Hack IB

Many TOK students have no idea how to get a 10/10 on their TOK Essay. The criteria seems so opaque and vague that it is hard for many to grasp what the IB expects from a good TOK essay. Luckily, the IB has some marked examples. By deconstructing them, we can see what we need to do so that we can get that 10/10.

For this series, we will be looking at one essay that scored a 10/10 and break it down into sections. In this part, we will look at how we can write a good introduction.

The prompt for the essay is:

Are disputes over knowledge claims within a discipline always resolvable? Answer this question by comparing and contrasting disciplines taken from two AOKs.

Let’s have a look at the introduction:

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.

And secondly, let’s look at the examiner’s feedback on why they gave this essay a 10/10:

This is an example of an excellent essay. It was awarded a mark of 10/10. The discussion of the natural and human sciences is clear, effective and balanced. Various perspectives are evaluated, and the implications of the attempts to resolve the various disputes are drawn. This is an accomplished TOK exploration.

So what did the student do right in the introduction that set them up for success in the later paragraphs?

I think there are several things here that are worth mentioning:

1. Starting with a relevant hook
2. Defining the key terms in the prompt
3. Discussing the reason behind choosing the prompt
4. Outlining the AOKs chosen for the prompt
5. Signposting the arguments/thesis of the TOK essay

The Hook

What distinguishes a good introduction from a bad one often starts from the very first sentence. You often see examples where students use a quotation from a famous author or philosopher. However, this is often done unsuccessfully because students don’t explain the relevance of the quote to the prescribed title, it is often a cliched and overused quote or it does not add value to the essay.

With this particular example, they began with:

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.

Straight away, in the first two sentences, the student addresses a relevant point in the prescribed title. They explain the concept of “disputes” and its relevance to TOK and the prescribed title. By explaining what it is, and how it might occur, this ‘hook’ sets a nice opening for the essay by demonstrating to the examiner that they understand the context of the prescribed title within the TOK course; that is, they explained how disputes is relevant to how we produce, acquire and disseminate knowledge. This gives them a framework to discuss disputes in their arguments and make sure that when they are talking about disputes, it is clear from how they defined it in the beginning, what they are saying.

The takeaway from this is that the hook does not need to be overly flourished. Often students try to sound sophisticated by including what seems to be a ‘deep’ or insightful quote, but this is not very effective. What is effective is a clear sentence or two that deconstructs a key concept in the prompt with relation to TOK (knowledge) which allows you to make clear and coherent arguments.

Defining key terms

On a similar note, other key terms within the prescribed title should be defined.

The student defined what they meant by ‘disputes’ and also ‘resolvable’.

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.

They narrowed down to the specific disputes they will be discussing, which allows them to give a nuanced answer to the prescribed title. Your prescribed title might have a similar broad concept like ‘disputes’, but it can be helpful to split that into different types like ‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’ disputes to have a more precise definition that allows you to explore the concept in a more nuanced way. This sets up the student’s essay to discuss the differences in how different disputes can be or cannot be resolved, giving an insightful answer to the prescribed title.

They also define ‘resolvable’ so that it is clear the standard that they will be evaluating against.

A weaker TOK student may simply have a single definition of disputes as ‘competing perspectives and knowledge claims’ but doesn’t delve into the specific ways they occur such as differences in how they occur theoretically or practically as this 10/10 example does. They may also not define ‘resolvable’ at all and simply lets the examiner guess what it means. The conclusion they come up with, then, will be a lot less nuanced. They may arrive at the answer that ‘disputes are sometimes resolvable and sometimes not’ but they cannot truly explain what types of disputes are resolvable and what resolvable means. So, it is very important to define these key terms in your prompt, so that you can set yourself up to give a nuanced answer to the prescribed title.

Implications for the prompt

The student highlights the reason they chose to explore the prompt:

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.

Perhaps obviously, this prescribed title allows us to consider what we would do when we receive contradicting information. Which version of facts do we trust and how do we decide to resolve the discrepancy in information? The student explains quite clearly and simply that, by looking at this title, they would better understand what to do and why we do what we do when dealing with contradicting views.

You could probably come up with that on your own as well and you may have a few ideas about why your own prescribed title is important to look at. However, many students don’t explain this. Many students neglect to mention WHY they chose this prompt or WHY this prompt is interesting and important in the context of TOK and knowledge production, acquisition or dissemination. It is not a particularly challenging thing to include, it is just one that is often forgotten. Including this is very important, as it shows your thought into the prescribed title from the introduction and shows to the examiner why they should read this essay. So in some ways, it should have a persuasive undertone to it as well.

Areas of Knowledge

The student introduces his two AOKs chosen for the prompt – Natural Sciences and Human Sciences:

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.

The student even mentioned the specific subject within each AOK. This is not required, but if your TOK essay only focuses on a particular subject for each AOK, you can do this as well.

It may seem obvious at first, but many students often forget to mention what they selected as their two AOKs when the prompt does not prescribe the AOKs you must explore. At a minimum, you need to tell the examiner in the introduction what AOKs you have chosen, or if they are given to you, what AOKs were given to you.

However, I believe there is room to improve on this, even in a 10/10 essay. The student could have explained why he chose those two AOKs and how they can promote the contrast and comparisons he intends to discuss in an additional sentence. This can show his engagement again with the TOK essay process and make it even more ‘lucid’. If the AOKs are given to you, this is not necessary. If you needed to choose an additional AOK, you can explain why you chose that AOK to contrast and compare with the one given in your prescribed title.

Thesis

An excellent quality of this introduction is how the student always outlines what he intends to discuss in the main body of the essay. You will note they always use ‘in this essay, … will be discussed’. This makes it abundantly clear what the essay is about and shows to the examiner that your TOK essay will not be a wild tangent on the prescribed title, but rather, you have planned in advance how you will address the title and answer it in a systematic way. The student ends the introduction with a clear thesis:

to justify the perspective that the resolvability of a dispute within a discipline largely depends on the nature of the dispute.

He has given a preliminary answer to the prescribed title. This is a good approach because starting with a ‘basic’ answer to the title allows you to develop and change your answer as you introduce arguments and counter arguments in your body paragraphs, before arriving at an evolved conclusion.

You can consider giving a ‘first impressions’ answer to your prescribed title, and that can form the basis of your thesis as well.

One big flaw…

One thing I would criticise about this introduction though, is the lack of first person. The TOK Essay should be a personal, academic piece of writing. The tone of your writing should strike the balance between academic and personally reflective. You should aim to write in both first and third person.

In the example, there is not a single “I” or “my” used. You can incorporate some sentence starters like “I initially believe that….”, or “At first glance, I understood … to be” and a variety of other sentences which show this is your insight and not fact. This will elevate the introduction to an even higher level.

Conclusion

The introduction of a TOK essay should be a stepping stone. It invites the examiner into your essay and gives them a good impression that you have a structured, clear and coherent argument. Essentially, you know what you are talking about (even when you don’t). It should provide a framework from which to guide your body paragraphs and allow you to deliver a nuanced conclusion. I hope by deconstructing what a good introduction looks like, you too can score a perfect 10/10 in your TOK Essay.

Stay tuned for the next part, where we discuss how to write our body paragraphs.