IB Theory of Knowledge 3.2 the Instrument: One Question, Five Bands Notes

3.2 The instrument: one question, five bands

The single assessment question

1. The assessment instrument for the essay states one driving question: "Does the student provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title?" Every described level is a way of answering that one question about a particular script.
2. Clear writing lets a reader identify your claims. Coherent reasoning connects them. Critical exploration tests their support, assumptions, implications and competing interpretations.
3. You can take a position early and still explore the title. The question is whether the discussion tests that position, rather than protecting it from every challenge.
4. The instrument assesses the quality of your exploration. The reader need not agree with your conclusion, but your reasoning and examples must support it.
5. There are five described bands: Excellent, 9–10; Good, 7–8; Satisfactory, 5–6; Basic, 3–4; and Rudimentary, 1–2. The 0 category covers work below those descriptions or an essay that does not answer a prescribed title for the correct session.
6. The essay receives one whole-number mark out of 10. There are no fractional marks or separately scored criteria.

Sustained focus on the title

1. The Excellent band, 9–10, describes "a sustained focus on the title". The Good band, 7–8, describes discussion that "is focused on the title". Read this difference alongside the rest of each descriptor, not as an isolated word that determines a mark.
2. Take each paragraph in turn and explain how it develops the title's question. A paragraph may support the argument indirectly, but you should be able to trace that connection.
3. The Basic band, 3–4, describes discussion connected to the title with superficial or limited links to areas of knowledge; the Rudimentary band, 1–2, describes discussion weakly connected to it. These are descriptions of whole essays, not labels to attach to individual paragraphs.
4. Repeating the title does not explain how a paragraph advances your answer. Connect the example or argument to the relationship the title asks you to explore.
5. Clarify terms such as reliability or progress where their meaning affects the argument. Use them consistently, and explain any distinction or revision rather than keeping their meaning unstable.

How the bands describe argument

1. The descriptors consider effective links to areas of knowledge, rather than rewarding how many areas you mention. The prescribed title determines which areas, and how many, your essay must address.
2. The Excellent band, 9–10, describes arguments "effectively supported by specific examples". The Rudimentary band, 1–2, describes relevant points that may be descriptive or unsupported. Check the inference connecting a case to your claim.
3. The Excellent band, 9–10, states: "The implications of arguments are considered." An implication is something further that follows if the argument holds, such as a consequence for what can be claimed in that area of knowledge.
4. The descriptors distinguish awareness of other points of view from evaluating them. Evaluation explains their strengths, limitations and bearing on the question; merely listing them leaves that work undone.
5. Coherence concerns how the reasoning connects. An orderly layout helps readers, but tidy headings cannot resolve claims that contradict one another without explanation.

Holistic judgement of uneven work

1. Both tasks use global impression marking: one holistic judgement of the whole piece of work. Separate criteria are not scored and added together.
2. A descriptor is not a checklist of necessary features. An essay need not meet every aspect of a level perfectly for that level to describe it best.
3. A strong section contributes to the overall judgement, but the rest of the essay matters too. Read across the whole argument for sustained focus, support and evaluation.
4. When different parts of a draft suggest different strengths or weaknesses, return to the driving question. Ask how the essay works as a clear, coherent and critical exploration of its title.
5. The Excellent band, 9–10, does not require faultless performance. Revision should strengthen the exploration, rather than chase an imagined flawless template.

Two constructed outlines with different weaknesses, for analysis

1. Consider this constructed practice question for analysis, not a prescribed title: Does the way a discipline tests its claims limit what it can be certain about? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge. The following outline comparisons identify revision needs, without assigning either a band.
2. The first outline connects its claims and weighs a rival interpretation, but refers to science and historians in general instead of specific cases. Its reasoning needs evidence a reader can inspect.
3. The second outline includes two accurately described cases, both supporting the same claim. It introduces a rival interpretation near the end without explaining how that interpretation affects the argument.
4. The first outline needs more specific support; the second needs evaluation of the rival reading. Those weaknesses can occur in different combinations across a completed essay.
5. For the first, investigate cases that support or challenge its claims. For the second, weigh the rival reading and explain whether it changes the conclusion or why the original position remains stronger.
6. Use descriptor language to locate the reasoning that needs work. A band label by itself does not tell you which case is underexplained or which objection remains unanswered.

Avoiding a structure that substitutes for evaluation

1. The assessment instrument specifies no paragraph count. Choose an organisation that lets the reader follow the argument and its links to the title.
2. A claim followed by its opposite leaves a question unresolved unless you weigh their support. Explain when each holds, which is stronger, or how their relationship changes the answer.
3. Repeating an argument–example–verdict cycle in each area of knowledge can hide the connection between them. Check what the second discussion adds to the first.
4. An example you only partly understand is difficult to evaluate. Investigate the feature your claim depends on before relying on it.
5. Explain why the example is relevant. Give the reader the inference you draw from it and the limits of that inference.
6. Consider implications where they arise in the argument. Leaving them all to the ending can make them underdeveloped, and anything beyond 1,600 words is not assessed.

Reading your own draft with the instrument

1. Read your draft against the driving question. Identify where the essay explores the title and where subject description has displaced that exploration.
2. Use the full assessment instrument while reviewing. Ask your teacher for a copy if needed.
3. Locate passages showing focus, support, evaluation and implications, then consider how they work together. These questions can guide revision; they are not separately scored boxes to tick.
4. Record specific gaps you can investigate. You do not need to predict a band to notice that a case lacks a source or that a rival view has only been named.
5. Review the draft before your teacher reads it. You may receive oral or written advice on one full draft; your teacher may not mark or edit it.
6. Make the improvements you can, then bring unresolved questions to the draft discussion. You need not solve every difficulty alone before seeking advice.