TOK May 2015 Prescribed Titleswww.theoryofknowledge.net

https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/server2/rest/app/tsm.xql?doc=d_0_tokxx_tsm_1305_1_e&part=4&chapter=3

https://toktrump.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/essay-titles-explained-may-2015/

2/3 & 2/4

GET A COMPUTER AND LOG ONTO MR. FARLEY WIKI PAGE!!!!!!!!!!

Essay must be between 1200 – 1600 words & typed in size 12 font.

1. There is no such thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

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?

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?

Essay must be between 1200 – 1600 words & typed in size 12 font.

4. With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.

5. “Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

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?

So what essay do I choose????

TOK essay title that refers to areas you are interested in

Where do your own strengths lie??? Choose one that will allow you to play to your strengths and strengths of your school?

TOK Teacher…I will be here to help GUIDE you to the correct title, question, and knowledge claims

YOUR ESSAY NEEDS TO BE FOCUSED AROUND KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS!!!!

3 – 4 IDEALLY!!!!

KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS

These are questions about knowledge that allow you to present a two sided (ie objective) answer. The prescribed title that you choose to write should enable you to come up with three or four relevant knowledge questions.

What is a Knowledge Question

Knowledge questions are open in the sense that there are a number of plausible answers to them. The questions are contestable. Dealing with open questions is a feature of TOK.

Many students encountering TOK for the first time are struck by this apparent difference from many of the other classes in their school experience. Many find the lack of a single “right” answer slightly disorienting. Nevertheless, knowledge questions underlie much of the knowledge that we take for granted. Much of the disagreement and controversy encountered in daily life can be traced back to a knowledge question. An understanding of the nature of knowledge questions can allow a deeper understanding of these controversies.

Knowledge questions should be expressed in general terms, rather than using subject specific terms. For example, instead of a question focusing on a specific model in development economics, such as the Harrod-Domar model, a knowledge question might focus on the reliability of modelling as a method of gaining knowledge in economics.

What is a Knowledge Question

Knowledge questions are questions about knowledge. Instead of focusing on specific content, they focus on how knowledge is constructed and evaluated. In this sense knowledge questions are a little different from many of the questions dealt with in the subject classrooms. In this way, they are considered second-order questions in TOK.

Interpreting the titles….

Students often complete and submit their TOK essays having only arrived at a broad superficial understanding of the title that they are addressing. This commonly leads to essays that fail to address the title, or that quickly deviate from the title.

In many instances students produce wordy and descriptive essays because they are actually attempting to arrive at an understanding of the title while in the process of completing their responses. For this reason a strong starting point is to simply invite students to rephrase the title in their own terms, “I believe that this title is stating …”

If students find it difficult to explain the title in their own terms, or even are initially unable to do this, the experience itself will encourage detailed discussion of the title which will deepen their understanding and ensure that the rest of the process is more meaningful and productive

Define the key terms and concepts in the title

While lengthy dictionary definitions of terms are often a feature of weak descriptive responses, essays that fail to consider the central terms and concepts also tend not to explore the knowledge questions raised by the title. If the student is presented with a title which includes a phrase such as “There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false” they will need to arrive at some personal understanding of the terms “absolute”, “distinction”, “true” and “false”.

Strong essays will often produce ongoing consideration of the key concepts in the title, possibly establishing that what is true for one context such as ethics may vary from what is true in another such as mathematics. Students who skip past this process are at great risk of overlooking key parts of the question or of producing responses without having fully understood the title itself. Students who define these terms in their own words are more likely to quickly take control of the essay and tend more often to produce essays that demonstrate personal engagement.

Identify the knowledge questions that are central to the discussion

Students should then be invited to formally identify the knowledge questions related to the title. If they do this they are far more likely to make effective use of the examples that they incorporate into their essay and they will be better equipped to respond to the title as a discussion of knowledge claims and their implications

You will be placed in groups decided by the teacher to “unpack” the meaning of the May 2015 titles

Unpacking titles

State a position

In most instances TOK titles invite students to adopt a position with respect to the title:

I agree

I disagree

I agree with reservations

I disagree to an extent.

If students are required to adopt a position then they are better equipped to recognize their response as a discussion of knowledge that naturally invites counterclaims and they are less likely to gravitate to the format that remains most familiar to them, the opinion essay. Students who formalize their position are also less likely to produce lengthy, generalized and descriptive introductions that use up space in the essay and limit the likelihood of establishing a knowledge agenda.

Identify the WOK’s that are most significant to the discussion

Some prescribed titles specify which or how many WOKs should be addressed. However, others leave it to the students to decide which WOKs to include. As the TOK essay is only a maximum 1,600 words, it is not possible to cover all of the WOKs in depth in a single essay. Students should be encouraged to identify which WOKs they will focus on from the beginning, as this tends to produce a more focused in-depth response. It is suggested that students should select two or three WOKs which allows for effective contrasts to be made.

Identify the areas of knowledge that will be central to the response

Some prescribed titles specify which or how many AOKs should be addressed. However, others leave it to the students to decide which AOKs to cover. Essays that seek to address too many AOKs tend to become overloaded and consequently lose depth. For that reason, students can benefit from making an initial decision of which AOKs to include, perhaps the two AOKs they feel are most relevant and helpful to their response.

Identify the significant claims and counterclaims

Students must be able to develop claims in response to the knowledge questions through reasoned argument and the use of appropriate real-world examples. Students may need help in producing argumentative essays. To access the highest markbands for the essay students must explicitly, and in detail, explore counterclaims.

Question #1 ~ There is no suc thing as a neutral question. Evaluate this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge

The command term in the prescribed title is ‘neutral question’. A quick look in any dictionary will give you 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.

Question #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?

The terms that need special attention in order to set up your 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.

Question #3 ~ “There is no reason why we cannot lint facts and theories across disciplines and create a common groundwork of explanation.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

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 your 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?’

Question #4 ~ With reference to two areas of knowledge discuss the way in which shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.

  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 (get your teacher to show you 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.

Question #5 ~ “Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

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 you to do with this, the word ‘check’ is the command term, meaning ‘verify’, ‘regulate’, or ‘control’. So the question is asking you to look at the extent to which the knowledge produced by this way of knowing is affected by the others.

Question #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?

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 you 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, you 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 you should follow. Finally, the title uses the term ‘personal lives’, which implies that you should not be investigating professional or career-related achievement.

Structure

Then you need to organize your answer to each KQ. This needs to be done rigidly around the following principles: first, a brief consideration or explanation of the KQ, putting it in the context of the main title.

Then, you need to present the argument, which should be justified with evidence and your clearly-expressed opinion.

Next, you need to present a counter-claim, which should offer an alternative way of interpreting the KQ, again, with justification.

Finally, you need to present a conclusion, where you directly answer your KQ. Be careful not to contradict yourself during your argument. You can’t say: ‘Mathematics offers us a completely objective truth,’ then say: ‘mathematics does not offer us a completely objective truth’. Instead, you should say that alternative view points are the ideas of others (if you don’t believe them yourself), and make it clear which view point you subscribe to

Structure Summary

1. Introduction/explanation of the KI

2. Argument – with justification

3. Counter-claim – with justification

4. Conclusion

Beginning to Plan…

Read the Titles of the Knower Assessment

“Unpack the question” ~ What is the question asking????

READ OTHER STUDENTS ESSAYS to help get started

Scaffold TOK Essay Planner

TOK Essay Outline