Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
May 2015 TOK Essay Guide
Multiple-‐user teacher edition
2
Contents
Introduction 3 1. Overseeing the essay 4 2. Choosing the right title 8 3. Structuring your essay 10 4. Identifying knowledge questions 14 5. Exploring KQs part 1: discussion 18 6. Exploring KQs part 2: justification 21 7. Making links 25 8. Investigating different perspectives 27 9. Drawing implications 29 10. Tackling the May 2015 prescribed titles 31
First published August 2014 Michael Dunn, Cambridge, United Kingdom Phone: +44 1223 314260 Website: http://theoryofknowledge.net
© theoryofknowledge.net 2014
All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced and transmitted within the school or institution to which its purchaser is attached. But it may not be distributed beyond that institution without the prior written permission of Michael Dunn, or as expressly permitted by law or by theoryofknowledge.net’s own rules and policy.
3
Introduction
a. theoryofknowledge.net theoryofknowledge.net is the world’s most used online resource for TOK. Our site provides free course notes on all aspects of the new TOK curriculum, guidance on writing the essay and presentation, and a huge range of real life situations and knowledge questions. Combined with its Facebook page and the monthly newsletter, it is the most effective and dynamic way of mastering TOK. theoryofknowledge.net’s creator is Michael Dunn, MA, an experienced IB educator, and examiner, who has worked in some of the most prestigious international schools in the world. In a career that has spanned well over a decade, he has helped hundreds of students earn their Diploma, and take up places at their choice of university. b. The May 2015 Essay Guide Although we provide help on the site, we thought it would be helpful to expand the information found there, and produce a separate, session-‐specific guidebook on how to plan and write an effective TOK essay. New versions of the guide are released twice a year, to provide support for both the November and May prescribed titles. The guide contains all the information you need to know to write the essay, such as how to get the structure right, the role of knowledge issues, getting the balance right between arguments and counterclaims, and so on. It also suggested real life situations and examples for the November 2014 titles that you can explore, assess, and use to augment your own personal real life situations. c. Our other services for students and educators theoryofknowledge.net now produces an entire range of resources for teachers and students, as well as online support to cater for a range of different needs. These include:
• The TOK Sessions Pack, featuring 85 lesson plans covering the whole of the new curriculum
• The TED Companion Pack, making 60 of the most engaging and TOK-‐related TED talks teacher deliverable
• The Presentation Kickstarters, providing a helping hand in getting your TOK presentation started
• Online essay and presentation support, for students working on the TOK essay and presentation
More information on all of these can be found on the site; alternatively you can email us at [email protected] with any questions about the support we provide for TOK.
4
1. Overseeing the essay
a. Basic instructions b. Assessment and grade combination with the Extended Essay c. Getting to grips with the assessment criteria d. How should you help your students? e. Developing essay-‐writing skills f. The 10-‐point essay checklist
a. Basic instructions Your students will be given 6 prescribed essay titles at the beginning of your second Diploma year, and they will choose 1 of these titles. Titles often leave it up to them which areas of knowledge or ways of knowing to focus on, but are based on an overall question on the nature of knowledge and how we acquire it. They should answer the question exactly how it is worded, rather than alter it to fit in with what they’d like to write about! The maximum length for the essay is 1600 words (acknowledgements, references, bibliography, etc. do not count towards this); there is now no minimum word count. This is quite a restrictive limit, so if their word count is much less than this, they’ve probably cut corners. If they go over the limit, they’ll be given a penalty of 1 mark, and examiners have been instructed to stop reading anything you write – so they should take this limit seriously! If they have referred to the ideas of others (which they should be doing) they will need to include details of where they accessed these ideas. There’s no stipulation on the format for their references, except that they should be consistent. Their essay should be formatted clearly, preferably using a size 12 font, with double-‐spaced paragraphs. All essays are uploaded onto the IBO’s site, and are marked electronically by the examiners. b. Assessment & grade combination with the Extended Essay Like the presentation, the essay is given a mark out of 10, but it represents 67% of the overall mark for TOK. Once the overall mark has been converted into a grade (ie A-‐E) it then combines with the extended essay grade, and your IB points are calculated according to the table on the right.
5
c. Getting to grips with the assessment criteria The old (2008-‐2014) criteria tested four different criteria:
A. Understanding knowledge issues B. Knower’s perspective C. Quality of analysis of knowledge issues D. Organisation of ideas
Each area was marked out of 10, with 6 different bands determining the marks awarded. The new curriculum has significantly simplified the way in which the essay is marked, with only two criteria assessed:
1. Understanding knowledge questions 2. Quality of analysis of knowledge questions
Moreover, these are both awarded a mark out of 10, to give a final mark of 20 rather than 40. Although we will go into a little more detail on these two assessment criteria in section 4 (see pages 14-‐15), and refer to them throughout the guide, nothing can replace going through the assessment descriptors for yourself, and ensuring that your students understand them from the start. d. How should you help your students? Although the IB is strict about the help you provide your students, you are still allowed to provide a lot of support during the essay writing process. This support should come in four different ways:
1. Discussion of the prescribed titles (PTs), either in the form of a class discussion, or on an individual level.
2. Checking initial written notes and ideas of the chosen PT (their ‘exploration’), and help in creating an essay plan. This plan can should be relatively well developed, and give guidelines for the paragraphs that will appear in the essay.
3. A read-‐through of the full essay draft, with written comments to help students move
it on further. These comments should be of a ‘global’ kind, and should not contain specific editorial advice.
4. A read-‐through of the final version of the essay, with oral feedback. This can be on
the suitability of real life examples, clarity of expression, etc. No more written feedback should be provided at this stage, though.
You should therefore meet with individual students on an individual basis at least once during the writing of their essays, but it is also up to them to keep you informed of their progress, and let you know about any difficulties they may experience – this is worth stressing. Students who are looking for additional support in writing their essays can organize it from theoryofknowledge.net site, by going to the online support section. We operate strictly
6
within the boundaries of the IB’s stipulations for teacher support, in order to support them in writing their own essays, rather than writing it for them. e. Developing essay-‐writing skills Probably the biggest challenge for TOK teachers is encouraging and developing students’ essay writing skills. However, if you establish from the start of the course a good balance between talking through, and writing down, ideas, as well as explaining the three key rules to presenting ideas (see below), you’ll get them into good habits. Key approaches to presenting ideas in TOK Getting students to present their ideas clearly from the start involves them following three key rules:
1. Have you communicated your idea clearly? 2. Have you used evidence (that can be referenced) to support your idea? 3. Have you considered your idea objectively (considered the other side)?
Turning ideas into knowledge issues/questions You’ll need to make the jump from the term ‘ideas’ to the language of TOK fairly quickly, to allow the students to cope with TOK parlance. Get them used to the concept of knowledge questions from early on, so they know what they are, and how they are supposed to handle them. But it’s easy to turn KQs an overblown concept. It means exactly what it says it is – an issue, or question about knowledge. They are inherent to all real life situations, either in terms of the way the knowledge is presented, or the inherent knowledge of what is under investigation. The different elements of the TOK course – ie, the WOKs and AOKs – provide us with the way to identify the knowledge issues/questions, because of the way they divide up knowledge. Apply these to engaging real life situations, and you’ll begin to see them honing the right skills for essay writing. The best way to encourage this is journal writing. Putting pen to paper Getting them to physically write down their considerations of knowledge questions is an important step in the right direction towards mastering essay writing. Get them to present a knowledge question, justify their points with evidence, and consider other points of view. Work up to essay-‐plans, and mini-‐essays, although time constraints may prevent you from getting them write a full-‐length essay before the ‘real thing’. These tasks will also present the opportunity to work on introductions and conclusions, and bring in the other elements that are required, such as perspectives, implications, and the interlinking of different parts of the course.
7
f. The 10-‐point essay checklist When they begin longer writing tasks, provide them with an essay checklist such as the following. This one has been designed for the final thing, but with a little adaptation, can be used for essay plans and mini essay writing.
1. Have you read and understood all the two criteria for assessment? Really? 2. Does your essay number between 1200 and 1600 words? (it should be far nearer
1600 than 1200!) 3. Have you organized your essay into an introduction, 2-‐3 knowledge issues, and a
conclusion? 4. Is your introduction concise, with a discussion of what the title means, and a brief
plan of how your essay will tackle the question? 5. Are your knowledge issues organized CLEARLY (using linking sentences) into
arguments and counterclaims? 6. Have you referred explicitly to the different AOKs and WOKs, and provided links
between them? 7. Have you used personal examples, specifically from your experiences as an ‘IB
learner’? 8. Have you used well-‐referenced examples that you have found out about from
beyond the classroom (articles, documentaries, books, the ideas of thinkers, etc.)? 9. Have you considered other perspectives and points of view? 10. Is your conclusion consistent with the rest of your essay?
8
2. Choosing the right question
a. What makes a ‘good’ prescribed title, and a ‘tricky’ prescribed title? b. A student has chosen a prescribed title that they no longer like. Do they stick with it?
a. What makes a ‘good’ prescribed title, and a ‘tricky’ prescribed title? The most important stage of the essay-‐writing process is choosing the right prescribed title (PT). If students don’t manage this, they’ll be fighting a losing battle from the start. But what makes a ‘good’ PT and what makes a more ‘tricky’ PT? The answer is largely dependent on who they are, and where their talents lie. They need to be able to draw on relevant real life examples from their own experiences, and have a good grasp of ideas and concepts that relate to the prescribed title in order to properly answer it. In addition, they should also be interested by the PT. Which ones (if any) deal with issues that they care about? Which ones touch on ways of knowing and areas of knowledge that they have enjoyed exploring so far during the course? These are the ones that they should consider taking on. But before they select a title, they need to have an understanding of each one. This is where you should provide your students with initial support. For each title they should think about the following:
a. What is the prescribed title getting at? b. Which areas of knowledge & ways of knowing would work well for this PT? c. What knowledge questions might be relevant to this PT? d. What sort of real life situations can be drawn on? e. Which perspectives could be considered? f. What implications could be explored? g. What are the difficulties and challenges of this question?
As soon as they have considered these aspects of the prescribed, they can begin to think about which one most suits them. We have gone through each PT for this session in section 10, and considered these different points, which should help them on their way. b. A student has chosen a prescribed title that they no longer like. Do they stick with it? One of the difficulties with the TOK essay (due to the complexity of the subject) is that the PTs often open out to reveal unexpected knowledge questions, and take students in a direction they weren’t necessarily expecting to go. They might begin researching and writing an essay in a certain way, but discover that the approach they’ve chosen doesn’t work, so are forced to answer it in a way they didn’t anticipate. Perhaps they find that the title they have chosen just doesn’t inspire them in the way they had hoped. Either way, they’re left with the choice of carrying on, or starting again with a different PT. Which option should they choose? In general, they should never be afraid of beginning again, and choosing a different title. The likelihood is that if they haven’t been engaged by their research and planning, and they have
9
discovered things about the PT that they either can’t fully understand or don’t find particularly gripping, they won’t end up writing an essay that hits the mark in terms of the two different assessment criteria. Having said that, they do need to take certain things into consideration before they make this decision.
1. Talk to them as soon as they begin having doubts, and either help them to resolve them, or ensure that their new choice of PT will suit them better.
2. Can they still use real life examples and material that they have already gathered? It would be a shame to waste what they already have: can it be reused in another PT?
3. How much time do they have left? Be realistic about them finishing the essay on
time: will a new essay be of a superior quality to their original one if they are nearing the deadline for submission?
4. Will they run into the same problems as they already face in their new choice of
essay, or are their problems specific to the ways of knowing/areas of knowledge /knowledge questions inherent to their original PT?
To some degree, making the right choice of PT depends on finding suitable knowledge issues that will work for them, which is what the next section will discuss.
10
3. Structuring the essay
a. Introduction b. Conclusion c. References, bibliography, footnotes, appendices d. Main body e. Making sure your essay is coherent
a. Introduction It’s helpful to outline what the introduction isn’t as much as what it is. Many students make the mistake of outlining the thesis of their essay in their introduction, which although may be good practice in other subjects (particularly science-‐based subjects), is not advisable in TOK for two reasons:
1. The short word limit means that writing the same in their introduction as their conclusion is a waste of words.
2. Stating what they will say in your essay can give the impression of being closed-‐
minded. Their TOK essay should be an exploration of ideas, with counterclaims considered as seriously as their knowledge claims.
Instead, their introduction should have four functions:
1. To create an impact. This can be done by using a well-‐chosen quote (in other words, not a dictionary definition), clear language, and placing the knowledge experiences of the writer immediately in the context of the PT.
2. To explain the meaning of the PT, identifying its key words and phrases that require particular attention. This will provide a foundation on which the rest of the essay will build.
3. (If the essay requires it) to provide a background on the ideas and concepts
mentioned, or quotes used in the title. Note that you are not expected to explore the origins of the source, although it may sometimes help their essay.
4. To provide a ‘road map’ for their essay, outlining what will be explored (the KQs, and
the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge), and how they will be explored, perhaps mentioning comparisons and contrasts you’ll make, and sources used.
Their introduction should be concise and well defined, and leave examiners in no doubt of where it ends. It should not go much beyond 200 words, although this will depend to some degree on the PT chosen. It also provides examiners with a first impression, so you should try to make that first impression count. To apply this to the essays from this session, we could pick out question 1:
There is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
11
This certainly requires some explanation, in terms of what is meant by a ‘neutral question’ (and perhaps what would not qualify as one). You’d then need to link your definition to the areas of knowledge that you have chosen, and explain how you’ll assess the truth of the statement in both of them. b. Conclusion Conclusions are often presented as afterthoughts or give the impression that the writer has run out of steam. It is vital that you view their conclusion as an essential and integral part of the TOK essay, something that will be made easier if you haven’t already stated their conclusion in their introduction. The most important characteristic of their conclusion is that it should remain consistent with the rest of the essay, and not introduce any new ideas. Everything should have already been introduced and explored; their conclusion should instead perform the following roles:
• Emphasizing the most important points made in the essay.
• Providing a clear, direct answer to the question within the prescribed title (after having considered different perspectives and points of view).
• Leaving readers with a final flavour of the ideas, thoughts, and outlook of the writer,
perhaps, again, by drawing on a brief and appropriate quote. their conclusion should leave the reader with the impression that the chosen PT really engaged the person writing it. It should have a similar word count as the introduction. c. References, footnotes, bibliography, appendices Assuming that their essay draws on the ideas of others – which it should do – you’ll need to add references and a bibliography. You may also choose to add footnotes to their essay, although as we will see, these should not be used in excess. Every idea that is not their own should be traceable. This means stating the source of the quote or idea, either at the bottom of each page, or at the end of the essay. Depending on the type of source used (ie book, website, magazine, etc.), you should supply the following information:
• The author/authors, title of book or magazine cited, the date it was published, the place it was published (ie city & country), the name of the publisher
• The URL, the organization producing the URL, the date when the web page was last accessed
As we have already said, such references do not count towards the word limit, so they should not worry that they eat into their 1600 words. There is no need to state all the information about a source (ie publisher, place, date, etc.) each time they refer to it, as long as they have provided that in their bibliography; instead, they can simply state the name of the author, and a page number if they have it.
12
Footnotes are a little different to references, acting as short explanatory notes that support or clarify already fully developed points raised in the essay. It’s wise to check their teacher that they have used their footnotes correctly, and whether they should actually be there in the first place. Sometimes their use is unnecessary, and they do not add anything to the essay; sometimes they are used a way of bypassing the word limit and putting in discussion and justification that they couldn’t fit in the main body. Avoid this! Appendices are also allowed, and are the place to present illustrations, diagrams, and anything else that helps to expand on what they have been saying in the main body of their essay. Again, they shouldn’t try to answer the question in their appendix, in order to get round the word count. d. Main body The most important business of the essay occurs in its main body. This is where they really get to grips with the KQs, stating their knowledge claims and counterclaims, discussing and justifying them, considering implications and perspectives, and interlinking the different parts of the course. They need to do this for each KQ (they need two or three KQs within their essay), and they need to do so in a clearly structured way. We’ll go over each of these points in detail over the next few sections.
1. State the knowledge claim (see section 2. Present the discussion 3. Justify the discussion with reference to evidence 4. Ensure that they have included a consideration of perspectives and implications 5. Repeat steps 1-‐4 for the counterclaim 6. Tie up their KQ with a single sentence. This means briefly (very briefly – remember
the word count!) summarizing the main points of the KQ.
d. Making sure their essay is coherent One characteristic all good essays should have – including TOK essays -‐ is continuity and coherence. This means ensuring that all the sections ‘flow’ together, build on each other’s ideas, and relate to the prescribed title.
• Relevancy: Every paragraph they write should relate to the question. As they are writing – and when they read back their essays after they have written them – they should ask themselves ‘does this directly address the question?’ If they have to think too hard about this, then the chances are that it does not sufficiently.
• Linking sentences: A simple way to ensure that their essay ‘flows’ is to include
linking sentences and phrases. These begin a new section by acknowledging what you have just written, either in terms of building on what has just said, or presenting a point of view that may be different. The simplest examples include things like: ‘in addition,’ ‘furthermore’, ‘having said that’, ‘on the other hand’.
• Making links: This is dealt with in section 7, but by linking -‐ that is, comparing and
contrasting -‐ the different ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, and other elements of TOK, they’ll be going a long way to ensuring continuity and coherence in their essay.
13
• Proofreading: It’s vital for students to properly proofread their essays. They should do this themself after they have completely finished their last version (proofreading can’t be done as they go along, as the process of editing constantly changes the sense of what they’re writing), but it’s wise to give their essay to a fresh pair of eyes, because they may miss certain errors because they’re accustomed to seeing them.
14
4. Identifying knowledge questions
a. What are knowledge questions (KQs)? b. Should I focus on first or second-‐order KQs? c. What is their relationship with the prescribed title? d. How do my KQs affect my TOK essay grade?
a. What are knowledge questions (KQs)? Their essay should be built around the identification and exploration of ‘knowledge questions’ (KQs), so the first step is to make sure they understand exactly what KQs are, and how to include them in their essay. Students get confused about KQs because they think they are more than what they actually are. The concept is actually fairly simple: a knowledge question is exactly that – a question -‐ or issue -‐ about knowledge. Knowledge questions should be open questions, which means that they don’t have obvious and clearly-‐defined answers, and can be interpreted differently depending on the perspective you view them from. TOK has always been built around this concept, but the IB has never quite decided on the best name to give it. At various times during the last 20 years, ‘knowledge questions’ have been called:
• Implications of knowledge • Knowledge controversies • Knowledge issues
Seeing KQs as a combination of all these things is probably the best way to approach them. Virtually everything has a KQ attached to it. The great thing about TOK is that it provides students (and teachers) with the language and framework to identify and express a KQ. This language and framework are the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge. Let’s put this all into context to make it a little clearer. If we pick a news story from random, we can then identify the knowledge issue inherent in it. At the time of writing this guide, commemorations are being held all over Europe to mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I, when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by a Serbia student, Gavrilo Princip. For most of Europe – particularly Austria – Princip was a terrorist, whose actions helped to cause the worst conflict the world had ever seen up until that point. But in Serbia, statues have been erected in Princip’s honour, and he is celebrated as a freedom fighter that tried to stop the aggressive expansion of Austrian power in Eastern Europe. To identify the knowledge questions related to this real life situation, we first need to think about which areas of knowledge they are related to. Clearly, we’re dealing with history here, and how people view the past. So this might give us:
Why do people have different views and opinions of the past?
15
This is certainly an open question, as there are many reasons why we view the past in different ways, one of which – nationality – is clearly relevant to this case. We might think also about the range of evidence drawn on by historians: leaving out one piece of evidence might give us a different picture about the past. We might also think about the way historians draw on other subjects to analyze the past. Perhaps they have a developed understanding of economics or psychology, and have insights that other historians have overlooked. The relative importance of these different answers will probably lead us to different answers. I might say that the nationality of the person studying the past is the most important factor in determining what they end up discovering. You might say that the evidence they use is the most important factor. It’s usually possible to identify more than one KQ, though. Another KQ related to this story might be:
To what extent do reason and emotion affect the way we understand the past? This is still related to history, but it brings in the ways of knowing more explicitly. We might argue that historians have to rid themselves of emotion when they look at the past, and rely purely on evidence-‐based reason. But on the other hand, one of the critical skills of a historian is the ability to empathize with people from the past, which is related to emotion, in order to properly understand their motives for behaving in a particular way. b. Should I focus on first or second-‐order KQs? There are two types of KQs that we deal with in TOK.
• First-‐order knowledge questions. These are direct questions about the world, linked to specific area of knowledge.
• Second-‐order knowledge questions. These are questions that are concerned with
knowledge. Although during the course you’ll look at both these types of KQs with your students, in the essay their focus should be on second-‐order KQs. This is important to bear in mind, because it will help them to avoid going astray. If they hand in an essay that contains mostly first-‐order KQs, it will end up sounding more like an essay written on psychology, or mathematics, or the arts – rather than on TOK. Again, putting this in context, let’s look at the example we’ve used above. Our subject matter is the role of Gavrilo Princip in the start of the First World War. A first-‐order KQ might be:
Were Gavrilo Princip’s actions the reason for the start of the First World War? This is a very interesting question that would prompt us to look at the evidence for his actions starting the war, and the evidence for other factors causing the war. It’s an open question. And it clearly deals with one of the areas of knowledge – history. But this is not a valid KQ for TOK, because it is a first-‐order KQ. To explore this question, we’d use historical methods, rather than thinking about the nature of knowledge itself. This would give us a history essay rather than a TOK essay.
16
On the other hand, the KQ that we have identified –
Why do people have different views and opinions of the past? -‐ is clearly a second-‐order KQ, as it is concerned with the different ways in which people acquire knowledge about history. In order to explore this knowledge question, we would consider much wider areas of knowledge than just history, and also look at the nature of knowledge itself. c. What is their relationship with the prescribed title? Unlike the presentation, the essay is about identifying KQs related to the prescribed title, rather than to a real life situation or news story of their own choosing. In addition, they are expected to identify not just one KQ, but two or three, and then build an essay structure that allows them to explore all of them. For some prescribed titles (PTs), this means composing KQs that are worded in a similar way to the title; for others, it may mean composing something quite different. We can use one of the May 2015 PTs to illustrate what we mean. For some prescribed titles (PTs), this means composing KQs that are worded in a similar way to the title; for others, it may mean composing something quite different. We can use one of the May 2015 PTs to illustrate what we mean. Question 2 asks:
“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?
Appropriate KQs are quite easy to identify (although not necessarily to develop!) – they could include the following possibilities:
a. To what extent is knowledge in the natural sciences produced by passive observation and active experiment?
b. Is artistic knowledge only produced by passive observation and active experiment? c. Do we develop an ethical position only via passive observation and active
experiment? d. How do my KQs affect my TOK essay grade? The importance of their KQs cannot be understated. They play the central role in the TOK essay, around which everything else is constructed. They are also the way in which the essay is assessed. We have already glanced at the two assessment criteria, but let’s revisit them, going into more detail about what is expected for each one. 1. Understanding knowledge questions In order to achieve the highest level for this criterion, your students will need to:
• Identify KQs that are all relevant to the prescribed title
17
• Consider how these KQs might have different answers within the different ways of knowing and areas of knowledge by comparing and contrasting them
• Show a clear awareness of their own perspectives as a knower • Consider their KQs from other perspectives
2. Quality of analysis of knowledge questions In order to achieve the highest level for this criterion, students will need to:
• Explore their KQs fully and coherently • Justify their points with effective evidence (ie real life situations) • Provide an extensive evaluation of both knowledge claims and counterclaims • Identify and discuss the implications of their arguments
In short, KQs are absolutely vital to their essay, so identifying effective ones is an essential building block to constructing an effective essay. This is what section 5 & 6 will look at.
18
5. Exploring KQs part 1: discussion
a. What do we mean by ‘exploring’ KQs? b. Setting up their KQs: knowledge claims and counterclaims c. What should their discussion include? d. Which should be more developed: my knowledge claims or counterclaims?
a. What do we mean by ‘exploring’ KQs? Obviously it’s not enough to simply state knowledge questions, and leave it at that. They also have to ‘explore’ them, which means both discussing them by offering and considering arguments and analysis, and justifying them by providing evidence and examples for what you say. It’s very important to include both discussion and justification. If they leave out justification, or provide only poor justification (see section 6 what this means), their essay will lack authority, and may end up being inaccurate or even completely wrong. This will have serious consequences on their mark for the second criterion (‘Quality of analysis of knowledge issues’). If you leave out discussion, and just jump straight into the examples, then the essay will be too descriptive, and may end up being rather superficial. This will impact on the mark you’re given for the first criterion (‘Understanding knowledge questions’). We’ll look first at the discussion stage, beginning by a consideration of how they should set up their knowledge question exploration. b. Setting up their KQs: knowledge claims and counterclaims The way to set up their discussion and justification of their KQs is by splitting them up into knowledge claims and counterclaims. The knowledge claim proposes their knowledge question, and their counterclaim opposes their knowledge question, much in the same way as a debate is run. The reason why they should set up their KQ exploration in this way is because the IB in general, and TOK in particular, is all about being open to other ideas and considering different viewpoints, as much as it is about forming and offering opinions of their own. Their TOK essay needs to reflect this. In addition, it will also ensure that their essay expresses:
• Open-‐mindedness. This is a key trait that the IB encourages (indeed, it is included in the Learner Profile), and by considering alternative viewpoints you will demonstrate that you possess it.
• A solid argument. By anticipating counterclaims to their own claims, they’ll be
prepared for other people’s criticisms of their own ideas.
• A ‘scientific approach’ to the KQ. Scientific claims are only ever provisional, and stand up only after they have been exposed to a barrage of counterclaims.
• A sophisticated argument. The counterclaim allows them not only to present an
alternative viewpoint to their knowledge claim, but also to enrich what they have already said.
19
We need to put this all into context, which we’ll do by looking at one of the PTs from May 2014:
6. “A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence” (adapted from Paul Kurtz, 1994). Evaluate this approach in two areas of knowledge.
The question asks students to pick their own two areas of knowledge, so let’s thinking about the natural sciences and history. The statement in the title refers to the sceptical method (which it helpfully defines for us – this made it a very good PT to choose), and asks us to evaluate this approach. This might lead us to this KQ:
How effective is the skeptical method in providing us with knowledge about the natural sciences?
Rather than state this as a question, though, you need to present their knowledge question initially as a ‘knowledge claim’ – acting, as we have said, as a way of ‘proposing’ the KQ.
The skeptical method is a very effective way of acquiring knowledge in the natural sciences.
To avoid contradicting ourselves later on in the essay, though (because, of course, we’re also going to consider the counterclaim), let’s alter this so it’s more open-‐minded:
In some ways, the skeptical method is a very effective way of acquiring knowledge in the natural sciences.
Now you are ready to discuss their knowledge claim, by offering their own thoughts, opinions, and arguments. We’ll expand on this in part ‘c’. Their counterclaim is simply the alternative position to the knowledge claim you have offered. So for the one above, our counterclaim might be:
However, the skeptical method can sometimes hinder us from gaining knowledge about the natural sciences.
It’s good practice to include a linking phrase or sentence to distinguish it from what you have just been discussing, and indicate to the examiner you are moving onto their counterclaim. We’ve used the word “however”; alternatives might include, “one the other hand”, “alternatively”, “in contrast”, and so on. You could even say: “The counterclaim to this would be…”, although it may be better to come up with something a little subtler and more sophisticated. c. What should the discussion include? Obviously, the discussion of their claim and counterclaim will depend on the PT you have chosen, and the KQs you have identified. But as a rule of thumb, you should be aiming to do as many of the following as possible:
• Explaining what their claim/counterclaim means • Saying how it relates to the prescribed title
20
• Thinking about it in the context of the areas of knowledge and ways of knowing • Giving their own opinions and ideas
For our example, their discussion for their knowledge claim might include the following:
In some ways, the skeptical method is a very effective way of acquiring knowledge in the natural sciences. Definitions need to be given clearly so that they can be understood and agreed upon by everyone involved in a particular scientific filed. Given that the laws of nature behave in a consistent way means that we also have to apply our logic in a similar way in order to understand them. And perhaps most importantly of all, hypotheses (and later theories) all rely on providing sufficient evidence in order to support them. If any of these elements are absent, then the resulting knowledge may be undermined.
For the counterclaim, we could have:
However, the skeptical method can sometimes hinder us from gaining knowledge about the natural sciences. This is particularly the case in the early stages of the scientific method where scientists often rely on their intuition or even accidental discoveries in order to come up with a hypothesis worthy of investigation. If every idea at this stage required justification, then certain hunches may not have been fully explored; in addition, whilst it’s true that the laws of nature are generally understood to behave uniformly, the other tenet of the natural sciences is that knowledge is only ever provisional. In other words, we could close ourselves off from acquisition of further knowledge if we assume that everything behaves according to the logic that we have always followed.
Note that the discussion would almost certainly have to be more extensive than this, but for the sake of clarity and simplicity, we’ll keep our sample concise. d. Which should be more developed: the knowledge claim, or the counterclaim? In the discussion provided above, it’s hard to say which is more valid between the claim and the counterclaim, which would mean that they’d probably end up equally developed. For claims that they feel more strongly above, however, it’s fine to make them longer than their counterclaims. So as a general rule of thumb, they should go into a little more depth for their claim, and support it with a little more evidence. But remember that they will be marked specifically on whether or not their counterclaims are ‘extensively explored’, so they should certainly not be thrown in just as an afterthought.
21
6. Exploring KQs part 2: justification
a. Personal and shared knowledge b. Evidence to avoid: hypothetical, anecdotal, clichéd examples
a. Personal and shared knowledge Plato defined knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, and no one has really ever come up with a better way of putting it since. Knowledge claims and counterclaims in the essay must live up to this definition. In other words, students must justify what they have said in their KQ discussion with evidence, and this evidence should be taken from real life. It comes in two forms:
• Personal knowledge. This is knowledge they have experienced or created first hand, such as events they have been a part of, things they have witnessed, emotions they have felt, and learning experiences they have built up.
• Shared knowledge. This is knowledge that comes from second hand experiences,
gained from a variety of sources, such as news reports (TV, printed news, etc.), documentary films, books, the internet, and so on.
For personal knowledge, they should think about what they’re focusing on for their extended essay, and how it has developed their knowledge of a subject; or about CAS experiences, and how they have introduced you to different perspectives; they could draw on significant moments in their study of other subjects. They can also draw on their experiences outside of a learning environment (or example, works of art they’ve seen or read; how they’ve been affected by science; ethical decisions that you’ve had to make), but be careful not to present these examples in an anecdotal way – see below for what we mean by that. They should also draw on shared knowledge as well. This will not only add authority to what they are saying (assuming they are reliable sources – newspapers and media sites range hugely in terms of objectivity), but it will also allow them to consider different perspectives. The more examples they can give, the stronger their argument will be, and the more they will demonstrate their engagement with a topic, and their commitment to fully exploring it. To put this into the context of he example we’re using, they might justify the discussion they’ve already presented in the following way:
In some ways, the skeptical method is a very effective way of acquiring knowledge in the natural sciences. Definitions need to be given clearly so that they can be understood and agreed upon by everyone involved in a particular scientific field. Given that the laws of nature behave in a consistent way means that we also have to apply our logic in a similar way in order to understand them. And perhaps most importantly of all, hypotheses (and later theories) all rely on providing sufficient evidence in order to support them. If any of these elements are absent, then the resulting knowledge may be undermined. My own experiences as a Group 4 learner supports this idea. In biology we are encouraged to be as clear as possible in how we state our hypotheses before experiments, and we go through the same procedure in order to investigate them. On a research project I was involved in on Drosophila, we
22
also had to base all of our assertions on carefully observed evidence, which we then had to replicate in order to prove what we had stated. Such an approach can be seen in virtually every major scientific breakthrough, such as the discovery of DNA, which progressed through various different stages, each one characterised by an insistence on the sceptical method. If at any point during the process – such as proposing the helical structure of DNA, applying strict mathematical logic to the helix transform, and relying on experiments that provided clear empirical evidence, such as the work of Rosalind Franklin on X-‐Ray diffraction -‐ the discovery may not have been made.
For the counterclaim:
However, the skeptical method may sometimes limit us from gaining knowledge about the natural sciences. This is particularly the case in the early stages of the scientific method where scientists often rely on their intuition or even accidental discoveries in order to come up with a hypothesis worthy of investigation. If every idea at this stage required justification, then certain hunches may not have been fully explored; in addition, whilst it’s true that the laws of nature are generally understood to behave uniformly, the other tenet of the natural sciences is that knowledge is only ever provisional. In other words, we could close ourselves off from acquisition of further knowledge if we assume that everything behaves according to the logic that we have always followed. As William Dewey put it, “The important thing to realize is that the conjuring up of the idea is not a deliberate, voluntary act. It is something that happens to us rather than something we do.” This can be seen clearly in the discoveries made by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, both of whom stressed the importance of the role of intuition and imagination. Their discoveries led on to the development of quantum mechanics, which forces us to completely re-‐evaluate our concepts of logic and rationalism within physics, and have an open mind to forces that operate in a (as yet) completely unpredictable way. Discoveries such as Teflon, Viagra, and Penicillin show the truth of Pasteur’s adage that “chance favours the prepared mind”, as well as suggesting that approaching science in an overly skeptical and methodical way – allowing nothing to chance -‐ isn’t always the most effective way of acquiring scientific knowledge.
b. Evidence to avoid We’ve drawn on a nice mixture of evidence above, from personal learning experiences, to the ideas of important scientists and thinkers, and actual real life examples. But it’s easy to draw on invalid evidence that may not support their KQ discussion, and could even undermine it. Three of the most common types of evidence are listed below. i. Hypothetical examples Hypothetical examples are credible but imaginary situation that we make up in order to illustrate a point. Although they can be of use when trying informally to explain something, and may be based on completely reasonable scenarios, they are not valid within a TOK essay, or even during a debate or discussion in class. The reason for this is that they do not provide evidence that has actually happened, and tend to lead on to generalizations. Because they are generally based on familiar assertions or scenarios, it’s sometimes tricky to distinguish hypothetical examples from real ones. Think about the American historian who is
23
writing about the US, and is therefore biased; the doctor who knows her patient is dying, but decides that it is ethically justified to lie to them; the scientist who decides to fake the evidence in order to support his hypothesis. Are these hypothetical or real life examples? Perhaps they may have happened, but unless you can put a date and a place on them, and say when, where, and to whom they happened, they’re hypothetical. Your students should stick to real life examples – even though they’re harder to find. ii. Anecdotal examples They should also be very careful to avoid anecdotal and informal personal experiences. Stories about relationships with boyfriends and girlfriends are shaky at best; tales involving sport and parties and alcohol are similarly unconvincing and tiresome. Even more than with hypothetical examples, it’s difficult to identify what is and what is not anecdotal. To some degree, you can apply the same approach as you do with hypothetical ones: anecdotal examples are often hazy in terms of place, time, and detail, so any example that is characterized thus should be avoided. Anecdotal examples are also ones that you use their memory along to draw on, and do not necessitate any further research or thought. Again, avoid these – memory, as we know from TOK, is often very unreliable! Finally, anecdotal examples often don’t lead on to particularly convincing implications. They are trivial in nature, and don’t tell us much about the nature of knowledge. Instead, ensure that your students stick to specific, solid personal knowledge to avoid presenting anecdotes, specifically, as mentioned above, their experiences as a learner such as challenges they’ve had with their extended essay, intellectual clashes they’ve had with (other) teachers, difficulties that they’ve overcome in their Diploma courses. Another way to avoid veering into anecdote is to keep their examples contemporary: stories that take them back to elementary school are dubious in accuracy, and lack immediacy. They need to be precise about what they’re saying, and, as much as possible, try to fix their experiences with a place and date to make them more convincing. iii. Clichéd examples The TOK essay needs to be original and compelling, and demonstrate an individual approach, rather than just “repeating commonplace cases or sources” (as the IB put it themselves). This means, as much as possible, drawing on real life situations that other people have not used. These following examples are just a few of the most common ones found in TOK essays, and should be avoided if at all possible:
• Citing Hitler and the Nazis as the archetypal example of a society gone wrong • Using the heliocentric versus geocentric theories as an example of a paradigm shift
in thinking • Drawing on Darwin’s theory of evolution to show how scientific knowledge
progresses • Stating that Columbus proved that the earth wasn’t flat (this isn’t true anyway!), and
using it as another paradigm shift • Using 1 + 1 as an example of a flawless mathematical axiom
24
Encourage your students to be original! They shouldn’t recycle examples used in textbooks. They need to find their own examples, which should be up-‐to-‐date, well understood, and relevant. And make sure they use as many personal examples as possible – this is the best way to ensure that their examples won’t be the same as other candidates!
25
7. Making links
a. What does ‘making links’ mean? b. How do I make links?
a. What does ‘making links’ mean? One of the ways in which they will be assessed in the first criterion is the extent to which they have effectively linked the areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. This means bringing into their KQ discussion references to other parts of the course, and comparing and contrasting them to the one they are focusing on. Most PTs require them to focus on at least two ways of knowing or areas of knowledge, so they should be linking these two; making more links than this will certainly take them even further. Linking different parts of the course means to approach the different ways of knowing and areas of knowledge in a comparative way, so that they can identify their similarities and the differences. Given that you can never properly consider the ways of knowing and areas of knowledge independently (when we talk about emotion, we inevitably think about reason; when we refer to religion, we have to consider faith; when we’re considering the natural sciences, we compare them to the human sciences; and so on), this should come quite naturally. b. So how is it done? The short answer is, don’t hold back. All the questions encourage you to discuss the different parts of the course in unison. Although this session’s prescribed titles are incredibly open in terms of what they ask you to focus on, you still need to refer to different aspects of the course, and compare and contrast their relationship with knowledge. Students should try to mention other ways of knowing and area of knowledge at the beginning of their knowledge claim discussion. This only has to take the form of a passing reference. This works best when they have moved onto their second area of knowledge, so they can refer back to ideas they have already offered. In our example, let’s say that we’re going to talk about history alongside the natural sciences. Our knowledge claim for history might be similar to the one for natural sciences, so:
The skeptical method can be a very helpful method of acquiring knowledge about history.
To link it to the natural sciences, we might expand this to:
The skeptical method plays just as important a role in history as it does in the natural sciences. All historical assertions require adequate evidence; historical definitions must be provided just as clearly as natural science ones; and in the same way as there are natural laws which must be approached logically, so there are patterns in history that have to be approached with consistent reason.
This links both areas of knowledge, and by referring to what we’ve just been looking at, we’re also adding continuity and coherence.
26
We can do the same for the counterclaim, taking it from:
On the other hand, the skeptical method can also create problems for us as we try to acquire historical knowledge.
…to:
On the other hand, similarly to the natural sciences, the skeptical method can also create problems for us as we try to acquire historical knowledge. Like scientists, historians require working hypotheses, which may be based on intuition and hunches. And although these require investigation based on consistent logic, new historical insights may only be arrived at after looking at a problem in history in a new way.
27
8. Investigating different perspectives
a. What are ‘different perspectives’? b. Applying different perspectives
a. What are ‘different perspectives’? The IB in general, and TOK in particular, place massive importance on considering different perspectives. Get your students to look at the TOK diagram, and try to recall what was said about the significance of the ‘/s’ after ‘knower’: we don’t just think about how knowledge related to me, we think about how knowledge is related to all knowers. This means considering different perspectives, which again sounds more complicated than it is. Basically, it means they should simply try to consider how those looking from a different perspective might view the KQs in their essay. By ‘perspective’, we don’t just mean a different opinion (that’s what they’ll be doing when they include their counterclaim) we mean something more fundamental. This could include the following:
• Gender • Geographical location • Religion/philosophical position • Historical era • Language • Cultural tradition • Socio-‐economic position • Educational system • Profession or career
b. Applying different perspectives It’s worth putting this immediately into context. Question 4 asks:
With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.
If we fix this question on, say, indigenous knowledge systems, we arrive promptly at the KQ:
How can an understanding of indigenous knowledge systems affect our personal knowledge? Which perspectives might lend themselves to a discussion of this KQ? An initial encounter with IKS may lead us to think that the customs and traditions of certain indigenous societies are rather strange and illogical. But on further study, it’s highly possible that we may end up concluding that they have a lot to teach us – for example, in terms of their relationship with the environment. This could easily impact on our own outlook, and encourage us to adapt our behaviour towards the natural world. Clearly, this would involve us considering (and adopting) different cultural perspectives.
28
Question 3 asks:
“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?
If we chose to look at human sciences and history, our knowledge question may be:
How do the human sciences inform our study of history? Applying the perspective of time, we might think about how academic history is now a much more multi-‐discipline subject that before. For example, we draw on psychology more than we ever did, to provide us with an insight into what motivated people from the past to make the decisions they did. Let’s return again to the example that we have used, this time adding a difference perspective to our knowledge claim:
However, the skeptical method may sometimes limit us from gaining knowledge about the natural sciences. This is particularly the case in the early stages of the scientific method where scientists often rely on their intuition or even accidental discoveries in order to come up with a hypothesis worthy of investigation. If every idea at this stage required justification, then certain hunches may not have been fully explored; in addition, whilst it’s true that the laws of nature are generally understood to behave uniformly, the other tenet of the natural sciences is that knowledge is only ever provisional. In other words, we could close ourselves off from acquisition of further knowledge if we assume that everything behaves according to the logic that we have always followed. As William Dewey put it, “The important thing to realize is that the conjuring up of the idea is not a deliberate, voluntary act. It is something that happens to us rather than something we do.” This can be seen clearly in the discoveries made by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, both of whom stressed the importance of the role of intuition and imagination. Their discoveries led on to the development of quantum mechanics, which forces us to completely re-‐evaluate our concepts of logic and rationalism within physics, and have an open mind to forces that operate in a (as yet) completely unpredictable way. Discoveries such as Teflon, Viagra, and Penicillin show the truth of Pasteur’s adage that “chance favours the prepared mind”, as well as suggesting that approaching science in an overly skeptical and methodical way – allowing nothing to chance -‐ isn’t always the most effective way of acquiring scientific knowledge. In addition, some cultural and philosophical traditions do not employ skepticism in the same way to understand the natural world. Native Americans stress the idea of forming emotional and even linguistic bonds with fauna and flora in order to understand them, a method that hardly stands up to skeptical scrutiny, but which is found in virtually all indigenous societies. Chief Dan George of the Tsleil-‐Waututh Nation believed that “if you don’t talk to the animals, they won’t talk back to you, then you won’t understand.” Given the profound relationship that indigenous peoples have with the natural world, it’s hard to argue that we can’t learn something from their approach.
Adding this perspective also has the benefit of bringing in more ways of knowledge and areas of knowledge.
29
9. Drawing implications
a. What are the implications of their KQs? b. How do you include a consideration of implications?
a. What are the implications of their KQs? Integral to a good mark in the second criterion is a consideration of the implications of the essay’s arguments. What this means is that not only should your students’ KQs be meaningful and important, and their real life situations significant, they should also be explicit about why this is the case. If they’ve chosen appropriate KQs, this should follow naturally. As we have seen, KQs should be big, open questions, and big open questions are generally significant ones. But they need to make sure they emphasize their significance, and demonstrate their awareness of this. b. How do you include a consideration of implications? To put this in context, try to consider implications in our example:
However, the skeptical method may sometimes limit us from gaining knowledge about the natural sciences. This is particularly the case in the early stages of the scientific method where scientists often rely on their intuition or even accidental discoveries in order to come up with a hypothesis worthy of investigation. If every idea at this stage required justification, then certain hunches may not have been fully explored; in addition, whilst it’s true that the laws of nature are generally understood to behave uniformly, the other tenet of the natural sciences is that knowledge is only ever provisional. In other words, we could close ourselves off from acquisition of further knowledge if we assume that everything behaves according to the logic that we have always followed. As William Dewey put it, “The important thing to realize is that the conjuring up of the idea is not a deliberate, voluntary act. It is something that happens to us rather than something we do.” This can be seen clearly in the discoveries made by Max Planck and Albert Einstein, both of whom stressed the importance of the role of intuition and imagination. Their discoveries led on to the development of quantum mechanics, which forces us to completely re-‐evaluate our concepts of logic and rationalism within physics, and have an open mind to forces that operate in a (as yet) completely unpredictable way. Discoveries such as Teflon, Viagra, and Penicillin show the truth of Pasteur’s adage that “chance favours the prepared mind”, as well as suggesting that approaching science in an overly skeptical and methodical way – allowing nothing to chance -‐ isn’t always the most effective way of acquiring scientific knowledge. In addition, some cultural and philosophical traditions do not employ skepticism in the same way to understand the natural world. Native Americans stress the idea of forming emotional and even linguistic bonds with fauna and flora in order to understand them, a method that hardly stands up to skeptical scrutiny, but which is found in virtually all indigenous societies. Chief Dan George of the Tsleil-‐Waututh Nation believed that “if you don’t talk to the animals, they won’t talk back to you, then you won’t understand.” Given the profound relationship that indigenous peoples have with the natural world, it’s hard to argue that we can’t
30
learn something from their approach. The rate at which governments and large companies are both allowing and encouraging the destruction of the environment perhaps suggests that we need to find some other approach to safeguarding the natural world, and perhaps one development which we could make might be to develop a relationship with it that goes beyond skepticism. It’s hard to argue that this This lack of empathy he argues, is detrimental to how we care for the environment, and looking around at how much damage being done to the natural world perhaps this approach, which is common to virtually all indigenous societies, provides us with a very useful insight into gaining ecological knowledge.
Note that we have linked the implications of this KQ to the way it may be viewed from different perspectives. This is often an effective way to approach implications.
31
10. Tackling the May 2015 titles The following thoughts are provided as suggestions only of how your students could approach the prescribed titles. The nature of TOK means that there are many ways of interpreting a question; the important thing is that they identify and explore their own knowledge questions, and support their discussion with real life situations that they have taken from their own experiences as learners, and examples that they have read about. In the interests of avoiding plagiarism, they should not reproduce any of the text below. Although we have hinted at the kind of real life situations they can draw on for each prescribed title, we obviously cannot provide specific examples. However, the theoryofknowledge.net Facebook page does provide daily links to real life situations, some of which may be relevant for the essay. Our free newsletter rounds up the best of these, which you and your students can subscribe to by following the links on the site. We also produce a premium newsletter, which goes into much more depth on the implications and different perspectives of these RLSs. You can sign up for this in the resources shop of the site, or the Facebook page.
32
Finally, if your students feel they need more assistance, we offer expert one-‐to-‐one support for both the TOK essay and the presentation. Support packages, which have been designed strictly within the guidelines for teacher support as stipulated by the IB, will help them whatever stage they’re at, be it still choosing a title, or putting the finishing touches to a virtually finished draft. Check out the ‘Online support’ section of the theoryofknowledge.net website or more information on these services. 1. There is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge. a. What are the key words & terms that need pinning down? The command term in the prescribed title is ‘neutral question’. A quick look in any dictionary will give a workable definition of this word -‐ its essential meaning is unbiased, non-‐partisan, or something that does not take sides. In other words, the prescribed title is suggesting that questions within the different areas of knowledge lead us in a certain direction, and have some sort of agenda. These are known as ‘leading questions’, and are well known in the legal world, where witnesses are often asked questions designed to produce a particular answer that confirms what the questioner wants to prove. Gathering knowledge in this way can also be termed ‘confirmation bias’. The essay is therefore suggesting, that all questions are leading questions, and that it isn’t possible to ask or investigate knowledge without having a preconceived notion of what you want to find.
33
b. What knowledge issues & associated WOKs/AOKs could be explored? For both chosen areas of knowledge, your students should assess whether questions typically asked, issues explored, or research carried out are done so with or without an agenda. Their knowledge claim and counterclaim should be looking at both sides of this position. The obvious AOK that comes to mind is the natural sciences, which in theory should be involved in the acquisition of objective, non-‐biased knowledge, but which is, at the same time, also built on the investigation of hypotheses. Scientists do not spend their time blindly investigating natural phenomena, they generally have an idea that they want confirmed or not (either way, this doesn’t seem to be ‘neutral’ knowledge). Human sciences might also work well; indeed, there’s often even more of an agenda in human sciences (think about politics, statistics, economics, social planning, etc.). But given that it’s always best to choose contrasting AOKs, it might be better to include only one of the sciences. It’s not just the areas of knowledge that deal with ‘hard’ knowledge that could work well for this question. Ethical questions are often asked in order to confirm one’s own moral outlook; artistic work is generally inspired by an artist, writer, or musician’s own experiences and outlooks; and so on. c. What sort of real life situations could be drawn on? In support of the assertion in the prescribed title, they need to present examples of how knowledge is produced in order to confirm a certain opinion or interest. This may be done consciously (for example, groups who fund scientific research designed to produce just one outcome, statistical data that supports a pre-‐determined answer; historical investigations that are carried out in order to confirm a hunch about the past), or unconsciously (the reason for confirmation bias may be subconscious, and reflect the society or background from which we come without us being fully aware of it). Sometimes the areas of knowledge overlap, and questions asked in one are explored using evidence taken from another. For counterclaims, real life situations should support the idea that it’s possible to look for knowledge without having a particular agenda. This sort of research or knowledge production could be prompted, for example, by other discoveries, leading us to venture into fields that we weren’t intending to investigate, or by unexpected inspirations or random occurrences. d. Which perspectives and implications could be considered? Your students will be considering different perspectives when they address the motives for asking questions in a biased way; at the same time, they’ll have to bear them in mind when they think about the possibility of not being swayed by biases (either ones based on personal knowledge, or ones based on shared knowledge). An evaluation of the extent to which this is true in the areas of knowledge they have identified One implication of the title is that if it is impossible to ask a neutral question, it may also be impossible to acquire unbiased, objective knowledge. If all questions are asked for a reason,
34
then perhaps the knowledge that we receive is always influenced by self-‐interested groups, organizations and individuals. They’ll need to think about whether or not that’s true, and what it means for our search for truth. e. What are the difficulties and challenges of the question? Although it may seem at first sight that this is a prescribed title that is easy to refute, the more they explore the different areas of knowledge, the more they will find that it is very difficult to escape the kind of biases that produce leading questions. So one difficulty might be that it’s hard to counter the claim within the prescribed title. They could argue that the search for knowledge is in itself an agenda: as soon as one asks a question, one ceases to be looking for knowledge in a ‘neutral’ way. If you subscribe to this view, then it would be virtually impossible to counter the claim in the prescribed title. 2. “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? a. What are the key words & terms that need pinning down? The terms that need special attention in order to set up this essay are ‘passive observation’ and ‘active experimentation’. The first suggests that the knower makes no impact on the phenomenon he or she is studying. This might be related to knowledge that has to be accessed through discovery, but which exists in its own right. The second suggests that the knower is able to manipulate, and perhaps even help to determine, the outcome of what they are studying. This could be more related to knowledge that needs to be created in some way. But the question is not dealing solely with these two forms of producing knowledge, and asking which is the more effective form of knowledge generation -‐ an easy mistake to make. It is asking whether there are other ways in which we can produce knowledge. b. What knowledge issues & associated WOKs/AOKs could be explored?
35
This prescribed title invites a consideration of the new ways of knowing, possibly linking them to the new areas of knowledge. ‘Passive observation’ and ‘active experiment’ represent the means by which we acquire a large proportion of our knowledge (they could think about how they learn in school; they should quickly realize how much of their knowledge comes from those two methods, in terms of book reading, internet research, science experiments, project work, etc., etc.). But this does not include knowledge provided by intuition, imagination, faith, and even emotion. So the prescribed title could set them up with an essay that reads almost like ‘old’ WOKs vs. ‘new’ WOKs as you consider the extent to which the old WOKs provide us with comprehensive knowledge, and whether the ‘new’ WOKs provide us with ‘real’ knowledge. c. What sort of real life situations could be drawn on? As already mentioned, this prescribed title lends itself well to a reflection of their own learning experiences: as an IB learner, have they acquired all of your knowledge through ‘passive observation’ and ‘active experiment’? Or have they learned through more esoteric methods -‐ drawing on imagination, intuition, and other ways of knowing that may not be supported by demonstrable evidence? Obviously they’ll have to think about these two forms of producing knowledge, and alternative methods, in the context of the areas of knowledge, which should provide them with ideas on RLSs. Natural science experiments, human science findings, religious and indigenous knowledge systems, the arts -‐ there are many similarities and differences between them in terms of the methods they use to produce knowledge, and the extent to which they adhere to the statement in the prescribed title. d. Which perspectives and implications could be considered? This is one of the more conducive titles to a consideration of different perspectives, and also one for which consideration of implications comes more naturally. As they think about the extent to which ‘passive observation’ and ‘active experimentation’ produces all the knowledge within an AOK, they’ll also be thinking about the outlooks and paradigms of the people involved in that AOK. This in turn may depend on their own cultural or academic background, the point in time when they were producing knowledge, or their own beliefs. Implications of this prescribed title centre around their responses to the title. If knowledge is only produced by these two methods, then what should we term the products of imagination, faith, and intuition? On the other hand, if we do accept that they give us ‘real’ knowledge, should it be considered equally valid? e. What are the difficulties and challenges of the question? The essay provides no indication of how many areas of knowledge or ways of knowing should be focused on, which means that it will be very easy to produce an essay that is broad and very shallow. It also requires those answering it to produce the right balance between the areas of knowledge, and ways of knowing -‐ the focus of the title is on the first, but it will be necessary to utilize the latter to provide context.
36
It’s also potentially more difficult to anchor prescribed titles that are more based on ways of knowing to solid real life experiences, so they must make sure that their examples relate to areas of knowledge, rather than more vaguely-‐defined experiences and examples. 3. “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? a. What are the key words & terms that need pinning down? It would be easy to mistake the command terms of this prescribed title, and assess how ‘facts’ and ‘theories’ can (or cannot) be linked. However, the wording of the question suggests that ‘facts and theories’ should be considered together (their combined meaning equating to ‘evidence’), with their essay focusing on ‘across disciplines’ and ‘common groundwork of explanation’. The first of these implies the different areas of knowledge, and the second means the principles and rules behind them. We can therefore distil the essential meaning of this prescribed title to: ‘Can evidence from one area of knowledge be used to understand the principles of another?’, or, even more pithily, ‘Do areas of knowledge overlap?’ b. What knowledge issues & associated WOKs/AOKs could be explored?
37
For this title, they’ll need to explore the extent to which cross-‐linkage between disciplines is viable versus the idea that the knowledge we produce in each area of knowledge can’t be transferred. How they do this will of course depend on the areas of knowledge they focus on, but the effectiveness of their essay will depend whether they’re able to link more dissimilar AOKs. Asserting that mathematics and the natural sciences depend on each other probably won’t earn as much credit as, say, exploring how theories in the arts may be used in history, or how ethical principles can help us to understand indigenous knowledge systems. Although this prescribed title lends itself more, perhaps, to science-‐based areas of knowledge (they’ll probably be put in mind of the search for the ‘theory of everything’, linking all aspects of the physical universe), they need to be careful not to present too narrow an essay, that only looks at these type of AOKs. c. What sort of real life situations could be drawn on? Their real life situations will of course take their lead from the areas of knowledge they focus on, but the rule for this prescribed title should be that they’re going to have to dig even deeper than normal into the real life situation to discover the principles and rules behind them, rather than rely on a superficial handling of them. Individual news events may not work as well as, say, scientific investigations and research projects, as they’re looking for the theories that form the basis for the areas of knowledge (and ways of knowing), not just examples of them ‘in action’. Their own learning experiences will be useful to draw on: to what extent have they transferred knowledge between the different subject they study? Have they used their knowledge of economics to understand history? Have they drawn on psychology to study art? Have they used mathematics in music? If they have, then what are the pros and cons of linking facts and theories across disciplines? d. Which perspectives and implications could be considered? In some ways, this is a prescribed title that is ‘anti-‐perspectives’, because it asks them to look at facts and theories that can cut across the effects of different perspectives and points of view, and unify different disciplines. But considering this will also allow them a way in to think about the limits of this, and whether certain academic perspectives are unbridgeable. Implications should follow on quite naturally: if we can easily transfer theories from one subject to another, where will it take us? And does it mean that to understand one area of knowledge properly, we need to understand (all) the others? e. What are the difficulties and challenges of the question? In common with others from the exam session, this prescribed title does not define any clear parameters for the essay. Examining the extent to which areas of knowledge (and ways of knowing) overlap could take a lifetime and more to assess, so they should have several focus points in mind before they start.
38
Essays answering this question may also end up example-‐driven (partly because of above), with knowledge question discussion fitted in around real life situations, rather than real life situations used to support the discussion. They need to be clear about the relationship that should exist between their ideas and the way they should justify them if they are going to take on this title. 4. With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge. a. What are the key words & terms that need pinning down? This prescribed title focuses on the two main knowledge categories of ‘shared’ and ‘personal’ knowledge, about which the IB is quite helpful in the subject guide to TOK (show your students pages 16-‐19 -‐ this should be considered essential reading for this question!). The IB identifies two types of shared knowledge: first, the areas of knowledge themselves, produced by collaboration between many people, and subject to change over time; second, the different groups (national, ethnic, gender, age, etc.) to which we belong. Personal knowledge, in contrast, is gained by our own experiences, education, backgrounds, and so on. The big difference between the two is that personal knowledge is harder to share, and because it is possessed by us alone, does not rely so heavily on linguistic forms of description. b. What knowledge issues & associated WOKs/AOKs could be explored?
39
Note what was said above about how different groups can be considered shared knowledge, not just the areas of knowledge, so they should keep this in mind if they are choosing this essay -‐ this will help them to look at the question via different perspectives. As the subject guide itself points out, shared knowledge plays a big role in determining our outlook on the world, and the way in which we interact with it. The essay’s main task will be to examine the extent to which shared knowledge shapes our personal knowledge, weighed against other factors that might shape it. This prescribed title is a blank canvas in terms of areas of knowledge that would work within it, so there should be no problem at all identifying two contrasting areas of knowledge to explore (natural sciences and the arts; religious knowledge systems and history; ethics and mathematics; and so on). They should think about real life situations from their own experiences, and from examples they have researched and read about, then select their areas of knowledge accordingly. c. What sort of real life situations could be drawn on? The subject guide gives a hypothetical example of how a knowledge of economics (shared knowledge) can shape the way we regard everyday shopping. Although this is hypothetical (and should on no account be used in their own essay!), it does give quite a useful guide as to what the prescribed title means, and what it is looking for. They should endeavour to use real life situations with a little more bite and significance. Make them aware that they need to think about more than just their own personal knowledge, although this is certainly an important element of this prescribed title. d. Which perspectives and implications could be considered? The key to identifying different perspectives for this question lies in what we have already said about shared knowledge being the group we belong to. Quoting directly from the guide (p. 19): “membership of our cultural, ethnic, gender and other groups might influence our world view. This is what we call perspective. Membership of such groups provides a horizon against which the significance of the events of our lives is measured.” Not only that, but one of the features of both shared and personal knowledge is that they are subject to change over time, which will give students a chronological perspective to consider -‐ how has their personal knowledge changed over time as a result of being exposed to shared knowledge? Looking at the extent to which shared knowledge might differ would provide them with implications; so will assessing the role and importance of shared knowledge in shaping their personal knowledge. What happens if people’s access to shared knowledge is limited? Or if that shared knowledge is subject to control or restriction? e. What are the difficulties and challenges of the question? Although this does specify two areas of knowledge, shared knowledge and personal knowledge means essentially all knowledge, so again, the boundaries of this essay are wide-‐ranging. In addition, what it wants them to do with that knowledge (‘shape’) can mean many
40
different things. So whilst there is undoubted potential to run with this question and do something quite creative, there is also the danger that their essay will end up being very unfocused, and lacking in both depth and detail. The wording of the title mean that they could write a fairly descriptive essay, talking about how they personally have been influenced by different areas of knowledge, and they should be careful not to fall into this trap. Connected to this, it may be hard to identify and develop clear counterclaims, given that its fairly clear that shared knowledge does play a huge role in shaping our personal knowledge. Lastly, TOK essays need a good balance of real life examples, so just drawing on their own experiences and personal knowledge won’t take you as far as you need to go to properly answer the question. 5. “Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? a. What are the key words & terms that need pinning down? Although none of the prescribed titles this session have an area of knowledge or way of knowledge specified for consideration, this one comes very close. Given that the Oxford Dictionary defines intuition as “The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning“, it’s fairly clear that ‘instinctive judgements’ equates to ‘intuition’. In terms of what the question wants them to do with this, the word ‘check’ is the command term, meaning ‘verify’, ‘regulate’, or ‘control’. So the question is asking them to look at the extent to which the knowledge produced by this way of knowing is affected by the others. b. What knowledge issues & associated WOKs/AOKs could be explored? As mentioned above, this prescribed title does give a big clue as to which way of knowing needs particular attention -‐ intuition. Taking their lead from the Oxford definition above, it
41
seems sensible to look at how reason ‘checks’ the knowledge provided by intuition, which should act as an effective contrast. But given that the title does not identify reason as the only focus for the essay, it obviously wants them to look at multiple ways of knowing. Language would also work, and perhaps also sense perception and even faith. Their essay also needs to evaluate the interaction of these ways of knowing within the context of the areas of knowledge. As always, looking at contrasting areas of knowledge will reap the biggest benefits; mathematics, for example, is often a struggle between intuition and reason; religious knowledge systems may lead us on to look at how instinct is superseded by faith; in the natural sciences, they could consider how instinctive judgements are contradicted by sense perception. Three areas of knowledge is probably the maximum you’d be able to consider whilst still providing enough depth to properly explore your knowledge questions. c. What sort of real life situations could be drawn on? They need to make sure that their real life situations are identifiable with specific areas of knowledge, or, as mentioned below, they will end up writing an essay that is rather vague, and possibly too reliant on personal (rather than shared) knowledge. So this means supporting the idea that instinctive judgements are regulated by the other ways of knowing within history, human sciences, indigenous knowledge system, or whichever of the areas of knowledge they are using to provide context. Thy should think about their own acquisition of knowledge. To what extent do they draw on the ‘other’ ways of knowing to verify their intuition? And does this vary according to which area of knowledge they are dealing with? d. Which perspectives and implications could be considered? They may want to think about whether this ‘check’ is a negative or a positive thing. Does intuition need to be controlled and reined in? Or are there situations (and areas of knowledge) in which we should we trust our instinctive judgements? This may depend on the perspective they’re applying, and, of course, the area of knowledge. Implications may include a consideration of the extent to which intuition provides us with knowledge, and the need to provide a counterbalance to this via the other ways of knowing. What happens, for example, when we don’t draw on the other WOKs? e. What are the difficulties and challenges of the question? There’s a lot to do with this prescribed title. Not only do they need to assess how at least three ways of knowing interact, they also need to consider more than one area of knowledge to show that this interaction may vary according to the context of the knowledge. So although this is in some ways the most specific of all the questions, it is still potentially a wide-‐ranging essay.
42
Writing essay primarily on ways of knowing often leads to vague knowledge questions, and non-‐specific real life situations. So they need to make sure that they also provide plenty of reference to areas of knowledge in order to ensure their essay is sufficiently ‘TOK-‐like’. 6. “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? a. What are the key words & terms that need pinning down? There are quite a few command terms to contend with in this prescribed title. First of all, it’s interesting that the title really emphasises ‘whole point’; this leaves us in no doubt that there is (according to the quote) no other reason for the acquisition of knowledge than the one suggested, not just ‘the most important’ point. Second, students need to pin down both ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’, two words that mean different things. ‘Meaning’ suggests something worthwhile, enriching, and fulfilling; purpose suggests a path or calling that we should follow. Finally, the title uses the term ‘personal lives’, which implies that they should not be investigating professional or career-‐related achievement. b. What knowledge issues & associated WOKs/AOKs could be explored?
43
It should be immediately clear that this prescribed title touches on BIG questions! It deals with nothing less than ‘the meaning of (personal) life’, and the way in which knowledge helps to provide that. The counterclaim could be that there are ‘other points’ to knowledge, allowing them to debate the statement; this may depend on the area of knowledge they’re looking at -‐ are some more detached from our ‘personal lives’, or do they all, ultimately, serve to provide meaning and purpose in our lives? Choosing contrasting areas of knowledge is again a requirement of this essay -‐ the arts, for example, seem a good choice given the importance for most of us of the arts; they should bear in mind, though, that they need a focus on ‘knowledge’, not just the experience of listening to music, reading a novel, or watching a film. Ethics, too, might be profitable to explore, particularly in terms of ‘purpose’. Then they might want to contrast these with an area which doesn’t seem as intimately related to us -‐ like mathematics. c. What sort of real life situations could be drawn on? Once again, this is a question that will require them to reflect on their own learning experiences, and relationship with knowledge. What have they gained from the knowledge they’ve acquired in (and out) of school? Have they gained on a personal level from their academic experiences in the different areas of knowledge -‐ and is this the ultimate reason why they have built them up? Having said that, they should also look at the experiences of other learners, and try to bring in outside examples of the way in which knowledge produces meaning and purpose, or how there are other points to it. They’ll have to be thorough with their RLSs for this prescribed title, as it demands that they dig quite deep into the examples they provide, looking way beyond the surface. d. Which perspectives and implications could be considered? Knowledge is viewed distinctly by differently individuals and societies, and they could compare more pragmatic perspectives, that demand that knowledge be utilized, with those that believe it should exist primarily (or solely) to produce meaning and purpose on a personal level. They could look at how knowledge-‐usage has changed over time, examining society’s relationship with knowledge, and whether we seek to use it more or less than previously to produce purpose and meaning in our lives. Following on from what we have said about this question involving BIG questions, the implications of the KQs associated with this title are significant. If knowledge, ultimately, only exists to serve us on a personal level, then perhaps it does not exist independently of us. On the other hand, if there is another reason to explore knowledge -‐ knowledge for knowledge’s sake -‐ then that leads us onto a completely different conclusion. This is one of the great debates in philosophy (one which Kant, in particular, was interested in) but they need to be careful not to be too drawn into this, or they will end up writing a philosophy rather than a TOK essay. e. What are the difficulties and challenges of the question?
44
The potential scope of this essay is huge. Assessing what constitutes ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ will be very challenging indeed in a 1600-‐word essay. There are also issues with the wording of the title. First, you can’t really agree or disagree to a certain extent about ‘the whole point’ of something -‐ either you agree, or you disagree. This might cause a little confusion, but perhaps shouldn’t be dwelt on. Second, the use of the word ‘personal’ is interesting, and could also lead to problems. We’re used to dealing with the areas of knowledge in terms of the experts and professionals associated with them, so when we talk about knowledge in the natural sciences, we’re usually concerned with scientists; when we talk about knowledge in the arts, we’re usually concerned with artists, and so on. This question prompts students to consider their personal life, and how knowledge from the different AOKs adds meaning and purpose to it. This may tempt them to approach this as a first order knowledge question -‐ in other words, explain how historical knowledge or scientific knowledge provides us with meaning and purpose (for history, perhaps they might consider saying that learning about the past helps them avoid making mistakes in the future; or how in science, medicine has helped cure them of a particular ailment). But in TOK, we’re more interested in second order knowledge questions -‐ in other words, how we acquire and process knowledge related to the AOKs. This is definitely harder to link to the idea of ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ in our personal lives. All titles are taken from the official list published by the International Baccalaureate. © International Baccalaureate Organization 2014
