is itself much reduced.
Conversely, meticulous acknowledgment of sources cannot improve the organization of a poorly structured essay.