David Spooner • 05/06/2020 • 25 min read
Theory of Knowledge: The New Exhibition – Q&A
Thank you to the hundreds of teachers who attended our webinars about the new TOK syllabus! We hope you learned a lot from David Spooner and that it helped you feel more prepared. As we mentioned during the webinar, he answered all your questions from the Q&A session, which you can find below, organised by theme. Please note that due to the very high volume of questions regarding ‘Objects’, we have decided to list those queries in a separate blog post – you can find part 2 here.
General New Syllabus Questions
How can WOKs be explicitly disregarded in the new curriculum? I feel that how knowledge is created does include WOKs.
As I mentioned in the webinar, although ways of knowing as a discrete part of the course have “disappeared”, there is still ample scope to refer to such learning tools (for that is what they are) as part of the core theme, “Knowledge and the Knower. Indeed, it could be said that an understanding of, and reference to, these tools is built into the Guide’s explanation of this core theme. Thus where we read that the core encourages students to reflect on “how we perceive and construct our understanding of the world” (p.14), or how “our interactions with others and with the material world shape our knowledge” (ibid.), it is clear that, at least implicitly, discussions about the roles of reason and intuition – the ways of knowing, in fact – have, far from being disregarded (except as discrete entities to be taught as such), been recognised as threads that might help to guide such reflections. Simply because “Ways of Knowing” are no longer an explicit “thing” to be taught does not mean that human beings do not reason, or perceive, or intuit as part and parcel of the way in which we “construct our understanding of the world”.
How will subject scope be included in TOK now?
If I understand this question correctly, this second webinar focused exclusively on the Exhibition. In the first webinar, we looked at, among other things, the five compulsory areas of knowledge and the knowledge frameworks guiding our study of those areas. As we know, the areas of knowledge broadly imitate the division of the IB Diploma itself (the Human Sciences “cover” Individuals and Societies, and so on). So it is there where students and teachers will be able to refer to, or base lessons upon, stimuli taken from the teaching and learning taking place in other Diploma subjects, allowing students to demonstrate their understanding and their ability to “apply” epistemological reflection to their various subjects. As we saw, there is broadly a division in terms of which sections of the course “lead to” which assessment, such that the study of the various compulsory areas of knowledge is connected to the essay on a prescribed title, whilst the Exhibition is to be based around one of the optional themes or the core theme.
What if the student wants to explore a different theme from the two themes chosen by the teacher? Do they explore it on their own? What support should teachers give to those students?
This is an interesting three-part question. Of course, the Guide implicitly permits this (“…students are encouraged to root their exhibition in one of the TOK themes”, p.39), hence this question. So, how to answer it? Firstly, how would you counsel a student in your “other subject” (Literature, Chemistry, Economics, Theatre…) who wishes to proceed with an IA based on an option not studied, or an EE student who wishes to do their EE on a subject not studied? The pedagogical skills we possess as teachers of young adults are no different in TOK than they are in any of the other subjects we teach, so that is the starting point for answering that question. Only you know your students and their capabilities, thus it is difficult to give blanket advice that might cover such eventualities. Secondly, the Guide recommends eight hours of whole-class contact time be allotted to helping students prepare for the Exhibition, so depending on what you do with this time, there may (or may not) be the opportunity to help such students in choosing their prompt, deciding on the objects to be connected to it, and then suggesting readings and reflections designed to help them. Lastly, and as I mentioned in the webinar, perhaps until the first group of students has completed the new TOK assessments, and the moderation feedback and Subject Report have been received, it might be a good idea to treat the suggestions and encouragements presented in the Guide as – for the moment – absolutes, just to be on the safe side. Instead of the optional themes being chosen exclusively by the teacher, why not include the students in the choice of optional themes? Not only is this – arguably – pedagogically beneficial but, as we know, when students are presented with the opportunity to choose, there is likely to be more “buy-in” to what is being done in the classroom, and may have the consequence of obviating the hypothetical scenario that this question raises.
The optional themes do not reference the Arts as an area of knowledge. However, the idea of an Exhibition is closely related to the curatorial practice in Visual Arts. How would you situate the knowledge of the Arts in the new course?
In the first webinar, we looked at, among other things, the five compulsory areas of knowledge and the knowledge frameworks guiding our study of those areas. As we know, the areas of knowledge broadly imitate the division of the IB Diploma itself (the Human Sciences “cover” Individuals and Societies, and so on). So it is there where students and teachers will be able to refer to, or base lessons upon, stimuli taken from the teaching and learning taking place in other Diploma subjects, allowing students to demonstrate their understanding and their ability to “apply” epistemological reflection to their various subjects. Thus, the epistemology of the Arts is “dealt with” given that it is one of the five now-compulsory areas of knowledge. However, as the question states, there is a beautiful opportunity here to have a student or teacher of Visual Arts outline and discuss the issue of curatorial practice, and the many knowledge issues it throws up. This could either take place as part of the study of the relevant area of knowledge, or alternatively feature as part of the eight preparation hours recommended by the Guide as explicit preparation for the Exhibition. Neil MacGregor’s introduction to the book published as a companion to the British Museum/BBC exhibition, “A History of the World in 100 Objects” on which the TOK Exhibition was partly based raises many of these curatorial issues, so this might be an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
How do you feel this approach (as embodied and described) by the assessment criteria and description of the aims of the project (Exhibition) will support and prepare students for the process of writing the essay? This is the toughest thing for most students.
In terms of the relationship between the two assessments in TOK, and how they complement each other, the Exhibition serves the same purpose as the Presentation did, and for the same reasons. The Exhibition, as did the Presentation and as does the Essay, encourages students to unpick and explore the epistemological issues present in knowledge questions, and attempt to “apply” this thinking to the so-called “real world”. The Presentation aimed to do that via the positing of a “Real Life Situation”, whilst the Exhibition asks students to use material objects as the springboard for unpacking and analysing knowledge issues. In both cases, the analytical skills developed become useful for the Essay.
Is TOK shifting from the constructivist approach to a more pragmatist approach to knowledge?
Given that the overarching ethos of the IB is that of constructivism, the short answer to this question is “no”. Pragmatist epistemology, in essence, argues that a given proposition (in our language, a knowledge claim) is true if it works satisfactorily, and if it is tested out by the practical consequences of accepting it. It could be argued that, in certain areas of knowledge, “what works” is what is considered true. The orientation of the TOK Guide cannot really be said to lie in this direction. The repetition of phrases such as the “acquisition, validation and dissemination of knowledge” and others like it, in both the new and the previous Guide, still appear to indicate a strong constructivist ethos, and “applicability” does not necessarily mean that a reductionist, pragmatist approach has been taken to the course per se.Writing Component
Is it a maximum of 950 words for the entire IA or 950 for each artifact?
It is a maximum of 950 words for the entire IA, as we can see on p.42 of the Guide: “The maximum overall word count for the TOK exhibition is 950 words. This word count includes the written commentaries on each of the three objects… If an exhibition exceeds the word limit, then examiners are instructed to stop reading after 950 words and to base their assessment on only the first 950 words. Extended footnotes or appendices are not appropriate to a TOK exhibition.” As mentioned in the webinar, the Teacher Support Material contains two different examples of how the 950 words might be employed: either a more-or-less equal distribution of the word count over the three objects, or commentaries on each of the three objects followed by a “summative” paragraph linking together the three objects as a collection in response to the IA prompt.
To clarify the IA prompt, do students select one IA prompt for all three objects, or do they select more than one IA prompt?
The Guide (p.40) makes it clear that students must select only ONE IA prompt as the stimulus for discussing their three chosen objects: “Students must select one of the … IA prompts on which to base their exhibition, and all three objects must be linked to the same prompt.”
So if a level 9–10 needs a strong justification of each, would that mean that using some of the 950 words for a summary would be wasted?
The examiner’s comments on one of the samples provided in the Teacher Support Material states: “This student has included an introduction to their work. It should be noted that this is not required, but students are free to include a short introduction if they wish to do so.” Similarly, “It should be noted that there is no requirement that students make connections or comparisons between their objects. They may choose to do so, but it is also perfectly acceptable to discuss each of the three objects entirely individually.” Thus, the word “wasted” depends upon what the student is doing with those words. If we also take into consideration another of the examiner’s comments on the same sample, “The piece of work should be judged holistically using the marking instrument, which means that, for example, the discussion of the dictionary should be rewarded wherever it appears in the response, not just where it appears under the section labelled object two”, we can see that it is possible to introduce, or to conclude, the written commentary provided that the student maintains the focus on how the objects raise (and respond to) knowledge issues inherent within the IA prompt.
Is the 950-word commentary that serves as a justification per object in the form of an argument? The regular claim and counterclaim approach?
Justification of an interpretation may not always be valid but yet it should be acceptable. Right?
What does it look like when a point is “supported by appropriate evidence”?
The assessment criterion states: “well-supported evidence”. What is the nature of this evidence? Does it have to be real-life based examples/academic reference?
Fundamentally, all TOK evaluations are “argumentative” in the broadest sense – “these are the knowledge issues inherent in the IA prompt, and this is how object X illuminates those issues” (which is both a “justification” of, and argument for, the “particular contribution that each individual object makes to the exhibition” (Guide, p.47)) – and the samples available in the Teacher Support Material certainly consist of a series of knowledge claims which are supported by reference to the ways in which the object can be said to support such claims. The “claim/counterclaim model” appears to be less in evidence in these samples than hitherto in the Presentation (and in the essay), and the assessment instrument likewise makes no reference to counterclaims/counterarguments.
Academic Honesty
How will academic honesty be monitored? As I understand it, the KQ will be given and will not change for the duration of the syllabus. I am concerned that “help sites” might offer “objects” that match these KQ.
If we do virtual Exhibitions, how do we ensure academic integrity?
How can we stop students from plagiarising or purchasing an exhibition from a format sold or suggested on Reddit. Any suggestions for staying ahead of the cheaters?
The key thing to remember is that there is a crucial distinction to be made between the IA task itself (which is what we mark according to the assessment instrument) – the selection of prompt, objects, and the production of a 950-word commentary to accompany these – and the “Exhibition” (the “show and tell”) of the students’ work. As is made clear on p.40 of the Guide, “Teachers are required to provide all students with an opportunity for their completed exhibitions to be showcased and exhibited to an audience. As this does not form part of the formal assessment task, teachers have a great deal of flexibility as to how they choose to hold these exhibitions.” We as teachers are permitted to “provide feedback on one draft of this work”. Therefore we “should provide oral or written advice on how the work could be improved, but should not edit the draft. Once complete, this file is submitted to the TOK teacher to be marked. Samples of student work are then submitted to the IB for moderation”. It is during this process, and during the eight hours of class time suggested in the Guide for working on the production of the Exhibition, that any such academic honesty issues will be addressed. The actual “Exhibition”, the physical (or virtual) “showcasing” of student work, only takes place after the IA task has been completed.
General Exhibition Questions
Would a group of students be allowed (by the IB) to set up and run the Exhibition as CAS?
Given that the Exhibition itself – the physical/virtual display of the students’ IA work – “does not form part of the formal assessment task” (Guide, p.40) there should be no impediment to this, providing, of course, that the CAS Guide does not explicitly discount such an activity.
Would it be recommended to do mock Exhibitions and keep the students in groups for those?
Regarding the final part of the question, the new IA task is explicitly designed for students to produce individual Exhibitions. As is made clear on p.39 of the Guide, “Each student must create an individual exhibition. Group work may not be undertaken by students. Multiple students in the same TOK class are permitted to create exhibitions on the same IA prompt. However, students in the same class are not permitted to use any of the same objects.” Neither the Guide nor the Teacher Support Material offers any recommendation as to the desirability or efficacy of a “mock Exhibition”. However, on the grounds that “practice runs” are always a helpful feature for any assessment (as many of us have seen with the Presentations), it would seem like a pedagogically good thing to do. The advantage here is that the Presentation was particularly labour-intensive – however useful, it still takes a lot of time to plan and execute. Many of us have already run “trials” of the new TOK Exhibition, and found it to be both instructive as well as “doable”, and much less time-consuming. The TOK team at my current school ran a trial of the Exhibition, with the students off timetable, which lasted one whole day from start to finish. A plenary session in the morning outlined the task and discussed the IA prompts. For the next few hours, students chose a prompt and went on a “scavenger hunt” around the campus to find suitable objects, wrote up and printed out their analyses and, for the last hour of the day, held an Exhibition which other students groups and teachers attended. This is merely one way in which a mock Exhibition could be organised. No doubt you can think of different ways to achieve the same end via a combination of classwork and self-directed study.
Should the TOK teacher be there during the Exhibition?
We need to remember, as is stated on p.40 of the Guide, that the Exhibition – the actual display of the chosen objects and the student explanation of them to any visitors to the Exhibition (as opposed to the file produced by the students) “does not form part of the formal assessment task”. In that sense, it is not a straightforward “like-for-like” replacement of the Presentation: currently, we are present at the Presentation because that is the assessment task which is marked (we do not mark the PPD, but the Presentation itself), whereas with the new TOK IA, it is not the “display” created to showcase the task that is marked.The IA to be marked by us is the file produced by the students containing the 950-word commentary linking the images of the three chosen objects to the IA prompt. [/bg_collapse]
Is there any form they have to fill in to describe the process of preparing the Exhibition?
No. As we read on p.40 of the Guide, “Teachers are permitted to provide feedback on one draft of this work. They should provide oral or written advice on how the work could be improved, but should not edit the draft. Once complete, this file is submitted to the TOK teacher to be marked.” This process of drafting and commenting is intended to not only provide the opportunity for us to help and guide students, but is also, of course, an opportunity for us to provide “oversight” in terms of ensuring that students are adhering to the principles of academic honesty and, as such, “stands in for”, or “substitutes”, the three interactions we have with the students during the writing of their TOK essays, or the discussions we currently have with them during the elaboration of their PPDs relevant to the current Presentation.
How do you feel about the multipurpose Exhibition with the PYP, MYP and DP all in one? Do you think it will really work, or is this an idea created in the IB clouds?
I think the answer to this lies in (i) timing and (ii) energy levels, and may depend on when these things are scheduled into the school year. The MYP Personal Project is often presented before the end of the school year, whilst the TOK Presentation (as is) often takes place at the end. However, I think where such an idea might work is in the form of a “reprise” – the various programme exhibitions may well take place at different times in the school calendar, and what determines this includes the need to evaluate the students’ work but, once that is done, finishing the school year with an informal, no stakes, joint presentation might be a nice way to promote and celebrate the students’ efforts to the wider community, especially since, as it says on p.40 of the Guide, the actual physical Exhibition “does not form part of the formal assessment task”.
Are the ‘pilots’ mentioned actually student-generated, or developed as exemplars by the course revision team?
The sample material included in the IB ToK Teacher Support Material were student-generated. During the curriculum review, several schools were asked to pilot the IA task, and it was these ‘live’ pilots which generated the sample material found on the TSM.
Do you have a sample of an exhibit, like three objects connected to a prompt?
The IB TOK Teacher Support Material includes samples of Exhibition files created by students.
Is the Exhibition an internal assessment and what percentage of the final mark does it represent?
The Guide specifies that the internal assessment in TOK is worth one-third (33%) (p.38) of the overall mark in TOK. The IA task can be divided into two parts: the first is the IA itself (a single file containing their TOK Exhibition).
This must include:
- a title clearly indicating their selected IA prompt
- images of their three objects
- a typed commentary on each object that identifies each object and its specific real-world context, justifies each object’s inclusion in the Exhibition and links to the IA prompt (maximum 950 words)
- appropriate citations and references. (Guide, p.40)
Meanwhile, the display of the students’ work, the “Exhibition” in its strictest sense, “does not form part of the formal assessment task” (ibid.).
Do we mark the written 950-word commentary or how they orally describe it to us?
As it is an internal assessment, we mark the completed file (comprising photographs of the three objects, together with the 950-word commentary). When the marks have been submitted to the IB, a sample of the files will be required to be sent for moderation.
Can it be in digital format?
The file produced by the student for marking and potential moderation sampling by the IB does, of course, have to be digital. It would be impossible to upload a physical object. The Guide (p.40) outlines what this file must include:
- a title clearly indicating their selected IA prompt
- images of their three objects
- a typed commentary on each object that identifies each object and its specific real-world context, justifies each object’s inclusion in the Exhibition and links to the IA prompt (maximum 950 words)
- appropriate citations and references. Some objects may, of course, already be digital (as the suggestions on p.42 of the Guide make clear), although for the actual Exhibition (as opposed to the file produced by the students for assessment purposes) such electronic objects will most likely be printed out and placed on display.
Since the Exhibition is to be conducted in year 1, what is the recommendation for a mock Exhibition?
Neither the Guide nor the Teacher Support Material offers any recommendation as to the desirability or efficacy of a “mock Exhibition”. However, on the grounds that “practice runs” are always a helpful feature for any assessment (as many of us have seen with the Presentations), it would seem like a pedagogically good thing to do. The advantage here is that the Presentation was particularly labour-intensive – however useful, it still takes a lot of time to plan and execute. Many of us have already run “trials” of the new TOK Exhibition, and found it to be both instructive as well as “doable”, and much less time-consuming. The TOK team at my current school ran a trial of the Exhibition, with the students off timetable, which lasted one whole day from start to finish. A plenary session in the morning outlined the task and discussed the IA prompts. For the next few hours, students chose a prompt and went on a “scavenger hunt” around the campus to find suitable objects, wrote up and printed out their analyses and, for the last hour of the day, held an Exhibition which other students groups and teachers attended. This is merely one way in which a mock Exhibition could be organised. No doubt you can think of different ways to achieve the same end via a combination of classwork and self-directed study.
Any thoughts on timing – i.e. when should we hold the Exhibition? Does it have to be in the second year or can we hold it at the end of the first year?
Regarding the timeline of the course, when do you recommend the TOK Exhibition takes place? Is the Exhibition something that can take place during the course or is it best to wait until the end?
When in the first year should the students do their presentations?
The Exhibition must take place during the first year of the course. As the Guide states, “The TOK exhibition task has been explicitly designed to be completed during the first year of the DP” (p.39), which implies that the optional themes that the task is to be based on need to be taught in the first year, and the core theme at the very least introduced also in the first year. It would perhaps make good pedagogical as well as structural (i.e. in terms of structuring the course) sense to hold it at the end of the year so that it can serve as both a culmination and a celebration.
Some schools get the presentation done by the end of DP year 1. With this new assessment, is there a recommended time, between year 1 and year 2, that would be best for candidates to work on this internal assessment? What would you suggest?
As the Guide states, “The TOK exhibition task has been explicitly designed to be completed during the first year of the DP” (p.39), which implies that the optional themes that the task is to be based on need to be taught in the first year, and the core theme at the very least introduced also in the first year.
Is the theme chosen by the students guided by teachers, or should teachers decide for them? Also, is it an individual theme for each student, or will it be the same theme for all students in one year level?
Given that the Exhibition is based on one of the optional themes or the core theme, Knowledge and the Knower, and given that we must teach two of the five optional themes, students will end up with a fairly wide range of themes to choose from. The theme (and IA prompt), then, is chosen individually by students from within that range. Whilst of course they are guided by us, the teachers, and the eight suggested class hours are there for the purpose of precisely that explanation and guidance, the ultimate choice is still in the hands of the students. Within a group of students – a class or even the entire cohort – there may inevitably be some overlap in terms of either the option chosen, or the focus of the analysis within the option, or even of IA prompt chosen (more than one student in a group/cohort may choose the same IA prompt). It is up to us to “guide them apart” for both good pedagogical reasons, and to ensure academic honesty.
About the Author
David has been teaching TOK since 1999, in a variety of countries including Ghana, the UK, Spain, Finland, Greece, Lebanon, Jordan and Italy. He has been an IB workshop leader since 2004, and has a range of examining experience. In addition to this, he is an IB Verification Visitor and Consultant for schools wishing to adopt the IB Diploma.
Blog articles