IB1 ToK (Group B)
During IB1 TOK, we'll continue to work through the the eight Areas of Knowledge
from the TOK subject guide, considering the eight Ways of Knowing as we do so, as
well as looking at some central TOK concepts. The following list can serve as a useful
reference during your TOK studies, and is worth hanging on to.
Areas of Knowledge (AOKs)
Mathematics
Natural Sciences
Human Sciences
History
Ethics
The Arts
Indigenous Knowledge Systems
Religion
Ways of Knowing (WOKs)
Sense perception
Memory
Language
Emotion
Reason
Intuition
Creativity
Faith
Central TOK concepts
Truth
Theory / Hypothesis
Prediction
Explanation
Interpretation
Justification
Evidence
Proof
Models
Observation
Quantitative/qualitative data
Expertise
In order to pass IB1 TOK, you'll need to satisfy the following five requirements:
Both courses
Attendance
•
Online discussion forums
•
Either course 1 or 2
Practice TOK presentation
•
TOK debate
•
TOK essay preparation
•
The Presentation: guidance
During IB1 you will be giving a practice TOK presentation. The presentation will not
be graded, but the “assessment instrument” is included in this document to give you
an indication of what you should be aiming for. Your real TOK presentation (33% of
your final TOK grade) will be done in IB2.
A TOK presentation is an exploration of a knowledge question that is based on a
real-life situation. For your assessed IB2 presentation, you will have to come up
with both of these yourselves, but for this practice presentation you are given both
below.
The presentation should take between 15 and 20 minutes, and the following steps are
the standard way to approach it (timings are merely guidelines).
1. Brief explanation of the real-life situation (2-3 minutes)
2. Recognition of the main knowledge question suggested by the reallife situation (1 minute)
3. Development and analysis of the knowledge question (10-15
minutes)
4. Application of analysis of the knowledge question(s) back to the
real-life situation, and to other relevant real-life situations (3-5
minutes)
5. Class discussion (led by the presenters)
During the development and analysis of your knowledge issue, you might
want to do the following:
•
consider how your question might be answered in different AOKs
•
explore the role of WOKs in your knowledge question
•
consider how the question can be answered in different ways (from different
perspectives) and then explore these different perspectives
•
see if you can reconcile the different perspectives by, say, recognising in what
circumstances each is valid
•
reach a personal conclusion – your own stance on the knowledge question
•
consider the implications of the stance you've taken on the knowledge issue(s)
You are encouraged to include a dramatic element in the presentation, such
as a discussion between 2 people about your knowledge issue, or maybe a TV chat
show or a court case. These dramatic elements often work very well as they
encourage you to consider and present different perspectives, but they often work
best as only a part of your overall presentation.
On the following page, you have the diagram we looked at in class that represents the
above in visual form.
THE PRESENTATIONS: titles, dates and groups
The title given below is the knowledge question (KQ), details of the reallife situation are given underneath the title. I have given you the knowledge
question as the title as this should be the question with which your presentation
engages for the vast majority of its duration, but remember that you need to start off
the presentation with a brief mention of the real-life situation, and you should also
relate the conclusions of your discussion back to the real-life situation at the end of
your presentation.
1: Do our attempts to measure and observe the world affect our
understanding of it?
This KQ is asking you to consider whether there are ways to overcome the fact that
the very act of observing the world in some way influences it, and thereby perhaps
affects our understanding of it. Your real-life situation will be some research into
human behaviour that you conduct in the TOK lesson preceding your presentation
lesson.
Date: August 27
Presented by: Karl & Amanda
2: Which field provides us with the most knowledge about the human
condition (i.e. knowledge about what it's like to be human): psychology,
literature or religion?
You don't need to be an expert on psychology for this, but some idea would help. Use
the novels you're studying in your A language(s) as part of your real-life situation,
and the findings of some psychological research (such as the famous experiments we
refer to in class when we do out own psychological experiments).
Date: September 1
Presented by: Julia & Tim
3: Does the reliance of mathematical knowledge on axioms suggest that
accepting mathematical truths is merely an act of faith?
Your real-life situation is the following Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. You might wish to
consider what similarities/differences exist between the acceptance of mathematical
axioms and religious dogma? How does this compare to other areas of knowledge?
Date: September 10
Presented by: Julius & Jonas
4: How can intuition lead to knowledge?
Your group will have a slightly unusual presentation, inasmuch as your real-life
situation will be a game that the class play, led by me, for the first 20-30 minutes of
the lesson. After we've finished, you'll take over and pick up from where we left off.
Needless to say, you'll need to talk to me in advance so I can explain the game to you.
As for your knowledge issue, you'll probably want to consider what role intuition has
to play in different areas of knowledge.
Date: September 15
Presented by: Ellis & Tia
5: What is the relationship between mathematical value and beauty
and/or elegance?
Paul Erdos is quoted as saying, "Why are numbers beautiful? It's like asking why
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is beautiful. If you don't see why, someone can't tell
you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is." Use this as
your real-life situation, together with an example of an elegant mathematical
equation (such as the one involving e, i and Π).
Date: September 17
Presented by: Rashwita & Oliver
6: What is it about expertise that gives expert opinion credibility?
1421: The Year China Discovered the World is a book by Gavin Menzies in which he
claims that Chinese fleets “discovered” the Americas before Columbus. But Menzies is
an amateur historian with no academic background, and his claims have been
rejected by the academic community. I'll lend you a copy of the book, which you
should use to familiarise yourself with why Menzies believes that his background
qualifies him to make these claims. You can also find evidence for his claims online.
For a related real-life situation, don't forget what we looked at in PreDP.
Date: September 24
Presented by: Okeme & Emilia
7: As moral opinions clearly do conflict, does it follow that, in ethics,
there is no such justifiable concept as right or wrong?
Your real-life situation can be found in the news report at the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
Date: February 11
Presented by: Erik & Erika
8: To what extent does the possession of knowledge carry ethical
responsibilities?
The latest (2013) IPCC report, and its ethical implications, are your real-life situation,
although you should bear in mind that your presentation should be a broader
discussion of the knowledge question than the natural science focus of this particular
example. There's a summary of the report at the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
And, as it might be useful for this presentation, a link to one of the UK's largest
newspapers' takes on the topic:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-ReturnArctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Date: March 1
Presented by: Bálint & Nicolas
9: How can one gauge the extent to which history is told from a particular
perspective?
Your real-life situation is in the form of two films, both of which are set in the same
historical period and indeed tell what is more or less the same story. But the films
were made 40 years apart, and thus represent different historical perspectives. One is
Spartacus, from 1960, and the other is Gladiator, from 2000. It is my understanding
that comparing the gladiator fight sequences from both films should give evidence of
how different perspectives can lead to very different understandings of historical
events (the event in this case being Roman gladiator fights).
Date: March 8
Presented by: Marco & Kristian
10: Are the arts a system of knowledge?
Take as your real-life situation a paraphrase of a quote by Martin Mull, namely that
talking about music is like dancing about architecture. Needless to say, your
presentation will have to take a stance on what knowledge actually is.
Date: March 29
Presented by: Jonas & Liva
TOK Assessment Instrument: Presentations
Level 5
Excellent
9-10
Level 4
Very good
7-8
Level 3
Satisfactory
5-6
Level 2
Basic
3-4
Level 1
Elementary
1-2
The presentation is
focused on a wellformulated
knowledge question
that is clearly
connected to a
specified real-life
situation. The
knowledge question
is effectively explored
in the context of the
real- life situation,
using convincing
arguments, with
investigation of
different
perspectives. The
outcomes of the
analysis are shown to
be significant to the
chosen real-life
situation and to
others.
The presentation is
focused on a
knowledge question
that is connected to a
specified real-life
situation. The
knowledge question
is explored in the
context of the reallife situation, using
clear arguments, with
acknowledgement of
different
perspectives. The
outcomes of the
analysis are shown to
be significant to the
real-life situation.
The presentation
identifies a
knowledge question
that has some
connection to a
specified real-life
situation. The
knowledge question
is explored in the
context of the reallife situation, using
some adequate
arguments. There is
some awareness of
the significance of the
outcomes of the
analysis.
The presentation
identifies a
knowledge question
and a real-life
situation, although
the connection
between them may
not be convincing.
There is some
attempt to explore
the knowledge
question. There is
limited awareness of
the significance of the
outcomes of the
analysis.
The presentation
describes a real-life
situation without
reference to any
knowledge question,
or treats an abstract
knowledge question
without connecting it
to any specific reallife situation.
Some possible characteristics
Sophisticated
Discerning
Insightful
Compelling
Lucid
Credible
Analytical
Organized
Pertinent
Coherent
Relevant
Adequate
Acceptable
Predictable
Underdeveloped
Basic
Unbalanced
Superficial
Derivative
Rudimentary
Ineffective
Unconnected
Incoherent
Formless
TOK Debates
For our debates, we'll follow the same debating format that we familiarised ourselves
with in PreDP: the parliamentary debate. You will be in groups of either 2 or 3
students, and the roles and procedure differ slightly depending on the number.
Details of the roles and procedure can be found below.
In order to prepare for your debate, you should prepare some arguments AND decide
who will fill each of the roles.
1: Although scientific knowledge can change over time, we can,
nevertheless, explain the natural world with certainty.
Date: August 21
Affirmative: Jonas & Liva
Negative: Marco & Kristian
2: Mathematics is discovered, not invented.
Date: September 11
Affirmative: Bálint & Erika
Negative: Nicolas & Erik
3: Moral decisions should be based primarily on reason, not emotion.
Date: February 18
Affirmative: Ellis, Rashwita & Julius
Negative: Oliver, Tia & Erik
4: The world would be a better place with only one language.
The following TED talks present the two sides of this debate rather well:
- http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_pagel_how_language_transformed_humanity.html
- http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures.html
Date: March 15
Affirmative: Karl, Julia & Emilia
Negative: Amanda, Tim & Okeme
Debates: Roles and Procedure
TEAMS OF
TWO
Affirmative: Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
Negative: Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition
1: Affirmative speech (3 minutes)
The Prime Minister gives the main arguments and attempts to persuade the audience that the proposition is true.
2: Questions (2 minutes)
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition questions the PM on the contents of her speech.
3: Negative speech (3 minutes)
The Leader of the Opposition gives her main arguments and attempts to persuade the audience that the
proposition is false.
4: Questions (2 minutes)
The Deputy Prime Minister questions the Leader of the Opposition on the contents of her speech.
5: Rebuttal from the negative team (2 minutes)
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition attempts to refute the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister.
6: Rebuttal from the affirmative team (2 minutes)
The Deputy Prime Minister attempts to refute the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
7: GENERAL DISCUSSION and audience questions
8: Closing affirmative speech (1 minute)
Final summary of arguments from the Prime Minister
9: Closing negative speech (1 minute)
Final summary of arguments from the Leader of the Opposition
10: VOTING
TEAMS OF
THREE
Affirmative: Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Secretary
Negative: Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and
Shadow Home Secretary
1: Affirmative speech (3 minutes)
The Prime Minister gives the main arguments and attempts to persuade the audience that the proposition is true.
2: Questions (2 minutes)
The Shadow Home Secretary questions the PM on the contents of her speech.
3: Negative speech (3 minutes)
The Leader of the Opposition gives her main arguments and attempts to persuade the audience that the
proposition is false.
4: Questions (2 minutes)
The Home Secretary questions the Leader of the Opposition on the contents of her speech.
5: Rebuttal from the negative team (2 minutes)
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition attempts to refute the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister.
6: Rebuttal from the affirmative team (2 minutes)
The Deputy Prime Minister attempts to refute the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
7: GENERAL DISCUSSION and audience questions
8: Closing affirmative speech (1 minute)
Final summary of arguments from the Home Secretary
9: Closing negative speech (1 minute)
Final summary of arguments from the Shadow Home Secretary
10: VOTING