IB Theory of Knowledge 2.2 the Instrument: One Question, One Best-fit Judgement Out of 10 Notes

2.2 The instrument: one question, one best-fit judgement out of 10

The exhibition's driving question

1. The exhibition is assessed through one driving question: “Does the exhibition successfully show how TOK manifests in the world around us?” The descriptors describe how well the exhibition answers it, with no criteria scored separately.
2. A complete file still needs explanation. Having three objects, three contexts and three links on the page does not by itself show what those objects reveal about the selected prompt.
3. “Manifests” directs attention to knowledge in the world around you. Explain how features of your particular objects support a discussion of the prompt, rather than only attaching TOK vocabulary to them.
4. Because there is a single question, no part of the file falls outside it. Your title, your three images, each commentary and your references are read as one answer to the same sentence.
5. The driving question concerns what the submitted exhibition shows. Time spent and personal interest can help you develop it, but the reader needs explanations and evidence in the file itself.
6. Ask what each sentence contributes to your explanation. Description of an object's appearance is useful when that appearance matters to the link you make; otherwise it may take space from the reasoning.

Understanding best fit

1. Best fit means that the exhibition receives the descriptor that most accurately characterises its achievement as a whole. Presence of a feature alone does not establish how well it has been handled.
2. A sentence of context, a sentence of justification and a sentence of link can leave an explanation thin. Check whether those sentences give enough detail and reasoning for someone unfamiliar with the object to follow them.
3. The descriptors are holistic. Work need not meet every aspect of a descriptor to receive a mark in that level, but a missing explanation can still affect the judgment of the exhibition as a whole.
4. Copying descriptor vocabulary into a commentary does not establish the quality it names. Writing that your object has a specific real-world context leaves you to identify the relevant date, place, source or circumstances.
5. A commentary can justify an object without using the word justification. The reader needs to understand why the particular object belongs and what it contributes to the exhibition.
6. Use the descriptors to find passages you can improve. Point to the explanation of a link or an object's contribution, then ask what is supported and what the reader must infer. You do not need to predict your mark to make that revision.

Reading the five bands

1. The five described levels address recurring features such as context, links, justification and support. Following one feature through the descriptors can help you understand the differences, provided you remember that it is not scored on its own.
2. Take the link from an object to your prompt. In the Rudimentary band, 1–2, links are “minimal, tenuous, or it is not clear what the student is trying to convey”; in the Basic band, 3–4, the explanation of them is “unconvincing and/or unfocused”.
3. In the Satisfactory band, 5–6, there is “some explanation of the links between the three objects and the selected IA prompt”. When reviewing a link, ask which parts are explained and which are still left for the reader to supply.
4. In the Good band, 7–8, links are “explained, although this explanation may lack precision and clarity in parts”. Look for ambiguous wording or a step in the reasoning that has been left implicit.
5. In the Excellent band, 9–10, the links are “clearly made and well-explained”, and the same descriptor asks for points “well-supported by appropriate evidence and explicit references to the selected IA prompt”.
6. If a link is explained loosely, investigate the detail that would make it more precise. You might need to identify the relevant feature of the object, qualify a claim or explain how the evidence supports it.

One mark for the whole exhibition, never marks per object

1. One whole number out of 10 is awarded for the file. There is no mark for object one, object two and object three, and no total assembled out of three separate scores.
2. Each object still needs attention. The Excellent band, 9–10, asks for “a strong justification of the particular contribution that each individual object makes to the exhibition”. That requirement forms part of the holistic description.
3. If two objects are well explained and the third is thin, the third remains part of the exhibition being judged. Strong treatment of one object does not remove the need to justify the others.
4. If you provide images and commentaries for only two objects, the maximum available is 6 marks; for only one object, it is 3. These are task-specific limits, not separate marks allocated to objects.
5. Include all three objects and give each a commentary. Extra words about two objects do not substitute for a missing third object.

Different problems need different revisions

1. Two exhibitions may have different strengths and weaknesses. A holistic assessment considers their overall achievement, so an isolated strong paragraph cannot determine either exhibition's mark.
2. Consider two constructed illustrations for analysis, both on IA prompt 23: “How important are material tools in the production or acquisition of knowledge?” The first identifies three dated objects and gives each a separate justification, but leaves a step unexplained in each link to the prompt.
3. The second illustration argues two of its links with precision and evidence, and its third object repeats the second object’s justification with a different photograph above it.
4. The first illustration needs fuller reasoning in its links. The second needs a particular contribution for its third object. These sketches help identify different revision needs; they are too limited to establish a band or mark for either exhibition.
5. More words help only if they address the problem. The first needs the missing steps explained; the second needs its third object justified on its own terms or replaced with one whose contribution can be supported.
6. For your own file, name the problem before revising. Is the link unclear, is a claim unsupported, or is the contribution repeated? Each calls for a different change.

Using the driving question in revision

1. Your draft may contain features described in several bands. That is a reason to look at the whole exhibition rather than trying to assign a band to each sentence or object.
2. Ask how well the exhibition as a whole connects your chosen prompt to the world around you. Counting phrases that resemble descriptor wording will not answer that question.
3. Put the driving question to your own draft. Which passages show how knowledge is acquired, produced, shared or used in the particular contexts you identify? Where does the discussion remain general?
4. A generic third image can weaken an exhibition even if the other two objects have checkable contexts. Identify the particular thing the image represents and explain its circumstances before developing its link.
5. An object chosen because it was nearby can still work. What matters is whether you establish its context and explain a supported link and contribution, rather than how dramatic its discovery was.
6. You can begin self-review with the driving question, then use the descriptors to inspect the writing. That order may help you concentrate on what the exhibition shows before searching for particular features.

Supporting your commentary with evidence

1. An image identifies an object and may show details you use as evidence. The commentary explains the relevant context and why those details support your link to the prompt.
2. The descriptors put this as support. In the Excellent band, 9–10, points are “well-supported by appropriate evidence and explicit references to the selected IA prompt”; in the Rudimentary band, 1–2, a commentary “is highly descriptive or consists only of unsupported assertions”.
3. Evidence can support both an object's context and your claims about it. A date, source or record of use may help establish context; a citation is useful when the source supplies the information you rely on.
4. Support for a link also requires reasoning. Explain how the relevant feature of the object supports your claim about the prompt, using as much space as that step needs.
5. Check the scope of each claim. If you cannot support it, find suitable evidence, qualify it to match what you know or remove it. An unsupported generalisation does not become stronger because it sounds confident.
6. On your final pass, underline claims about the objects and check how each is supported. The evidence or explanation may occur elsewhere in the commentary; it need not follow in the next sentence.