IB Theory of Knowledge 2.11 Exemplars with Band Reasoning Notes

2.11 Exemplars with band reasoning

Reading an exemplar for its reasoning

1. An exemplar lets you inspect how another writer connects objects to a knowledge question. A mark alone does not show how those links were made.
2. The five described levels of the assessment instrument are holistic. They describe the whole exhibition rather than a checklist of features to reproduce.
3. Two exhibitions can contain similar features while using them differently: one explains its links to the prompt, while the other asserts them.
4. Read for those decisions. Where does the writer establish a specific real-world context? Where do they justify the object's contribution? Where do they explain its link to the prompt?
5. Try reading a marked example with its mark covered. This can make it easier to distinguish a strong explanation from a sentence you admire because you already know the result.
6. Identify a passage that supports the overall judgement, then explain what it does. Removing one sentence does not mechanically change a band, but the exercise can show where reasoning depends on evidence.

A constructed exhibition with distinct contributions, for analysis

1. The following is a constructed outline for analysis, not moderated student work or a model to submit. It uses IA prompt 31: "How can we judge when evidence is adequate?" No band is assigned to this outline.
2. The imagined objects are a home blood-glucose meter bought by the writer's grandfather in 1998, the page of the writer's physics practical where readings were repeated because two disagreed, and a screenshot of a review page consulted before a purchase.
3. The outline begins to locate the objects. For the meter, a reader would still need to know which decision it informed and why the available evidence was judged adequate.
4. The objects suggest different contributions. The meter could support discussion of evidence used for an individual decision; the practical page could show how a procedure for repetition sets a standard for accepting a result.
5. The review-page screenshot could raise a different issue: whether a large number of ratings supplies adequate evidence about a purchase. The commentary would need to examine who rated the product and what those ratings justify.
6. The Excellent band, 9–10, describes identified objects with specific real-world contexts, explained links and strong justification of each contribution. These are qualities to investigate in a completed exhibition; an object list cannot establish that they have been achieved.
7. None of these objects needs to be unusual. Their usefulness depends on the reasoning supported by their particular contexts.

A constructed exhibition with asserted links, for analysis

1. A second constructed outline for analysis uses IA prompt 22: "What role do experts play in influencing our consumption or acquisition of knowledge?" Its objects are a dentist's printed treatment plan, a subtitled science broadcast and a revision guide bought for chemistry.
2. Suppose the commentary identifies the objects and their contexts, but each discussion ends after stating that the writer trusted an expert. The common weakness is the explanation of that trust.
3. The treatment-plan passage says the dentist's authority made the writer accept the plan without reading it, then starts the next object. It leaves open how the writer recognised that authority and what reliance on it allowed them to know.
4. Each commentary needs to explain why this particular object contributes to the discussion of expertise. That explanation may take several sentences; there is no one-sentence repair that works for every object.
5. If all three discussions stop at deference, their contributions may repeat. The Satisfactory band, 5–6, describes some explanation and justification, while the Basic band, 3–4, mentions significant repetition. The whole exhibition would be needed to judge which descriptor fits.
6. For the treatment plan, ask what in this printed document made a question feel unnecessary. Then consider whether that detail supports a claim about expert influence rather than merely recording that trust occurred.
7. Developing this reasoning may require a different emphasis, more evidence or a different object. Adding a generic sentence about the importance of experts would leave the gap in place.

A fluent constructed exhibition dominated by description, for analysis

1. A third constructed outline for analysis uses IA prompt 23: "How important are material tools in the production or acquisition of knowledge?" Its objects are a family telescope, a set of drawing compasses and a kitchen thermometer.
2. Imagine that the sentences are controlled, the images referenced and the whole file within the word limit. Those features alone do not explain the tools' roles in knowing.
3. The telescope commentary spends four sentences on how it came into the family, two on where it is kept and one on the night the writer first used it. These details establish a history but still need a connection to the prompt.
4. If the prompt appears only at the beginning and end, the intervening description may leave its link unexplained. The Rudimentary band, 1–2, describes minimal or tenuous links, but this outline is not enough to assign that band to an exhibition.
5. Suppose the imagined file is 940 words long. Being within the limit leaves the reasoning question unchanged: which details explain the tool's contribution to knowledge?
6. Review the telescope's history for details that bear on the prompt. Keep those needed for its context, and use the remaining space to examine what this instrument enabled the writer to observe or infer.

The same object used in two constructed outlines, for analysis

1. These two constructed outlines use a laminated fire-evacuation notice on a classroom door and IA prompt 24: "How might the context in which knowledge is presented influence whether it is accepted or rejected?" They are for analysis, not commentaries to submit.
2. The first outline identifies the notice, describes its diagram and lettering, and concludes that presentation affects whether people take information in. Its context sentence says only that the notice is in a school.
3. A school is a type of place. The reader still needs to know which notice is meant and which features of its setting bear on the prompt.
4. The second outline identifies the room and door, gives the term when the notice was installed, and says that the writer had walked past it twice a day for two years without reading it.
5. Those details make the context more specific, but they do not yet establish acceptance or rejection of knowledge. Failing to read a notice concerns attention; the commentary must explain how that relates to the prompt's terms.
6. The object has stayed the same. The second outline supplies more evidence for an argument, while still leaving an inference to justify. Specific facts cannot replace that step.

Reading your own draft the way you read an exemplar

1. On your own draft you supply the missing links from memory as you read. An exemplar you read cold, and cold reading is what found its gaps.
2. For each object in your draft, locate the passage explaining its link to the prompt. Check whether a reader can follow the reasoning without supplying something from your memory.
3. Find any passage that states a link and then leaves it. Identify what evidence or explanation the reader would need to follow it.
4. Mark passages that tell the object's story. Decide which establish necessary context and which use space without contributing to the discussion of knowledge.
5. Write a short note on what each object contributes. If two notes make the same point, examine whether their contexts support a distinction worth developing.
6. Use this reading to locate problems, such as an asserted link in the second commentary. A list of specific revisions is more useful than guessing a mark.

Why published exemplars mislead if used as templates

1. Marked and annotated student exhibitions can help you compare your reading with an assessment judgement. Ask your teacher for suitable examples to analyse.
2. An exemplar records one writer's choices for one prompt and three particular objects. Its organisation follows from those choices.
3. Copying that shape imports decisions made for reasons you do not have: the order the objects come in, the space each was given, whether a shared setting was established before the first object.
4. Copying an object choice can also import somebody else's account of its context. Select objects whose specific contexts you can investigate and explain yourself.
5. Fluent work can conceal how much revision went into it. What looks effortless on the page may depend on evidence and choices that another exhibition cannot borrow.
6. Read two or three exemplars, compare how they explain links and contributions, then close them before returning to your own objects.