home
Mission
///
home
///

Writing the Essay

Search
The TOK prescribed title essay is a central component (worth 67% of final grade) of the IB TOK course, challenging students to engage critically with a chosen title. It encourages exploration of knowledge questions (KQ) and concepts through the lens of Areas of Knowledge (AoKs). Understanding its purpose, structure, and assessment criteria is crucial for writing a focused and well-argued essay.
•
Purpose: To answer a prescribed title (PT) by analyzing knowledge questions using AoKs, concepts, and examples.
•
Scope: The essay is not about personal opinion; it’s a critical engagement with how knowledge is created, validated, and communicated.
•
Word Count Limit: 1600
Assessment Criteria
Does the student provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title?
Possible characteristics
3.1 Overview
TOK prescribed titles typically fall into a few distinct types of questions, each designed to prompt critical thinking and nuanced analysis of knowledge issues. Here's an overview of the common types of questions in prescribed titles.
1.
Yes/No Questions
These questions invite the writer to take a stance but require justification, nuance, and exploration of both sides. Though it appears as a yes/no question, a strong TOK essay will explore the complexities, conditions, and implications of answering in either direction.
"In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.”
•
Example Argument: “In the natural sciences, anomalies often serve as catalysts for paradigm shifts, and dismissing them too quickly risks overlooking opportunities to drive transformative advancements in knowledge.”
•
Example Counter Argument: “However, in the natural sciences, dismissing anomalies can be a practical necessity to avoid being misled by experimental errors, ensuring the focus remains on replicable findings.”
2.
“To What Extent” Questions
These questions require evaluation of the degree or limits of a claim or principle. They emphasize analysis, comparison, and weighing of evidence.
“To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.”
•
Example Argument: “In the human sciences, hypotheses differ significantly from speculation because they are systematically developed based on observable phenomena, whereas speculation lacks the methodological rigor required to generate knowledge.”
Example Counter Argument: “Nonetheless, in the human sciences, the distinction between hypothesis and speculation is often blurred because the complexity of human phenomena sometimes prevents hypotheses from being empirically tested, leaving them closer to informed speculation.”
3.
“How” Questions
These questions focus on mechanisms, methodologies, or relationships between concepts, often requiring detailed exploration of processes or implications.
“How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.”
•
Example Argument: “In history, severing ties with its past allows the field to overcome entrenched biases and prioritize marginalized perspectives, fostering a more equitable understanding of historical narratives.”
3.2 Types of Prescribed Titles (PT)
When approaching the TOK PT essay, one of the most critical steps is selecting the appropriate PT and relevant Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) to analyze. Your choice can significantly impact how well you respond to the PT and demonstrate your understanding of TOK concepts.
3 Step Guide to Selecting a PT and Choosing Two AoKs:
1.
Break Down the Titles and Understanding Their Implications
•
Understand the type of question and identify the key terms and assumptions in each title.
2.
Rank Titles by Analytical Depth and Scoring Potential
•
Select titles with AoKs you’re comfortable investigating in depth, ensuring you understand their methods and tools.
•
Remember that each AoK has unique methods of inquiry, standards of evidence, and purposes. Use these characteristics to evaluate which AoKs are relevant to your chosen title.
3.
Choose a Title That Matches Your Strengths
•
Play to your academic strengths and interests. Avoid unnecessarily challenging yourself with titles that do not make clear sense to you.
•
Note that you are not limited to selecting AoKs that match your course selection.
3.3 Unpacking the PTs and Selecting AoKs
Crafting a compelling argument for a TOK essay requires balancing intuition, evidence, and critical reflection. Here's a streamlined three-step process to guide you in building arguments that align with the PT while showcasing your analytical skills.
Step 1: Unpack the PT and Draft an Argument with Gut Feeling
1.
Interpret the Title: Identify key terms or phrases in the title.
•
For example, if the title asks about "certainty in the pursuit of knowledge," think about what certainty means to you and how you’ve encountered it.
2.
Ask Yourself Key Questions:
•
Which AoKs immediately come to mind for this title?
•
What examples seem relevant?
•
What TOK concepts (e.g., evidence, justification, or power) could connect with this?
3.
Write Down a Draft Argument: Use your intuition to form a rough thesis or statement that responds to the title. Don’t worry about perfection; focus on expressing your gut reaction.
Example: "Historians and human scientists share an ethical obligation to consider contradictory evidence, as ignoring it can distort the pursuit of objective understanding; however, the extent of this obligation differs. In History, selective evidence risks shaping biased narratives while in the Human Sciences, empirical methodologies allow contradictory evidence to be managed systematically."
Step 2: Research Real-Life Situations (RLS) That Support the Idea
1.
Identify Relevant RLS: Choose specific, real-world examples that align with the PT and AoKs.
•
Avoid RLSs that many students might also consider using. In other words, start with what you already know and begin your research for more complex and sophisticated RLSs.
•
Utilize AI-platforms (e.g., ChatGPT) to brainstorm ideas.
2.
Pick a RLS That Strengthens Your Argument: Analyze examples critically, linking them to at least 2 TOK concepts each.
3.4 Building a Strong Argument and Selecting RLSs

a. Introduction

Define the title, introduce the knowledge question (optional), and state thesis.
•
Hook: Establish the broader context and significance of the title.
•
Knowledge Question (KQ): reformulated question of the PT
•
Thesis: Outline the approach you will take, including the two AOKs and justification.
PT: “Without application in the world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.

b. Argument

Analyze the claim for AOK1 using one unique RLS.
•
Topic Sentence: Begin by clearly stating the main argument of the paragraph. Ensure it is specific to the AoK you are addressing.
•
Explain Key Concepts: Provide a brief explanation of any key concepts or terms that are central to your argument. This step helps clarify your point and ensure that the reader understands the context of the argument.
•
Introduce RLS: Introduce the RLS that will support your argument. This should be concise and directly connected to the point you are making. Include appropriate citations.
3.5 Structuring the Essay

Unpacking PT

Interpret the Title:
•
Key terms: application, value of knowledge
Ask Yourself Key Questions:
•
Which AoKs immediately come to mind for this title?
•
What examples seem relevant?
•
What TOK concepts (e.g., evidence, justification, or power) could connect with this?
Write a Draft Argument:
"Knowledge can have application in the world in two different ways: it can make relevant comments about the world and it can make impactful changes to the world. These applications are essential in determining the value of knowledge."

Essay

As a child growing up, I understood the point of learning rudimentary science and mathematics to avoid coming across as particularly ignorant, but I failed to see the possible future use of concepts such as Pythagoras Theorem in mathematics or the Steady State Theory in physics. From the age of 13, I was convinced that I was headed for a career in Law, and questioned the point of acquiring knowledge that did not directly assist me in my future profession. I held application in the world, specifically my future career, as the benchmark for the value judgement of knowledge. Although I still use application in the world as the main factor in evaluating knowledge, my understanding of application in the world has changed drastically, now allowing for the definition to differ in respective areas of knowledge. For instance, within the arts I define application as making relevant commentary about the state or future state of the world, while in the natural sciences I see application as making relevant and impactful changes to the natural world. For me, these applications are essential in determining the value of knowledge.
When we discuss whether knowledge is a means to an end or an end-in-itself, I tend to look to art, specifically visual art, as an example of the latter. Beauty is a vital part of the judgement of art, and many artists emphasise beauty and subjective appeal over all considerations, including application, in the judgement of an art piece’s value. In the early 19th century, the French phrase I’art pour I’art marked a movement to divorce art from any didactic, moral, or utilitarian function, but to see it as autotelic. The development of the ‘cult of beauty’ rejected the notion that art had a duty to make relevant commentary about the world. Although Russian, William Kandinsky’s Composition VII exemplified the I’art pour I’art1^1 movement as he believed he could ‘reduce his compositions to arrangements of colours, lines, and shapes… believing [they] could exist autonomously in a painting without any connection to recognizable objects’2^2. Kandinsky believed that no attempt should be made to extrapolate an external meaning from his work. Although a popular movement, it attracted many justified critiques, specifically from an English art critic John Ruskin, who saw art as having a duty to comment on the world, and viewed inapplicable but aesthetically pleasing art as having little to no value. This utilitarian belief led to the emergence of a counter movement: beauty for truth’s sake which emphasised the necessity of application in evaluating art. American playwright James A. Herne believed that beauty was not essential in art; instead truth and application played a more vital role.
3.6 Exemplar A

Unpacking PT

Interpret the Title:
•
Key terms: disputes, resolvable
Ask Yourself Key Questions:
•
Which AoKs immediately come to mind for this title?
•
What examples seem relevant?
•
What TOK concepts (e.g., evidence, justification, or power) could connect with this?
Write a Draft Argument:
"While theoretical disputes occur from using prior theories and unsubstantiated by empirical evidence, practical disputes arise from claims that are formulated from empirical data. The resolvability of a dispute within a discipline largely depends on the nature of the dispute.”

Essay

Disputes over knowledge claims within disciplines constantly arise as man constantly pushes the boundaries of our knowledge. Disputes arise when facts within the domain are either unexplainable or contradictions exist between propositions. Discussing whether disputes over knowledge claims are always resolvable would shed more light on how to go about addressing future disputes, and important factors to consider when faced with contradictory claims. In this essay, theoretical and practical disputes will be discussed. Theoretical disputes are differing knowledge claims, arrived at using prior theories and unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. Practical disputes refer to contradictions between claims that are formulated from empirical data. 'Resolvable' is the act of dismissing or reconciling conflicting claims. In this essay, the discipline of Physics from the Natural Sciences and the discipline of Psychology from the Human Sciences will be compared and contrasted to justify the perspective that the resolvability of a dispute within a discipline largely depends on the nature of the dispute.
Theoretical disputes may be resolved using evidence obtained through experimentation. The implementation of the scientific method in both disciplines dictates that scientific knowledge claims are testable, which means they can be falsified through empirical evidence. The scientific method is a systematic process in which scientists make use of experimental and empirical data to substantiate their observations and support their hypothesis.9^9 This then leads to either the abolishment, strengthening or replacement of an existing theory.
3.7 Exemplar B