A TOK exhibition audit is the final structured check of each candidate's exhibition file, assessment record and submission status. Its purpose is not to improve arguments after final submission. It is to prevent compliance errors, resolve authenticity concerns, confirm consistent marking and verify successful upload.
The exhibition is internally assessed and externally moderated. It uses three objects, one prescribed IA prompt and commentaries totaling no more than 950 words. Coordinators therefore need evidence that both academic and administrative requirements have been met.
Establish the audit scope
Keep three review layers separate so that the audit does not become an unauthorized feedback round.
| Audit layer | Check | Do not |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate-file compliance | Prompt, objects, images, commentary, word count and references | Rewrite analysis or recommend new objects |
| Assessment quality assurance | Current instrument, defensible mark and consistent standards | Turn the holistic instrument into an unofficial points checklist |
| Submission control | Candidate details, marks, sample status and upload confirmation | Assume a school-drive file has reached the IB |
The official IB TOK subject brief confirms that the exhibition contributes one-third of the TOK result. Marking records and file control consequently require the same care as the document itself.
Verify deadlines and responsibilities
The IB provides session-specific instructions to schools. Its TOK deadline guidance states that schools are responsible for ensuring required work and documentation reach the IB by the prescribed date. Confirm the current requirement through authorized IB systems rather than relying on a previous session's calendar.
Set earlier internal dates for final student submission, teacher marking, standardization, coordinator review and upload verification. Leave contingency time for absence, corrupted files or interrupted platform access. Assign every stage to a named person because collective responsibility is difficult to audit.
Record the date on which each candidate's file became final, then distinguish later technical corrections from changes to assessed content. A shared tracking sheet should show who checked each stage and when. This makes an unresolved issue visible before the submission deadline and prevents two staff members from assuming the other has handled it.
Audit each candidate file
Use a roster with one row per candidate. Record file compliance, marker, final mark, authenticity confirmation, upload status and any action required.
Prompt, objects and images
Confirm that the title reproduces one of the 35 prescribed IA prompts exactly and that all three objects address it. Compare it directly with the current TOK guide in the Programme Resource Centre. The RevisionDojo prompt overview can support planning, but official documentation controls the audit.
The document must contain three objects or images of objects. Each should be specific and situated in a genuine real-world context, not merely a category such as "a newspaper" or "social media." Check that each commentary identifies the object and relevant details such as origin, date, location, ownership, purpose or use. Images must match the discussion and remain legible. The object-selection guide helps teachers distinguish specific objects from generic examples.
For example, a photograph of a particular newspaper front page can be identified by publication and date; "a newspaper" alone does not identify the object being discussed. The audit checks whether the reader can recognize the chosen object and its context, not whether the coordinator would have chosen it.
Commentary, word count and references
The 950-word maximum applies across all three commentaries, not to each object. Apply the counting rule in the current TOK guide. References, acknowledgements, bibliography entries and text within an object are excluded, but explanatory footnotes should not be used to bypass the limit.
Each commentary should identify its object's context, connect it explicitly to the prompt, justify that object's contribution and support important claims. The three discussions should make distinct contributions rather than repeat one idea. The commentary guide can help teachers distinguish description from justification, but coordinators must not edit the student's prose.
Check acknowledgements for quotations, borrowed claims, external images and other people's ideas. References should identify each source even where the school accepts several recognized citation styles. A search-result image is not automatically free to use; credit it unless it is the student's own photograph.
Review authenticity
The IB academic integrity policy makes schools responsible for authenticating submitted work. If authenticity is unresolved, the work must not simply be uploaded with a reduced mark.
Review planning notes, dated drafts, source records, version histories and teacher-student discussions. A change in writing style warrants investigation but does not prove misconduct. AI detector scores are also not conclusive evidence. Follow the school's procedure, allow the student to respond, and record the evidence, decision and responsible staff.
Standardize marks
The exhibition is assessed holistically out of 10. Teachers should judge the complete submission against the current instrument and retain a concise mark rationale. Where several teachers mark exhibitions, review representative work across high, middle and low ranges, discuss descriptor interpretations and resolve differences using the instrument.
Keep standardization separate from changing a candidate's work. If a second reader questions a mark, discuss the evidence in the submitted commentaries and document the agreed judgment. Check that the resulting mark appears consistently on the roster and in the submission record; a sound marking discussion is of little use if the wrong number is entered.
The RevisionDojo TOK exhibition exemplars and TOK Exhibition Grader can support calibration. Neither replaces official documentation or professional teacher judgment.
Final TOK exhibition audit checklist
- Candidate and session details match the roster.
- The file opens and uses an accepted format.
- One official prompt is reproduced exactly.
- The same prompt governs exactly three legible objects.
- Every object is specific and has a real-world context.
- Each commentary connects to the prompt and justifies the object's contribution.
- Combined commentary is no more than 950 words.
- Citations, image credits and references are appropriate.
- Authenticity has been confirmed under school policy.
- The current holistic instrument was used.
- Standardization and the final mark are documented.
- Any moderation sample has been checked separately.
- Upload completion has been verified in the IB system.
- Secure final copies and audit records have been retained as required.
Mark an item complete only after checking its evidence directly. Common failures include altered prompts, generic objects, excessive word counts, missing image credits, inconsistent marks and files assigned to the wrong candidate. The assessed evidence is the submitted document, not the decorative quality of a physical exhibition.
After upload, compare the platform's candidate list, marks and file statuses against the final roster. Save the available confirmation record and investigate any discrepancy while the submission window remains open. A local copy demonstrates what the school prepared; it does not, by itself, confirm what the IB received.
Conclusion
A reliable TOK exhibition audit combines file compliance, authenticity review, marking standardization and documented upload control. It also distinguishes weak work, which may earn a lower mark, from non-compliant or unauthenticated work, which requires procedural action. RevisionDojo's exemplars, commentary guidance and rubric-based tools can support preparation, but final decisions must follow the current IB guide and school procedures.