Assessment instruments Theory of knowledge guide60 Presentation moderators will similarly endeavour to reach a holistic judgment based on the responses of the student(s) and teacher on the TK/PPD form. The markbands for each assessment task in effect represent a single holistic criterion applied to the piece of work, which is judged as a whole. The highest descriptor levels do not imply faultless performance and examiners and teachers should not hesitate to use the extremes if they are appropriate descriptions of the work being assessed. Part 1: Essay on a prescribed title The following diagram shows the question underpinning a global impression judgment of the TOK essay. This question is to shape the reading and assessing of TOK essays. Does the student present an appropriate and cogent analysis of knowledge questions in discussing the title? Has the student: understood the proposition? understood the knowledge questions that are explicit and implicit in the title, and/or linked the proposition to knowledge questions? developed a comprehensive and cogent point of view about the topic and appropriate knowledge questions? Figure 20 The judgment about the TOK essay is to be made on the basis of the following two aspects: 1. Understanding knowledge questions This aspect is concerned with the extent to which the essay focuses on knowledge questions relevant to the prescribed title, and with the depth and breadth of the understanding demonstrated in the essay. Knowledge questions addressed in the essay should be shown to have a direct connection to the chosen prescribed title, or to be important in relation to it. Depth of understanding is often indicated by drawing distinctions within WOKs and AOKs, or by connecting several facets of knowledge questions to these. Breadth of understanding is often indicated by making comparisons between WOKs and AOKs. Since not all prescribed titles lend themselves to an extensive treatment of an equal range of AOKs or WOKs, this element in the descriptors should be applied with concern for the particularity of the title. Assessment instruments Theory of knowledge guide 61 Relevant questions to be considered include the following. Does the essay demonstrate understanding of knowledge questions that are relevant to the prescribed title? Does the essay demonstrate an awareness of the connections between knowledge questions, AOKs and WOKs? Does the student show an awareness of his or her own perspective as a knower in relation to other perspectives, such as those that may arise, for example, from academic and philosophical traditions, culture or position in society (gender, age, and so on)? 2. Quality of analysis of knowledge questions This aspect is concerned only with knowledge questions that are relevant to the prescribed title. Relevant questions to be considered include the following. What is the quality of the inquiry into knowledge questions? Are the main points in ...

1. Assessment instruments
Theory of knowledge guide60
Presentation moderators will similarly endeavour to reach a
holistic judgment based on the responses of the
student(s) and teacher on the TK/PPD form.
The markbands for each assessment task in effect represent a
single holistic criterion applied to the piece
of work, which is judged as a whole. The highest descriptor
levels do not imply faultless performance and
examiners and teachers should not hesitate to use the extremes
if they are appropriate descriptions of the
work being assessed.
Part 1: Essay on a prescribed title
The following diagram shows the question underpinning a
global impression judgment of the TOK essay.
This question is to shape the reading and assessing of TOK
essays.
Does the student present an appropriate and cogent analysis
of knowledge questions in discussing the title?
Has the student:
understood the proposition?
understood the knowledge questions that are explicit
and implicit in the title, and/or linked the proposition to
knowledge questions?

2. developed a comprehensive and cogent point of view about
the topic and appropriate knowledge questions?
Figure 20
The judgment about the TOK essay is to be made on the basis of
the following two aspects:
1. Understanding knowledge questions
This aspect is concerned with the extent to which the essay
focuses on knowledge questions relevant to the
prescribed title, and with the depth and breadth of the
understanding demonstrated in the essay.
Knowledge questions addressed in the essay should be shown to
have a direct connection to the chosen
prescribed title, or to be important in relation to it.
Depth of understanding is often indicated by drawing
distinctions within WOKs and AOKs, or by connecting
several facets of knowledge questions to these.
Breadth of understanding is often indicated by making
comparisons between WOKs and AOKs. Since not
all prescribed titles lend themselves to an extensive treatment of
an equal range of AOKs or WOKs, this
element in the descriptors should be applied with concern for
the particularity of the title.
Assessment instruments
Theory of knowledge guide 61
Relevant questions to be considered include the following.

3. Does the essay demonstrate understanding of knowledge
questions that are relevant to the prescribed
title?
Does the essay demonstrate an awareness of the connections
between knowledge questions, AOKs
and WOKs?
Does the student show an awareness of his or her own
perspective as a knower in relation to other
perspectives, such as those that may arise, for example, from
academic and philosophical traditions,
culture or position in society (gender, age, and so on)?
2. Quality of analysis of knowledge questions
This aspect is concerned only with knowledge questions that are
relevant to the prescribed title.
Relevant questions to be considered include the following.
What is the quality of the inquiry into knowledge questions?
Are the main points in the essay justified?
Are the arguments coherent and compelling?
Have counterclaims been considered?
Are the implications and underlying assumptions of the essay’s
argument identified?
Are the arguments effectively evaluated?
Analysis of a knowledge question that is not relevant to the
prescribed title will not be assessed.

4. Note: The TOK essay is not an assessment of first or second
language literacy. Students should have
properly edited their work, but whether they have done so is not
in itself a matter for assessment.
While the two are usually highly correlated, assessors will be
wary of taking linguistic fluency for
substantive understanding and analysis of knowledge questions.
A fluent and stylish rendition of
different knowledge questions does not in itself amount to
analysis or argument. Discussion of
knowledge questions must be clearly related and appropriately
linked to a set title. Equally, an essay
written with minor mechanical and grammatical errors can still
be an excellent essay and examiners
will not take these errors into consideration when marking the
essay. It is only when these errors
become major and impede the comprehension of the essay that
they will be taken into account.
Assessment instruments
Theory of knowledge guide62
TO
K
e
ss
ay
a
ss

5. es
sm
en
t
in
st
ru
m
en
t
D
o
es
t
h
e
st
u
d
en
t
p
re
se

6. n
t
an
a
p
p
ro
p
ri
at
e
an
d
c
o
g
en
t
an
al
ys
is
o
f k

7. n
o
w
le
d
g
e
q
u
es
ti
o
n
s
in
d
is
cu
ss
in
g
t
h
e

8. ti
tl
e?
A
sp
ec
t
Le
ve
l 5
Ex
ce
lle
n
t
9
–1
0
Le
ve
l 4
Ve
ry

9. g
o
o
d
7–
8
Le
ve
l 3
Sa
ti
sf
ac
to
ry
5–
6
Le
ve
l 2
B
as
ic

10. 3–
4
Le
ve
l 1
El
em
en
ta
ry
1–
2
Ir
re
le
va
n
t
0
U
n
d
er
st

11. an
d
in
g
kn
o
w
le
d
g
e
q
u
es
ti
o
n
s
Th
er
e
is
a

12. s
us
ta
in
ed
fo
cu
s
o
n
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
q
u
es
ti
o

13. n
s
co
n
n
ec
te
d
to
t
h
e
p
re
sc
ri
b
ed
ti
tl
e
an

14. d
a
re
w
el
l
ch
o
se
n
—
d
ev
el
o
p
ed
w
it
h
in
ve
st

15. ig
at
io
n
o
f d
if
fe
re
n
t
p
er
sp
ec
ti
ve
s
an
d
li
n
ke

16. d
e
ff
ec
ti
ve
ly
t
o
ar
ea
s
o
f k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
an
d

17. /o
r
w
ay
s
o
f
k
n
o
w
in
g
.
Th
er
e
is
a
fo
cu
s
o
n

18. k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
q
u
es
ti
o
n
s
co
nn
ec
te
d
to
t
h
e

19. p
re
sc
ri
b
ed
ti
tl
e—
d
ev
el
o
p
ed
w
it
h
a
ck
no
w

20. le
dg
m
en
t
o
f d
if
fe
re
n
t
p
er
sp
ec
ti
ve
s
an
d
li
n

21. ke
d
t
o
a
re
as
o
f
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
an
d
/o
r
w
ay
s

22. o
f k
n
o
w
in
g
.
Th
er
e
is
a
fo
cu
s
o
n
so
m
e
k
n

23. o
w
le
d
g
e
q
u
es
ti
o
n
s
co
nn
ec
te
d
to
t
h
e
p
re

24. sc
ri
b
ed
ti
tl
e—
w
it
h
s
om
e
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
an
d

25. li
n
k
in
g
t
o
a
re
as
o
f
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
an
d
/o

26. r
w
ay
s
o
f k
n
o
w
in
g
.
So
m
e
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
q

27. u
es
ti
o
n
s
th
at
a
re
co
nn
ec
te
d
to
t
h
e
p
re
sc
ri

28. b
ed
t
it
le
a
re
co
n
si
d
er
ed
, b
u
t
th
e
es
sa
y
is
la

29. rg
el
y
de
sc
ri
pt
iv
e,
w
it
h
su
pe
rf
ic
ia
l o
r l
im
ite
d
li

30. n
k
s
to
a
re
as
o
f
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
an
d
/o
r
w
ay
s

31. o
f k
n
o
w
in
g
.
Th
e
es
sa
y
h
as
o
n
ly
ve
ry
li
m
it

32. ed
re
le
va
n
ce
to
t
h
e
p
re
sc
ri
b
ed
ti
tl
e—
re
le
va

33. n
t
p
o
in
ts
ar
e
de
sc
ri
pt
iv
e.
Th
e
es
sa
y
d
o
es

34. n
o
t
re
ac
h
a
s
ta
n
d
ar
d
d
es
cr
ib
ed
b
y
le
ve
ls

35. 1–
5
o
r i
s
n
o
t
a
re
sp
o
n
se
t
o
o
n
e
o
f t
h
e

36. p
re
sc
ri
b
ed
t
it
le
s
o
n
th
e
lis
t
fo
r t
h
e
cu
rr
en

37. t
se
ss
io
n
.
Q
u
al
it
y
o
f a
n
al
ys
is
o
f
kn
o
w
le
d

38. g
e
q
u
es
ti
o
n
s
A
rg
u
m
en
ts
a
re
c
le
ar
,
su
p
p

39. o
rt
ed
b
y
re
al
-l
if
e
ex
am
p
le
s
an
d
a
re
ef
fe
ct
iv

40. el
y
ev
al
ua
te
d;
co
u
n
te
rc
la
im
s
ar
e
ex
te
n
si
ve
ly

41. e
xp
lo
re
d;
im
p
li
ca
ti
o
n
s
ar
e
dr
aw
n.
A
rg
um
en
ts

42. a
re
c
le
ar
,
su
p
p
or
te
d
b
y
re
al
-
lif
e
ex
am
p
le
s

43. an
d
ar
e
ev
al
ua
te
d;
s
om
e
co
u
n
te
rc
la
im
s
ar
e
id

44. en
tif
ie
d
a
nd
e
xp
lo
re
d.
So
m
e
ar
g
u
m
en
ts
a
re
cl

45. ea
r a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
rt
ed
b
y
ex
am
p
le
s;
s
o
m
e
co

46. u
n
te
rc
la
im
s
ar
e
id
en
tif
ie
d.
A
rg
u
m
en
ts
a
re
o
ff

47. er
ed
b
u
t
ar
e
un
cl
ea
r a
n
d
/
o
r n
ot
s
up
po
rt
ed
b

48. y
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
ex
am
p
le
s.
A
ss
er
ti
o
n
s
ar
e
o
ff
er

49. ed
b
u
t
ar
e
no
t
su
pp
or
te
d.
So
m
e
p
o
ss
ib
le
c
h
ar

50. ac
te
ri
st
ic
s
C
o
g
en
t
A
cc
o
m
p
lis
h
ed
D
is
ce
rn
in

51. g
In
d
iv
id
u
al
Lu
ci
d
In
si
g
h
tf
u
l
C
o
m
p
el
lin
g

52. Pe
rt
in
en
t
R
el
ev
an
t
Th
o
u
g
h
tf
u
l
A
n
al
yt
ic
al

53. O
rg
an
iz
ed
C
re
d
ib
le
C
o
h
er
en
t
Ty
p
ic
al
A
cc
ep
ta

54. b
le
M
ai
n
st
re
am
A
d
eq
u
at
e
C
o
m
p
et
en
t
U
n

55. d
er
d
ev
el
o
p
ed
B
as
ic
Su
p
er
fi
ci
al
D
er
iv
at
iv
e
Ru

56. d
im
en
ta
ry
Li
m
it
ed
In
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
D
es
cr
ip
ti
ve
In
co
h

57. er
en
t
Fo
rm
le
ss