"Why do the best ToK essays get mediocre grades ?"

Today’s question was requested by a channel viewer, I hope that this situation has never happened to you, it’s certainly happened to me and my channel viewer a few times over the years.

The situation: Your ToK cohort has written essays across the range, at the top of the range are a handful of very able students who have been highly engaged in ToK. They have been enthusiastic, near absorbed, in the essay writing process - having frequent consultations with you, doing extra reading, extending their ToK knowledge beyond the class. They have written sophisticated essays that you have mentored them through. You send the essays off for assessment, and when you get the results these few students are graded at 4-5/10, whilst other competent, but far less stunning, essays have been graded 8-10. Why does this happen ?

I’ll go through some of the reasons why this might occur, and more importantly the steps that we can take to minimise it happening in the future.

Cause 1: Familiarity - missing out the basics.

Undoubtedly you, as the teacher, have been on the ToK journey of essay development with these students. You may have shared in their excitement at exploring new ways to answer the question, you will probably have participated in the development of their knowledge arguments, evaluations & implications with them. You have been a co-constructor, strictly adhering to academic integrity, with them. This leads to a high degree of familiarity with the final essay, its development and its meaning. 

Unfortunately this high degree of familiarity can lead to a potential degree of ‘holism’ on our part - we might see things in the essay which are not evident to those who have not been on that journey with us. For example we might see that definitions, clarifications, and limitations are inherent to that beautifully written knowledge argument because we were with the student at every iterative stage of the integration of those elements into the argument. However, the examiner who has not been on that 6 month journey with the student may not see that background. Now, I’m not saying the examiner is wrong - they mark what is in front of them, I’m saying that the problem lies with our human ability of interpretation - we can’t help but bring all of our schematic knowledge to an essay when we read it - as such it reads very differently to you as the teacher than it may read to a removed examiner. Unfortunately it’s an essay rather than a Viva Voce.

Covering the basics - the Examiners are asked to use Global Impression Marking - a holistic approach, but they are also asked to use an assessment rubric. One of the first things the examiners might do is to check that the basic elements of the assessment rubric are in place in order to place the essay in one of the marking bands. Those basic elements may no longer be sufficiently evident in an essay which has become highly developed over successive iterations. Those elements are evident to the teacher with the background knowledge, but may be too implicit for the examiner. Further, the examiner may have to make assumptions about the student’s understanding of those basic elements in order to credit them. An essay will not fair well if the examiner has had to attribute a number of assumptions to the student when using Global Impression Marking.

2. Tacit Assumptions

A second, possible, cause of the disappointing grade are the tacit assumptions of the teacher regarding the knowledge claims and evaluation points. As the highly engaged student iteratively develops their essay they may accept assumptions in one version of the essay in order to develop their argument in the next version. In the dialogue between the teacher & student it’s possible that the tacit acceptance of these assumptions are lost - obviously to the examiner they’ll just be ‘absent’.  

The challenge for the student is that they only have 1600 words to do something that’s very difficult. For the most able students it is very tempting to conflate arguments, concepts and evaluation points in order to meet the word limit. In doing so they risk somewhat ‘overegging’ the pudding - ie writing something that’s far more complicated than it needs to be, and possibly doesn’t evidence the basic requirements of the essay.

3. Seeds and Tolerance.

The final possible cause of the mediocre grades are to do with the mechanics of the examining procedure, specifically with the Seeding and tolerance processes. In order to ensure the reliability of the marking examiners are given essays which have already been marked by The Chief Examiner (these are called seeds), the seed appears to the examiner just like any other essay, and they have to mark it within 1 mark of the Chief Examiner’s mark to continue marking. If they mark more than 1 mark more / less than the CE mark they are deemed to be out of tolerance, and are suspended or withdrawn from marking for the remainder of the session.

When I was an examiner I was constantly ‘seed wary’ - I think this is the purpose of the system, and it’s a good thing. However, it does make you extra cautious when you see an atypical, or unusual, essay - all of the “Is this a seed ?” alarms go off at full volume. As such you can become extra cautious, only attributing that which is absolutely evident, and solidly justifiable. Now I know that this may not be the case for other examiners, they may not be ‘seed wary’, they may be confident in their assessment of atypical essays - I’m just being honest about my experience - and with most things in life - if it’s like that for you it’s probably like that for others too. 

So, it seems like I paint a fairly depressing picture - if you stopped reading now you could go away with the message that you shouldn’t let your most capable ToK students extend themselves. But that’s not my message at all. There are ways that those students can write extraordinary essays so long as we build in a few safety mechanisms - let’s move onto the solutions: 

Solutions: 

1. Signpost the basics.

The first solution is to have your students Signpost the basic elements (Definitions, Knowledge Arguments, evaluation, real world examples, implications). As the essay is developed they might remove the signpost labels (eg “My knowledge argument is”), but the signposted content needs to remain. They could highlight these basic elements in early iterations of their draft in order to ensure that they keep them in place in subsequent iterations. Before finally hand in you could ask them to recolour those basic elements to ensure that they are still in place.

Further, peer review of identification of those elements would also be very helpful both in the early and latter stages of the essay process.

2. Depth rather than breadth. 

The second solution applies to all students, but may be particularly pertinent for those students who are finding it difficult to fit all of their arguments into the 1600 word limit. Some of the Prescribed Titles contain multiple clauses, a number of assumptions, and various approaches inherent to answering the PT. It is generally better to develop a limited number of arguments in depth rather than to try to answer all possible aspects of the PT with far less depth - i.e. depth rather than breadth. It may be necessary to explicitly state which aspects of the PT will be challenged and why (ie signposting).

This is also of particular relevance if the student is tempted to conflate multiple aspects of the PT in order to cover a wider range of arguments - a general rule of thumb would be to focus on developing a substantial argument to a more conventional interpretation of the PT rather than conflation which runs the risk of an inadvertent rewriting of the PT - which will definitely lead to a mediocre grade, or potentially worse.

3. Blind Assessment & Blind Moderation.

This is possibly the most effective preventative measure that we can take as teachers. If we can undertake blind assessment procedures at the Draft stage, and possibly at final assessment stage we counterbalance some of those familiarity problems. At the most basic level just ask your students to submit their Drafts without their names on them, but obviously far more effective is to swap your class’s essays with other teachers at your school. If you’re the sole teacher at your school, or you have a small cohort then swap essays with others in your ToK network. We started to do this at my previous school a few years ago and the experience was revelatory for our team. We picked up on many problems in the essays from each other’s classes that we hadn’t seen until that point, it was also super useful to get colleagues' ideas on the approaches and content of the essay - this definitely had a significant positive effect on our essay scores. 

So, that’s my experience, and my suggestions for solutions. If you have differing experiences, or other solutions I’d love to hear them in the comments section. Today's blog was suggested by a TokToday subscriber, if you have questions or content that you would like me to cover please don't hesitate to get in touch (Daniel@TokToday.com),

Have a great day,
Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 2023

5 tips for Responding to Draft ToK Essay Comments to max your ToK Score.

So your teacher gave you written feedback (ToK essay comments) on your ToK Essay, the question is what should you do next ?

Taking action on the Draft ToK Essay Comments is key to achieving a high score in ToK, here are 5 tips to help you to get the most out of the written feedback from your teacher:

1. Act upon them immediately.

Time is One of the scarcest resources for DP students, it is better to deal with things in the immediate then to put them off for the future. If you leave dealing with the Tik commands until the deadline and then you find you didn't understand the comments it's going to be difficult for your teacher to help you so act upon the comments as soon as you receive the essay back.

2. Have a face to face session with your teacher.

Hopefully your teacher will accompany the comments with 1:1 verbal feedback. If this is not offered then (politely) ask your teacher for such a meeting - verbal feedback in addition to written feedback gives you a far more holistic understanding of the feedback. Also, you can use the feedback meeting as one of the 3 interactions that you have to record for the essay process.

3.  Seek clarification.

As you work on the comments if there is anything that you don’t understand then seek clarification from your teacher immediately. Don’t just let misunderstanding sit, your teacher has spent time writing the comments - they want you to understand all of them, and will welcome your further enquiry. 

4. Get more feedback.

Continue to seek support and guidance from your teacher as you continue redraft the essay. Your teacher can only give you written feedback once, but they can give you continuous  verbal feedback on your subsequent drafts.

5. Explain your essay to a non-Toker

Added max value tip - once You have have redrafted your essay, find somebody who's willing to listen such as your mom, or a willing friends and explain the essay paragraph by paragraph to them. Don't read the essay verbatim, but rather explain it to them this will help you to clarify your understanding of the essay and may help you to catch some final issues.

So there we have it, I hope that that's useful for you to improve your ToK Essay, and I hope that you get a great score in ToK

If you need help planning / writing your essay you can check out the ebook 'How to write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps'.

if you need any more help than please don't hesitate to go to ToKtoday or contact me at Daniel at ToKtoday,

have a great day stay ToK-tastic.
Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 2023

5 (more) essential tips for marking the ToK Essay Draft.

This post comes in response to feedback from a video that I made on marking the ToK Draft Essay (we’re all starting in different places on this ToK journey) - those a little further on their ToK Journey as I focus more on the actual assessment of the content of the essay.

Now, I can’t replicate an IB Cat 2 workshop, neither would you want me to, so what I will do is run through 5 big checks that I make of the content of the essay when I’m marking the Draft.

1. Is the focus of the essay on knowledge arguments or on RLS ?

Most Draft Essays that I have seen have far too much RLS content, they’re overly descriptive of the examples used, and dedicate far too many words to the RLS. This is entirely understandable - DP students have probably spent most of their educational career being assessed on the accuracy of their understanding of content. In ToK we’re asking them to do something a little different - we’re asking them to look at the construction of that content - this is a leap that many students find difficult to make. We can use the rough 80-20 rule here: 80% knowledge to 20% RLS description.

I usually ask students to highlight knowledge & RLS content in different colours on their Draft essays to help them to have a visual representation of the difference.

2. Are definitions consistent throughout the essay ?

Most students realise that the definition of concepts and terms is key to being able to write the ToK Essay. However, students will often change their definitions, or even forget about them during the writing of the essay. Changing definitions can be a strong evaluation point if they find that an earlier definition was insufficient, but this must be done explicitly, and shown to be grounded in the exploration of the PT. 

Recent examiner’s reports have advised that students define terms within each AoK rather than at the beginning of the Essay - this is a good way of reducing the risk of inconsistency in definitions within the essay.

3. Rough Band Placement. (pyramid)

The essay assessment instrument has 5 ‘bands’ or ‘levels’, IB have provided characteristics for each band. I think we can consider broadly what we will find in each essay band - I call this the assessment pyramid.

General talk through the pyramid, as shown in Canva Slides. 

Now, I know that this is just a further precis of the assessment rubric itself, but sometimes there’s a wood & trees problem -  this is my attempt to see the wood.

4. Signposting & LTQ.

Sometimes the Draft Essays can be super confusing: concepts, AoKs, Knowledge Arguments, RLS are all mixed together, sometimes contradictory, often incoherent. If they’re confusing for us as teachers imagine what they’re like for the Examiners. A simple way to start to unravel is to ask the student to signpost the key elements of the essay. I ask them to add sentences which show me where the main elements are, for example:

“My Knowledge claim in AoK ____ is…,”

“This is supported by the RLS ________”

“An evaluation of this argument is _________”

And most importantly by adding a sentence at the end of each paragraph that starts with:

“Linking back to the prescribed title this means that……,”

Signposting the main elements, and explicitly linking back to the question means that there is very little risk of the essay being assessed in the lower 2 bands. It ensures that the student has the basic elements in place to get at least 4/10, which means they’ll pass ToK. 

Signposting also helps the examiners who are serially reading essays written in a range of styles, of varying quality etc. The examiners are looking to award marks, this is much easier to do if students have signposted the content in their essay.

If the signposting is a little clunky after they have developed their essay it can always be taken out before final submission, just like stabilisers on a kid’s bike.  

Team work makes the dream work.

5. Team Work:  

My final tip is teamwork. Assessing ToK Essays is no easy task, it’s complicated for everyone - I’ve seen senior examiners significantly disagreeing over the marks awarded to an essay. So, it’s important to remember that no ToK Teacher is in this on their own. Work with other ToK Teachers either in your school, or in your local ToK network. If you are the sole ToK teacher in your school, and there is no local ToK Network get in touch with another DP school- I have always found colleagues to be generous and welcoming.

In collaboration with other ToK teachers you can problem solve, moderate, and standardise. You can pick apart exemplars and share previously assessed essays. No one expects you to have all the answers, this is a synergistic process, and we’re all in this together. 

I hope that you found those tips useful. If you have any suggestions for further content please don't hesitate to contact me, Daniel@TokToday.com.

Have a great day!
Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 2023

Applying The Scientific Method

Over the years I have found that if students have a good understanding of The Scientific Method in ToK it helps them in many ways across all Areas of Knowledge, and in both The Exhibition and The ToK Essay. The Scientific Method gives students an understanding of the tensions between reliability and validity of knowledge, and therefore more useful ways to discuss accuracy, reality, and even 'truth'.

Most crucially teaching the scientific method gives students key foundational knowledge for both AoK Natural Sciences and AoK Human Sciences (which saves precious teaching time). I recently started AoK The Natural Sciences with my DP1 ToK class, and therefore started by teaching The Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method Lesson.

I started with a simple card sort: Sort the cards into the correct order of the Scientific Method. Many students have already studied the scientific method, so this is just revision of previous knowledge.

The Card Sort Resource is included at the end of this blog.

Chalk & Talk !

I know that it's very naughty in our new constructionist age, but I do think that there's still a place for a bit of chalk n talk every now & then. So, I followed up the card sort activity with a quick run through of the Presentation linked here. We can look at this as an introduction to the main task...,

The Task

The task is designed to actively engage the students in applying the Scientific Method. I love using drama in the ToK classroom - I think that drama really brings the subject alive for students who either find ToK challenging, or tbh just don't see the point of it (if you have never had either of these groups of students you are fortunate). By using drama the students don't have to risk "getting things wrong" - it is merely a role that is "getting it wrong".

The task itself is fairly self explanatory, I ask the class to play the role of "Funding Committee" when they hear the presentations, this moves them from passive observers to active engagers.

The task sheet is included as a PDF at the end of this blog.

End thoughts

My approach to teaching ToK is directed more towards the students who find the subject difficult, or have little interest in the subject. This doesn't mean that the interested & engaged can't get a lot out of the lesson - I simply think that "a rising tide lifts all boats". As such I try to design lessons which maximise engagement, games and fun (despite this one having some chalk n talk in it). I really don't think that reading long articles, or watching TED videos is either a necessary nor optimal way to learn ToK. - I have used my "Drama + Games" approach for many years, and my students have always achieved excellent results...,

I hope that you found today's resources useful. If you have suggestions or requests for further topics / resources please don't hesitate to let me know.

Wishing you a great weekend,
Daniel,
Lisbon, Jan 2023

The Sorting Activity Resource is linked below, just print & cut out.

Scientific Method Sorting Activity

The Task Sheet.

Applying-the-Scientific-Method

AoK Natural Sciences: A whole Unit of ToK (Free)!

I'm currently writing a new set of lessons for teaching AoK Natural Sciences, and I came across this set of lessons from my old teaching website that I used when I was teaching in Bangkok. There are a lot of resources linked into these lessons, and it's beautifully presented - so I thought I'd offer it out there to the TokToday community (for free).

The focus of the unit is on the organisation of knowledge in AoK Natural Sciences

I think I was having fun with the presentation when I put this together!

My teaching pace and focus with my current ToK students is a bit different to the classes that I put this module together for, so I prefer to rewrite the unit than just use this old unit. However, there's a lot in here - so it may be of use to ToK Teachers reading this blog. If you're pushed for time, and need something ASAP it may be something that you can just pick up and use.

I will publish my new lessons on AoK Natural Sciences in the next week or so, I am focussing on a more active and accessible set of activities.

Other resources which may be of use are:

Jahn & scientific anomalies (a useful RLS).

A presentation about Natural sciences.

If you found these lessons useful, or have suggestions for upcoming content that you would find useful, I would love to read your comments below.

Have a great day!
Daniel,
Lisbon, Jan 2023

5 (essential) tips for marking the ToK Essay Draft

Marking, and feeding back, on the ToK Essay Draft is the key process in improving ToK scores. This post is designed to save ToK Teachers time, toil and possible trauma - it’s focussed for teachers who are new to teaching the ToK Essay, it’s in the “if only I’d known this” category.

1. Keep a copy of both the marked and unmarked Draft. 

A copy of the unmarked Draft can come in useful if the student does not submit a final essay, and you have to send off the Draft. A copy of the marked draft is useful in case the student ‘loses’ your marked draft (it does happen - honestly). The easiest thing to do is to mark the essay in an cloud based platform such as Google Docs, but if you’re marking hard copies by hand take a photocopy before handing them back - it could save you a lot of time later on !

2. Check that the PT is written at the top of the essay exactly as published by IB.

This is a lot more important than it sounds, If the student has written the PT at the beginning they’re much more likely to have directly answered the PT, you will find that as you mark the essay you are constantly referring students back to the wording of the PT, this is all made a lot easier if the PT is there at the beginning.

3. Share a proforma checklist with students beforehand.

A proforma checklist is going to clear up a lot of the problems before you get to marking the essay. It will also save you a lot of time not having to repeat the same points over and over again. You can also use the checklist in peer review before submission.

Don’t rush writing the written feedback, nor explaining it verbally face to face. Time invested in these processes now will save you time, & stress, later on.

Free ToK Feedback Proforma (Google Doc)

Free ToK Feedback Proforma (PDF)

Feedback Presentation (Google Slides)

4. Format & Style matter.

Format is easy - standard font (Arial / Times New Roman) double spaced, the double spacing is important, as is the style of the essay. The essay is best written in a formal academic style, not overly formal, but certainly not informal, colloquial nor familiar. The student certainly can refer to themselves in the first person, and include their personal reflections, but this should all be done in an academic style.

5. Feedback as 2nd / 3rd Interaction

Use the handing back of written feedback as the 2nd or 3rd recorded interaction with the student. You have spent a lot of time writing the feedback, so it’s worth using a little more time holding individual feedback meetings with the students-  checking that they have read the feedback, understand the feedback, and have plans to act on the feedback. After this feedback meeting I ask students to record the meeting as their second or third interaction with me.

Written feedback on the draft is a crucial moment in the ToK Essay writing process which can have great influence on the grades that the students get in the essay.

Well - that’s how I do it, if you have any tips, things that you do differently, please let me know either in the comments section, or email me at Daniel@ToKToday.com

Have a wonderful time marking the ToK drafts,
Daniel,
Lisbon, Jan 2023

End of term 1.

That’s a wrap on the 1st term at TokToday ! 

Many thanks to all of you who have liked, commented, shared and subscribed. Your support is very much appreciated.

I’m going to take a two week break, and will be back in the New Year with more ideas and resources.

Wishing you, and your family, a happy and peaceful festive break.
Daniel.

ToK Essay Titles as Philosophy..,

I know that ToK is not Philosophy, and I know that it's bad form to use the term 'philosophy' when talking about ToK, and I know that you don't have to be a philosophy teacher / student to teach / learn ToK.

BUT

there do seem to be some interesting philosophy parallels, and I'm interested in philosophy - so here goes...,

Q1: Is replicability necessary?

I'm certainly seeing Black Swans and White Swans (thank you Mr Popper), but I'm also asking - maybe this is the classical logic of truth functions in philosophy. (remember those afternoons in Logic 101 pondering that if all men wear a blue hat, Sam wears a blue hat, is Sam a man?)

or is it an ends vs means question (without the ethical - moral implications)?

Q2 - Is the explained or unexplained more important?

Is this Schrodinger's Cat?

or is this Rumsfeld's Known Knowns, Known Unknowns and unknown unknowns?

Is it Realism vs Anti-realism?

Or is it Empiricism vs Rationalism, are all of the questions empiricism vs rationalism?

Q3 - Do bubbles matter ?

I'm imagining a tree falling in an empty forest without anyone there to see, or maybe hear it.

Or am I hearing aSocratic dialogue on the relationship between ignorance and evil, and the involuntary nature of evil acts ?

Or is this Plato's and Pareto's Elite Theory ?

Q4 - Are we astonished that so little knowledge can give us so much power?

I'm seeing angels dancing on a pinhead, but that's not actually philosophy, nor ToK.

I'm seeing more map metaphors and low hanging fruit metaphors.

Is this the Process Philosophy vs Substance Metaphysics? Sort of Dewey & James vs Quine & Schaffer?

Q5 - Are visual representations helpful in the communication of knowledge.

Do I see the metaphor of the map sailing back over the horizon..., oh long lost metaphor how we have missed you! Where did you go?

Or maybe it's about Structuralism, Semiotics, Sign and Symbol - Levi-Strauss come forth and elucidate, illuminate and educate!

Q6 Does methodology determines knowledge produced?

This is empiricism - rationalism, it's got to be that old chestnut- is knowledge discovered, or is it constructed ? Judging by views on my videos this is the least popular ToK Question this year, yet in my opinion it's the easiest question posed. Maybe our ToK students love a challenge !

Maybe it's Foundationalism vs Coherentism, I'm sort of drawn to the idea that it's about the degree and form of justification required to consider something as knowledge.

End thoughts

I apologise if I have missed some glaringly obvious philosophical question, my excuse is that my degree is in Economics, not Philosophy. If I have missed some obvious philosophy I would love for you to add your thoughts and insight in the comments section.

I initially posed this post as a bit of fun, however as a ToK teacher I have always found it useful to look at some of the philosophy behind the questions. It helps me to give more advice to students on the sorts of sub-questions that could extend their thinking. It also helps me to guide them in developing counterclaims.

If you want to watch my videos on the M23 titles they can be found at this link.

If you want a guide on how to write the ToK Essay - check out our e-book (linked).

If you want to know about the ToK of the individual Essays check out the blog posts (there's one for each essay)

If people are interested I can put together a post going into more detail on the philosophical questions mentioned in this post, just let me know.

Enjoy your ToK writing and thinking,
Daniel,
Lisbon, Dec 22

Replicability again, ToK Essay 1 May 23

ToK Essay 1 May 23 (Is replicability necessary in the PofK ?) is, in my opinion one of the more straightforward essays in the May 23 session (the other straightforward one being Essay 6). My first thoughts, & video, on this essay can be found at this link.

In this blog I go into more detail on some of the types of replicability that you may wish to consider, which will allow you to give more specific detail, and gain a higher score on this essay.

General musings on 'Replicability'.

In general, replicability is an important aspect of the scientific method and can help improve the production of knowledge. When a study or experiment is replicable, it means that other researchers can obtain the same results by following the same procedures. This increases confidence in the validity of the findings and allows the results to be more easily integrated into existing knowledge.

Let’s look at 4 types of replicability:

1. Conceptual replicability

This refers to the ability to reproduce the concepts or theories that are used in a study.

This is the ability to replicate the underlying conceptual framework or theoretical basis of a study, rather than just the empirical methods. Conceptual replicability is important as it allows researchers to 'test' the validity, and reliability, of particular concepts in various different contexts. For example if Managerial scientists have identified the concept of consumer confidence they could test it on different sets of consumers, different categories of retail environment etc.

Conceptual Replicability is also important for improving the production of knowledge as it allows for the development and refinement of theories and conceptual frameworks

2. Methodological replicability.

This refers to the ability to reproduce the methods or procedures used in a study.

When a study is methodologically replicable, it means that other researchers can obtain the same results by following the same procedures. This increases the reliability of the research results. It will then increase the confidence in the validity of the findings and allows the results to be more easily integrated into existing knowledge. In this way, methodological replicability can help to improve the production of knowledge by ensuring that the results of a study are robust and can be reliably reproduced. Such reliability and validity is of particular importance where health, safety or human rights are concerned, as such methodological replicability is core to the methods of knowledge production in the Human and Natural Sciences.

Methodological replicability also allows other researchers to build upon the findings of a study, which can facilitate the development of further research, new theories and insights. Much scientific knowledge is produced by networked teams of researchers working in different locations, methodological replicability enables them to build upon each others findings, thus increasing the speed and effectiveness of knowledge development.

3. Statistical replicability.

This refers to the ability to reproduce the statistical analyses and results of a study.

Statistical transparency in the results of the research allows peer reviewers to check the statistical calculations made. They can look at the variations in the results arising from various trials to analyse whether any variations are naturally occuring, caused by extraneous variables, or caused by undetected elements of the independent variable.

The degree to which statistical replicability is necessary, or even possible, will very much depend upon the Area of Knowledge under consideration, the purposes of the knowledge production, and the context within which the knowledge production occurs.

4. Practical replicability

This refers to the ability to apply the findings of a study in real-world settings.

The ability to replicate methods and findings in laboratories, or other controlled settings, may help us to isolate and identify cause and effect relationships. In doing so we are increasing the reliability of the knowledge produced. However, to increase the validity of the knowledge we need to be able to show that it has real world viability (what psychologists term "ecological validity"). As such the research will be replicated in a real world setting, subjecting it to many of the uncontrolled for extraneous variables which can, potentially, effect the research results and findings. However, by putting the research into a real world setting researchers are able to refine both the processes and the outcomes for more practical application in the future.

Exactly how practical replicability would be carried out very much depends upon the area of knowledge under consideration, the purpose and the focus of the research.

Counterclaims for the above types of Replicability can be developed by looking at Dr Ulrick Schimmack's excellent blog The Replication Index. Without going into detail on each of the counterclaim concerns raised by Dr Schimmack these include unconscious bias, implicit bias, latent variables, confirmation bias, selection bias, outlier bias, Ad Hominem Fallacy, Straw Man Fallacy, Correlation-Causation Fallacy - I could go on.

The key task in Essay #1 is to tackle the idea of necessity in the production of knowledge. I spend some time doing this in the previous blog post on this essay, and in a lot of detail in the essay notes on this question which can be obtained from the link in the video description

If you have questions, or would like more details on this essay, please add in the comments below, or feel free to email me at Daniel@toktoday.com.

Enjoy your ToKWriting,
Daniel,
Lisbon, Dec 2022

ToK Q&A December 2022

ToK Q&A: I’ve been receiving questions from ToK students around the world. I love to answer your questions, so I thought that I’d take some of the most frequently asked questions, and bundle them into a video. 

Question #1 : "What makes a good object for an Exhibition?"

This is a very straightforward question to answer, the May 2022 Subject Report makes it very clear. The best objects are ones that have some personal relevance to you, that bit’s easy. However - the personal relevance should also have a link to the prompt, it should have a knowledge link. So, if you’re answering the prompt “why do we seek knowledge?”, and your object is your childhood soft toy. The link is not because it was your favourite soft toy, the link could be because you first became interested in the motivation to seek knowledge when you read the “Made in Great Britain” label attached to the toy’s toe.

Going back to the original question - what makes a good object, I would say that the object is far less important than the way in which the object is used - the way in which you use the object to explore the knowledge link.

This is a similar answer as to what makes a good RLS in the Essay - but we’ll save that for a later post.

Q2: "Is it OK to include diagrams in Essay 5 May 2023 ? - the essay about Visual Representations"

The short answer to this question is yes it is, the slightly longer answer is why would you want to include diagrams ? Let me explain a little - if you include a diagram / chart it is your written explanation of that diagram / chart that the examiner will assess, not the diagram / chart, but it’s use in the exploration of the prescribed title. In my opinion if you are getting into the detail of explaining a specific chart / diagram you are probably spending too many words describing the RLS rather than exploring the PT.

Remember the PT is about knowledge rather than the specifics of any particular RLS - focus on trying to establish principles about knowledge production rather than analysing the RLS. I think that this particular PT is about the word ‘helpful’ rather than ways in which visual representations may or may not be accurate. If you want more information on Essay 5 you can watch my video for more details.

Q3: "I need to get a high score in ToK, but I am worried because it’s such an open ended subject - What if the Examiner has a different viewpoint to me ?"

OK, first thing is don’t worry, I don’t want you to waste energy on anxiety - if you work closely with your teacher, follow their advice you should get a good score in ToK.

Let’s briefly look at the two ToK assessments, and you should see that a good score is very achievable.

The Exhibition is marked by your teacher, and moderated by IB. Very rarely do IB moderate the teachers grade by more than 1 mark. Therefore, in most cases - what your teacher gives you for the Exhibition is the score that stands. So, you need to work closely with your teacher if you want a good score in the Exhibition, ask for, & listen to, their advice, pay close attention to the Draft feedback.

Let’s look at The Essay - The Essay is marked by an external IB Examiner, but The Examiner’s don’t mark the Essay according to their personal opinions. They have an assessment rubric that identifies specific things that they are looking for. Your teacher can you give you a copy of this - it’s called “The ToK Essay Assessment Instrument” - if you include the things that they are looking for in the rubric you should get a good score. Don’t worry - that’s wasted energy - just communicate with your teacher - they will show you how to get that high score.

Q4: "How can I write counterclaims ?"

So, first of all - there’s no requirement to write claims & counterclaims. There is a requirement to ‘explore’ the prompt, and to include knowledge arguments, evaluation of these arguments and implications of those arguments. The use of claims and counterclaims is just a useful way of structuring those requirements that some people find helpful.

Personally, I think that using the claim & counterclaim structure does help most students for most essays to meet the requirements - so I generally recommend it (you can see more on essay structures in the card I put above). 

That said, the difficulty that some people find in writing the counterclaim comes from, I think, a belief that the counterclaim has to be the direct  opposite of the claim - this is not the case. The counterclaim should be an alternative perspective of the claim, not necessarily the opposite, and this leaves you the opportunity to explore a number of possible counterclaims.

Let’s look at a simplified example: if your claim was that all swans are white. Your counterclaim does not necessarily have to be that not all swans are white. Your counterclaim could be some swans are sometimes white, or some swans are white when it fits their purpose, and so on. The counterclaim can be a variation of the claim as long as it introduces alternative knowledge arguments.

Q5: "Can students see the subject reports ?"

For those of you who don’t know - the subject report is a report written by the Chief Examiner after the exam session - it’s super useful as it explains what the examiners are looking for, and some of the common mistakes that they saw in the previous exam session.

The answer to the question of whether the subject report ids available to students  is yes, as far as i understand it students are allowed to see the ToK Subject - I’m not aware of any guidance from IB to the contrary, ToK teachers - if you know any contrary guidance please let me know. I have always shared the subject reports with my students, and used them to help them to prepare their ToK assessments - if I shouldn't have been doing this I’ll now be in trouble !

Check out the May 22 Subject Report (in diagram form) at this link (Essay), and this link (Exhibition).

OK, that’s enough for the December Q&A, we'll have another one in January. If you have questions that you would like me to address in future Q&As please don’t hesitate to send them to Daniel@TokToday.com.

Scientific Anomalies & the production of knowledge.

What can scientific anomalies tell us about the production of scientific knowledge ? Today's blog post outlines a real life situation that can be used as an example in AoK Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and various themes. We can use it to explore a few key ToK ideas:

(i) Why is knowledge categorised into AoKs, and are those divisions useful ?

(ii) Is the scientific method inherent to producing scientific knowledge ?

(iii) Does Peer Review ensure the reliability of knowledge ?

(iv) Are there self-sustaining gatekeepers imposing a knowledge hierarchy within the AoKs ?

Starting points - Robert Jahn at Princeton.

You can read background on Professor Jahn's academic history at Wikipedia - he was undoubtedly a very accomplished academic in Physics. What is of interest to us is his research in Parapsychology.

Image Citation: “Robert Jahn, Pioneer of Deep Space Propulsion and Mind-Machine Interactions, Dies at 87.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/30/robert-jahn-pioneer-deep-space-propulsion-and-mind-machine-interactions-dies-87.

Research in Parapsychology.

In the 1970s and 80s, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory, led by Robert Jahn, conducted a series of experiments on the so-called "anomalous effects" of human consciousness on physical systems. Essentially he was looking at an effect called Psychokinesis - the ability of the mind to affect the external physical world. These experiments, which were largely funded by the US military, aimed to investigate the possibility that human consciousness could affect the behaviour of random number generators, machines that produce sequences of random numbers.

The experiments conducted at PEAR were designed to be highly controlled and rigorously scientific, and they followed the scientific method in their approach. However, the results of these experiments were not always in line with expectations. In some cases, the results seemed to indicate that human consciousness could indeed affect the behaviour of random number generators, but in other cases, the results were inconclusive or seemed to contradict previous findings.

These anomalies at PEAR raised questions about the nature of human consciousness and its potential relationship to the physical world. Some critics argue that the anomalies observed at PEAR were the result of flaws in the experimental design or data analysis, while others suggest that they may indicate the presence of unknown forces or phenomena that are not currently understood by science.

Despite the controversy surrounding the experiments at PEAR, the work of Robert Jahn and his colleagues has contributed to our understanding of the relationship between human consciousness and the physical world. Their research has provided valuable insights into the potential capabilities of the human mind, and has sparked further investigation into the mysteries of consciousness.

How can we use this in ToK ?

ToK Question:

(i) Why is knowledge categorised into AoKs, and are those divisions useful ?

The Knowledge Frameworks of the AoKs describe why knowledge is categorised into AoKs. We look at the Scope, Perspectives and Methodology of knowledge to decide how it should be categorised into AoKs.

However, there is some dispute about these divisions (eg see the work of Basil Bernstein as explored by Suellen Shay). Jahn's work clearly shows a crossover between the Physical and Human Sciences. It also shows a deep integration between the two science AoKs and AoK Mathematics.

It could be argued that whilst the AoKs may provide us with a convenient model to organise knowledge in ToK they don't necessarily bear much correspondence with the construction and application of knowledge in the real world.

ToK Question:

(ii) Is the scientific method inherent to producing scientific knowledge ?

The Scientific Method and Scientific Knowledge are often presented as being mutually inclusive elements. ie scientific knowledge is scientific because it is produced using the scientific method. Whilst this may be the case for the vast majority of scientific knowledge there are cases in which the scientific method has not been used to produce scientific knowledge. The main reasons for this would be that either the knowledge has been discovered (sometimes accidentally), or the knowledge does not avail itself of scientific testing (such as rare events / phenomena), or the technology does not yet exist to apply scientific testing procedures.

Jahn's work was testing something beyond the normal scope / parameters of the physical sciences. It is possible that we are yet to develop the technology to test the sort of energy fields that he was interested in. The ToK point here is that knowledge production is, to a degree, limited to the technology available at the time (eg we couldn't test the effects of ultra violet lights on plants until we were able to identify and control ultra violet lights).

ToK Question:

(iii) Does Peer Review ensure the reliability of knowledge ?

Jahn showed a small significant effect over a large number of trials. Such findings would have the potential for changing the basic premises of Physics. However, his methodology was widely criticised by many of his peer physicists at the time (again you can read about this on Wikipedia). Further, many Peer Review bodies refused to review Jahn's research on the basis that it did not constitute 'science' (see this article).

As such, this does appear to show that Peer Review ensures reliability of knowledge. However, there are two immediately apparent drawbacks to this system. The first is that peer review ensures reliability within the scope by which reliability is defined at that time, in that particular discipline / AoK. The ways in which reliability is defined and tested may change by context, time and purpose.

The second concern (implication) is that the narrow definition and application of reliability may be marginalising valuable new knowledge which does not stand up to peer review. Research into such new knowledge may not be further developed due to dismissal at an early stage of development.

ToK Question:

(iv) Are there self-sustaining gatekeepers imposing a knowledge hierarchy within the AoKs ?

Jah, and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR), experienced marginalisation and even ridicule by the scientific community, as well described in this article from the Harvard magazine Crimson,and this article from The New York Times.

We could look at such reactions as stemming from a body of practitioners who agree upon the scope and methodology of knowledge production within their AoK. On the other hand we could also consider their reactions as ensuring their hold over power and authority within their AoK - a classic gatekeepers hierarchy.

The work of Professor Jahn and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab, provides ToK students with a rich seam of insight into the production of knowledge at the highest levels of scientific research. It is particularly useful because the participants were willing to step away from that which is deemed to be conventional in their field. It is in the contrasts with normal operations that we can sometimes best see what constitutes normal operations.

Daniel,
Lisbon, Dec 2022

More on AoK Natural Sciences at this link.

ToK Essay 5 May 2023: What is meant by "helpful in the communication of knowledge?"

Since writing the essay notes, and making the video, for ToK Essay 5 May 2023 (Visual Representations) I have been returning to the phrase “helpful in the communication of knowledge”. I feel that more unpacking of this term will be useful for students writing this essay.

For the wider (more introductory) notes on ToK Essay 5 May 2023 see this video, and pick up the detailed notes from here.

In this blog post I look at 3 perspectives that students could use to approach / unpack this term:

1. Ways of understanding the typology of knowledge (Zuckerfeld, 2017)

2.The role of symbol and signal in the communication of knowledge.(Berry, 2019)

3. The role of meaning in the communication of knowledge.(Hornsby & Stanley 2005).

My starting premise for all of these perspectives is that in order to judge whether something is helpful we have to decide what its purpose is, in this case we have to decide what the purpose of the communication of knowledge is in order to judge whether visual representations are helpful. This post focuses on the question - what are some of the possible purposes of the communication of knowledge ?

Perspective 1: The Typology of Knowledge (Zuckerfeld 2017).

Students could explore whether the communication of knowledge is helpful for the individual knower or for the development of the Area of Knowledge as a whole. Different types of knowledge will be helpful for one, the other, and sometimes both. Obviously, this distinction will be further differentiated by the various factors of context.

When looking at the individual knower in ToK there is always the danger of falling into a relativist argument that fails to make any substantial statements. To help to avoid this I point students towards the idea of ‘intersubjective realities’ (Zuckerfeld, 2017) - the idea that knowers share common knowledge (which leads to language, culture etc).

It is in these intersubjective realities Zuckerfeld argues that we can find some answers to the purpose of communication of knowledge - at either the level of the knower or at the level of the AoK. Zuckerfeld describes 5 main types of inter-subjective knowledge to which we can apply the use of visual communication in order to assess its usefulness.

Types of Knowledge

(i) Recognition Based Knowledge

This is the institutional based knowledge (both formal and informal) (such as work & education) which enables location and hierarchy. This is value based, and as such visual representations are only useful in so much as they consolidate values based comprehension. 

(ii) Linguistic Knowledge.

This includes not only formal language, but also informal language (such as slang & dialect) and non-human language (such as computer coding). Students could argue that language itself is a form of visual representation (emojis are obvious etc). The argument for ‘helpfulness’ seems clear here, however, strong counterclaims could be developed around misinterpretation and the contextual nature of meaning. The strength of formalised semantic (rather than visual) based language is standardised interpretation, as such a strong argument could be developed for the unhelpfulness of visual representations.

(iii) Organisational Knowledge.

This is knowledge which increases the specialisation and precision of process and understanding. Such knowledge allows for high degrees of human expertise, which arguably increases the effectiveness of knowledge. Zuckerfeld includes the internet, and social media such as Facebook & Youtube under this typology. Arguably Visual Representation only adds value here (ie is ‘helpful’) when it can convey greater meaning than written or spoken words.

(iv) Axiological Knowledge.

This is knowledge which defines the knower’s identity. Zuckerfeld argues that this is experienced as individual, but is increasingly consumption based. Strong arguments for the role of visual representations helping to quickly convey meaning could be developed for this type of knowledge.

(v) Normative Knowledge.

 This is formalised, externalised, standardised knowledge such as laws, academic content, and rights. This is highly networked, social and public knowledge. As such a student could develop strong arguments that visual representations are helpful in the communication of aspects of this knowledge, if not so much in the production of this knowledge.

Perspective 2. The role of symbol and signal in the communication of knowledge.(Berry, 2019)

Berry et al look at the Digital Humanities as an emerging field of AoK Human Sciences, arguing that the prevalence of digital communication of knowledge requires us to redevelop the Human Sciences. Obviously, much digital communication is in the form of visual representation, and as such Berry’s article can add much depth to the Human Sciences element of ToK Essay 5 May 2023.

Berry starts with vivid analysis of the problems caused by the digital communication of knowledge at both the level of the Knower, and the development of wider (AOK) social knowledge. He borrows the term ‘disorientation’ ( the difference between the human ordering of time and the digital representation of time) from Stiegler (Stiegler 2008)  to describe the effects of this vastly increased digital communication of knowledge. ToK students could develop this concept to look at the effects of visual representations in Human Sciences of the representation of the more qualitative aspects of that studied.

Berry et al propose that GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) as a representation of big tech has led to a commoditization of human experience in which symbolic lived reality has replaced been replaced by the signal of the communication. As such, all knowledge becomes data which can be directly compared, calculated, and standardised. Again, ToK students would have to be careful not to spend too many words on descriptions of the negative effects of digitalisation of knowledge, but rather focus on the challenges that this poses for AoK Human Sciences which were primarily developed in a pre-digital era.

This argument then develops into the description of what they call “The Second Machine Age” in which the digitalisation of knowledge leads to high levels of anxiety and alienation. An age in which emotions are no longer represented symbolically, but become commodified signals. This argument provides a rich framework for ToK students to unpack the ideas of both visual representations (representing what ? and in which ways ?) and helpful (to whom ? and for what ?). Again, they borrow from Stiegler the idea of the “Grammatization” of culture, which could easily & equally be applied to visual representations and knowledge in the PT.

Encoding-Decoding

A core part of their argument is that in the digital age knowledge has to be encoded before it is communicated. This has two consequences: (i) the knowledge is now constrained by its compatibility to the platform of communication (ii) the decoding of the signal depends upon the receiver who is further removed from the signaller than in a pre-digital age. This argument could be developed to demonstrate the unhelpfulness in the communication of knowledge in the Human Sciences, especially in Psychology, Anthropology and Sociology. More pertinently, it is maybe an argument that those Human Sciences need to be redeveloped in order to take account of the new forms of visual representations in the communication of knowledge.

A final point of interest of their argument is a development of Drucker’s paper on digital scholarship in which she argues that “tool making has replaced hermeneutics”. Essentially she’s arguing that the production of the representation of knowledge (signal) has replaced the meaning (symbol) of that knowledge. In terms of PT#5 this could be developed as a strong argument (counterclaim ?) that the visual representation is now the knowledge itself, the visuals no longer represent the knowledge, they are the knowledge.

Perspective 3: The role of meaning in the communication of knowledge. (Hornsby & Stanley 2005).

Hornsby & Stanley (2005) take a linguistic approach to the purpose of the communication of knowledge. This is useful to us as we can think of written knowledge as being a visual representation of knowledge, and contrast it with verbal knowledge. Obviously, both are means by which knowledge is communicated.

Hornsby & Stanley make a distinction between Semantic Knowledge (knowledge conveying meaning), Practical Knowledge (knowledge enabling us to act), and Procedural Knowledge (knowledge which tells us how to do something). Their starting point is that Semantic Knowledge is Practical Knowledge, and that within practical knowledge we have the realisation of semantic knowledge. They argue that practical knowledge is developed through speaking rather than visually. This is useful for students writing ToK Essay 5 May 2023 because it provides a counterclaim to the helpfulness of visual representations . Obviously students writing this answer will have to place this theory within the Areas of Knowledge concerned (Hum Sci & Maths), however it has direct relevance within both AoKs.

Hornsby & Stanley argue that spoken language is more meaningful than written / visual language because with spoken language the meaning of the communication is integrated with the understanding of the knowledge in real time, in situ. As such the sender of the knowledge is able to adjust the message in response to the receivers comprehension in situ. They develop this argument to show that the semantic structures associated with spoken language (knowledge) are different to the semantic structures associated with written (visually represented) language (Knowledge). Again, this can be used as a counterargument against the helpfulness of visual representations, for example in the communication of knowledge in the maths classroom.

What about the communicator ?

The third string of their argument is the emphasis they place on the communicator in the production and packaging of the knowledge. The communicator shapes the semantic meaning of the knowledge in the production of the message. With visual representation of the knowledge that shaping must be done hypothetically, however with spoken communication of knowledge it can be done organically in response to the receiver. 

A fourth position in their paper which can be applied to ToK Essay 5 May 2023 is the type of knowledge best described by visual representations. They argue that visual representations of knowledge best describe procedural knowledge, and that this is typical in both the production, sending and reception of the knowledge. Such procedural knowledge, they argue, is best developed as semantic knowledge in a spoken environment (e.g. think about ‘reading it out loud to make sense of it’).

Their article goes onto develop an argument concerning a ‘meta-meaning’ enshrined within spoken language (knowledge) as opposed to written / visually represented language (knowledge).

What I have presented here are 3 perspectives on ways in which we can understand the purposes of the communication of knowledge in order to judge whether visual representations are helpful. Obviously, all that I can give in the scope of this post are brief overviews of the research cited. Full references (plus doi references, or JSTOR references) are included below should you wish to read the original articles to get more details for your ToK Essay.

Should you have any questions or thoughts please do not hesitate to get in touch with me at Daniel@TokToday.com.

Enjoy your ToK Writing!
Daniel, Lisbon,
December 2022 

References.

• BERRY, DAVID M., et al. “No Signal without Symbol: Decoding the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019, edited by Matthew K. Gold and Lauren F. Klein, University of Minnesota Press, 2019, pp. 61–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.8. Accessed 30 Nov. 2022.

• Drucker, Johanna. “Humanistic Theory and Digital Scholarship.” In Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, 85-95. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 2012.

• Hornsby, Jennifer, and Jason Stanley. “Semantic Knowledge and Practical Knowledge.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, vol. 79, 2005, pp. 107–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106937. Accessed 30 Nov. 2022.

• Stiegler, Bernard, Technics and Time: 2 Disorientation. Translated by Stephen Barker. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2008.

• Zukerfeld, Mariano, and Suzanna Wylie. “The Typology of Knowledge.” Knowledge in the Age of Digital Capitalism: An Introduction to Cognitive Materialism, vol. 2, University of Westminster Press, 2017, pp. 53–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv6zd9v0.7. Accessed 30 Nov. 2022.

Did photography change painting?

Today's post can be used as a real life example for AoK The Arts, Knowledge and Technology, and possibly other elements of ToK. There is an associated video linked here, and below. We look at how the invention of the camera, and development of photography may have changed painting (and vice versa).

Did the invention of the Camera change painting?

Until the mid 19th Century painting aspired to a super realistic re-creation of reality - the more realistic the painting the better the art & artist. This was mainly because painting was the main way that we capture a record of the physical world, rich people (such as lords of the manor) would pay artists to produce flattering portraits of themselves, their families, their land and their animals. Then in 1839 the camera was invented, and suddenly we had a new technology that could capture precise and accurate representations of the physical world. No more need for portrait painters, good bye realistic representational art, and consequently we see the rise of Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, post surrealism etc. Conclusion the camera fundamentally changed visual arts - convenient huh ? it’s a comfortable little story of how technology changes knowledge, it’s also a little too convenient, maybe a crude oversimplification, or simply wrong.

Let’s dig a little deeper…, 

We’re going to have to use the terms knowledge and technology somewhat interchangeably. Where technology ends and knowledge begins is open to much discussion, and not really the main focus of this post. We will broadly accept that technology is the physical tool of knowledge. For the purposes of short hand convenience we’ll consider them as mutually inclusive factors. 

The ToK question : does new knowledge replace old knowledge?

The applied ToK question: does new technology produce new knowledge which replaces old knowledge produced by old technology ?

The real life situation: Did the new technology of photography displace, or change, the old technology of painting because it was better at accurately recording images ?

Let’s quickly run through 3 perspectives:

Perspective 1:

The archetypal / crude depiction that new technology supplants / replaces pre-existing technology.

This was the argument made at the beginning of this video - and it was real fear in the mid 19th C:

Lei Qin argues that some painters thought that the emergence of the new technology of photography in the 1840s would spell the end of their art form, she quotes the French painter Paul Delaroche upon seeing a camera said this: “As from today, painting is dead!”.

This replacement argument is often made at the beginning of a new technology - for example as home video machines became popular in the 1980s it was thought that they would replace cinema, emails would replace paper letters, planes would replace ocean liners etc, Sometimes the new technology does replace the old technology (think horses and cars), but often it only changes the use of the old technology. Which leads us to our second perspective:

Perspective 2: New Technology changes pre-existing technology.

Elena Martinique argues that photography radically changed painting and art (Martinique). She particularly argues that the impressionists (such as Monet, Sisley, Degas and Cezanne) were particularly influenced by photography. Photography allowed artists new ways to examine the relationship between space, light and form. Photography allowed landscape artists such as Courbet and Daubigny to depict details such as the ways in which light filters through trees, or how water curls at the crest of a wave. Figurative impressionists such as Manet often used photographs of landscape to inform the backgrounds of their paintings.

In 1851 the French Government initiated the Mission Heliographique, a project in which 5 photographers were hired to document the monuments and architecture of France. Their photographs were later used by impressionist painters to inform their painting, this can be seen in Monet’s paintings of Rouen Cathedral and Pissarro’s paintings of the Boulevards of Paris.

So, this perspective is that the new technology modifies or changes the pre-existing technology. Non art examples might be that planes did not replace ocean liners, but led to the rise of leisure cruises, emails did not replace paper letters but just increased the value of a handwritten letter, digital music did not replace vinyl records, but made the vinyl a niche status symbol and so on.

Now we could get into the definition of the word replace, and discuss the function of the technology in the production of knowledge, but we’ll have to save that for future videos, because our 3rd perspective introduces a more radical perspective.

Perspective 3: Pre-existing knowledge eventually changes the new technology. 

After the introduction of film based photography in the 1840’s early adopters of this new technology started to realise that the capacity for photography to produce new, innovative and even abstract representations of the world was far greater than it’s capacity to capture realistic views of the world.

Remember the 5 photographers hired by the French Govt in 1851 - well 4 of them were trained artists. When they submitted their photographs to the Commission des Monuments Historiques it became obvious that rather than capture survey images showing the state of old French monuments they had actually made many artistic photographs contrasting line, shape, form and other artistic devices.

Throughout the 1800s photographers started to realise that as a form of visual communication photography could communicate more than accurate realism, they started to adopt many of the visual design methods of painters to communicate message, meaning, context and emotion. Henry Talbot Fox’s image The Open Door is a conscious effort to make a photograph in the style of the 17th Century Dutch school. In the intervening years photography has developed as an art form far beyond the mere capturing of reality. 

So, in this perspective pre-existing or old knowledge changes the new knowledge, and this question is not really about technology, it’s all about knowledge.

The original question itself is wrong (first rule of ToK: question the question). Photography and painting are maybe better thought of as different expressions of the same function of knowledge - that function / purpose being visual communication, or they can be thought of as two completely different & separate forms of knowledge & technology. As such we can develop some analytical knowledge perspectives, these are knowledge counterclaims in the ToK World:

Knowledge Counterclaim 1:

We’re actually not comparing two technologies that produce even similar knowledge for even similar purposes. As Pierre Bonnard argues that: “ “The question is not the painting of life, but making painting come alive.” This perspective argues that the purpose of creating photographic knowledge is completely different to the purpose of creating painted knowledge. The knowledge producers are constructing that knowledge to fulfil different needs.

Knowledge Counterclaim  2:

Verisimilitude - does photography actually reproduce reality as we experienced it ? Is what we know about a scene just how light has fallen on a flat image sensor ? Photography can remove context, emotion etc Arguably the painter better captures our knowledge of place & time by being able to manipulate the physical elements in order to better capture that which is present. It may be that painting is the more representative art form because painters can convey meaning, context, emotion. How often have you seen a photo of yourself which does not accurately represent your experience of that event ?

Knowledge Counterclaim 3:

Maybe the images tell us more about the people who constructed them than about the scene that they are supposedly recording. Both paintings and photographs are constructed in a particular way. The artist & photographer bring their interests, purposes, biases, judgments, culture, values and truth to how they construct the image. The image is actually their interpretation of the scene not a replication of the scene. As such the knowledge created by each technology is knowledge about the knowledge producer rather than the scene captured.

Knowledge Counterclaim 4:

What about the wider context of the development of the new technology of photography ? The 19th C was a time of rapid industrialisation in Europe, material wealth quickly increased, and people started to enjoy leisure time and surplus wealth. Arguably, photographic knowledge was a compatible product of this context. Rather than photography replacing painting, it could be that the social context changed and painting was no longer well adapted for the new industrialised context.

What is clearer than a well focussed photograph is that once you dig below the surface of a convenient, and comfortable, knowledge relationship you find that influence, interpolation and implication are far more intricate and involved than they might first appear.

ToK Teachers can find lessons for AoK The Arts at this link, and this one (on the Arts & Ethics).

Daniel,
Lisbon, December 2022

Works Cited

• Duggan, Bob. “How Photography Changed Painting (and Vice Versa).” Big Think, 7 February 2013, https://bigthink.com/articles/how-photography-changed-painting-and-vice-versa/. Accessed 22 November 2022.

• Grøtta, Marit. “Reading/Developing Images: Baudelaire, Benjamin, and the Advent of Photography.” Nineteenth-Century French Studies, vol. 41, no. 1/2, 2013, pp. 80–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23538443. Accessed 22 Nov. 2022.

• Martinique, Elena. “How Did Photography Influence The Impressionists?” Widewalls, 12 October 2019, https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/impressionists-photography-museo-thyssen-bornemisza. Accessed 22 November 2022.

• Qin, Lei. “Some thoughts about photography's influence on painting | CCTP 802 – Art and Media Interfaced.” Georgetown Commons, 27 March 2018, https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/cctp-802-spring2018/2018/03/27/some-thoughts-about-photographys-influence-on-painting/. Accessed 22 November 2022.

• Willette, Jeanne. “Mission Héliographique, Part Two.” Art History Unstuffed, 30 January 2015, https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/mission-heliographique-part-two/. Accessed 25 November 2022.

Christmas ToK Lesson

Teaching DP in the last week of term before Christmas can present us with somewhat of a challenge. Usually there is a festive feel in the air, and the students may be having ‘parties’ in some classes, some may even want to have a party in your lesson. I’m a bit of a grumpy Scrooge who prefers to keep learning going - we have limited teaching time, and a party is more work for less gain than running your lesson as usual. However I am not totally immune to the Yuletide festivities - so I usually try to bring a festive theme into the lesson, without losing the learning objectives - that’;s what I have for you today - a ToK lesson which introduces AoK Natural Sciences, but applied in a festive grotto of presents, reindeer and softly falling snow.

A video explaining the lesson is linked below.

Free Lesson Resource download

Christmas ToK Lesson

The ToK of Santa Claus: Learning Objectives

I’ve called the lesson The ToK of Santa Claus. The lesson has two main learning objectives:

1) students consider the differences between necessary and sufficient evidence, and many points in between.

2) students learn key points about the scientific method.

Mentimeter - a great learning tool

So, we start the lesson with a Mentimeter poll - if you haven’t used Mentimeter it’s a great (free) tool to get engagement and to check understanding. Sometimes I don’t get any further than the mentimeter starter activity in a lesson.

This Mentimeter quiz asks students to consider the terms necessary and sufficient in relation to evidence. At the risk of trivialising these ideas we’re just starting to scaffold students in their exploration of these terms.

Popper's Theory of Falsification

After the quiz we go into a Christmas version of Popper’s Falsification Theory, it’s a loose application of that theory - but should be ‘sufficient’ for the purposes of a ToK course. This is followed by a bit of upfront teaching of the theory of falsification.

At this point, maybe about 50 mins into the lesson we can move to group work, and introduce the scientific method. We ask groups to use the Scientific Method to research the existence of Santa.

Activity 2 then gives students a more conceptually challenging task which helps them to understand perspectives in AoK Natural Sciences. We ask each group to take on a different perspective / role as a knower when considering the existence of Santa.

And then finally, if you have a really long lesson, or incredibly enthusiastic ToK students we have 6 open ended questions which link the role of evidence in The Natural Sciences to other ToK concepts - the operative concepts in each question are obviously in purple bold.

And, there we have it - a suitably festive lesson which will still enable ToK learning to take place. 

I wish you and your family all the best for the season, and I hope to see you back here in the New Year.

Seasons greetings to you all,
Daniel,
Lisbon, Portugal

ToK Essay 4 May 2023: Astonishing (revisited)

ToK Essay 4 May 2023 presents us with a quote from Bertrand Russell that it is “astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power”. This video is a short addition to my main thoughts on this essay title which can be found here.

Initially I thought that this essay title was about the relationship between the amount of knowledge we have, and the power afforded to us by that power. However, the more I think about it the more I think that the interesting, maybe central, point of this essay is about the affective adjective ‘astonishing’. Here are 4 arguments why this essay could be about the astonishment that Russell expresses:

1. Attitude to knowledge.

The quote is centrally about our relationship to knowledge, about our attitude to knowledge. It’s not about the measurable knowledge and the power commensurate to measurable power. The ToK Essay does not invite you to go into an autobiographical exploration of Bertrand Russell, so at the danger of tempting students to do so, let’s just briefly touch on Russell’s philosophy. Russell was a pioneer of the use of analytical logic in philosophy, in later life he became an anti imperialist, and was concerned with the use of power to subjugate fellow humans. As such he was wrangling with reconciling a philosophy based on logic against human behaviours based illogical prejudices or biases. 

In this context we can start to interpret the quote as implying a degree of complacency, self possession, even arrogance in our attitude to our knowledge. The astonishment may come from our complacency in not wishing to know more, or our willingness to act despite having such limited knowledge. 

Positivism and empiricism.

The key point is, I think, a commentary on the overwhelmingly positivist and empiricist age within which we live. The 20th & 21st centuries are periods within which positivism and empiricism have triumphed over all other forms of knowing to such a degree that the idea that a scientific fact is superior to any other form of knowledge is hegemonic, aphoristic and near absolute. Our context is so imbued with positivist empiricism that I even heard a Christian religious leader on BBC Radio 4 this morning use scientific proof in order to illustrate the limitations of faith based  belief. 

The potential dangers of positivist empiricism is that its premise is that everything has an explanation, and therefore, consequently, everything can ultimately be controlled. Or maybe, the premise is not the danger, but the exercise of that control with limited explanations (aka knowledge) is the danger. (for example Russell became increasingly concerned with the danger of nuclear weapons later in his life).

Arguably Positivist empiricism gives us a certain arrogance from our perceived place in the world and our ability to control that around us.

Human as progenitor rather than human as derivative - that’s astonishing arrogance. 

2. Context bound knowledge.

Russell starts with the premise that “we know so little”, we can fully understand his point - Science and Maths have shown us (through their particular methodology) that our knowledge is incredibly limited. Faith based knowledge, and indigenous knowledge systems, commonly posit that know little, and invite us to welcome that limitation. However, the experience of the positivist age is the exact opposite. Arguably, our lived experience of the modern world is that we know a lot, possibly that we are on the verge of knowing everything - listen to how people use phrases such as “it is a scientific fact”, “scientific research shows”, “that has not been scientifically proven”. It’s the use of science as absolute truth, universal truth - ie we know, or can know, everything.

So, if we take my first premise that most people assume that we know a lot (rather than a little) maybe the quote is implying that both our knowledge and power are incredibly context bound.

Context bound.

All knowledge is bound by its context. What we know today is everything that we know - the unknown is experienced as unknowable, and therefore it feels like we know a lot, or at least have the capacity to know all that we don’t know. 

However, the problem with this argument is that it treats knowledge as an external reality waiting to be discovered - it treats knowledge like unknown areas of a map that we are yet to explore (this is the symptom of the positivist empiricism from which we all suffer). We could take a more rationalist perspective, that knowledge is internally constructed. As such we are merely limited by our imagination, our open-mindedness, our ability to both observe and to identify that which is significant. In which case the astonishment may come from our limited inclination and impetus to construct more knowledge. To rephrase Russell again - It is astonishing that we live in an age in which we have so much power alongside such wilful ignorance. 

3. Assumption - Knowledge gives us power.

I interpreted the quote as implying that there could / should be a relationship between knowledge and power: Knowledge gives us power. A viable ToK essay could go down the route of looking at what types of knowledge give different types of power - this would be particularly effective if it were based in the Frameworks of the Areas of Knowledge. Again, if taking this approach I would strongly recommend linking it to the idea of astonishment.

However, we could also take a more critical approach. We could argue that the link between knowledge and power is tenuous at best, and possibly non-existent in some circumstances. 

This argument would be constructed around the idea that power comes from a wider range of factors than knowledge (eg attribution, habituation, compulsion, culture etc). 

Or conversely we could argue that the relationship between knowledge and power is inverse.

Starting from a premise that by knowing more we also become more aware of the extent of our ignorance we could argue that increasing knowledge can be disempowering. Again if we look at knowledge and power as being culturally contextual then to gain knowledge external to that cultural context could be disempowering (as power is culturally defined). Further, If we define power in terms of personal utility, satisfaction, even happiness we can construct an argument which is sometimes commonly put as ‘ignorance is bliss’.

If these arguments were to be applied to the Russell quote we can develop a set of counterclaims that it is not astonishing 

4. “...CAN…” it’s a proposition.

The quote proposes that little knowledge CAN give us so much power, so arguably Russell is not arguing that this is the current de facto state of being, it could be interpreted as a potential possibility. Now, that’s not how I originally read the statement - I originally read it as little knowledge AFFORDS us so much power, but it could be argued as a proposition.

If we interpret it as a proposition then the implication of the quote could be that there is not a direct causal link between knowledge and power - the arguments of perspective 3 swing back into view.

Further we can link this back to the dominance of positivist empiricism - in a scientific age - we have the opportunity to have so much power without necessarily having to gain so much knowledge. It could be posited as an argument for our current forms of knowledge construction. Maybe, it is astonishing that in an age characterised by the dominance of a posteriori reasoning  we use power in an a priori manner.

So, there we have it  - 4 arguments how this essay could be primarily about astonishment. Of course, there is no single correct answer to this essay title (nor any of the other titles). Your task is merely to write a well argued essay which provides a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the title. 

If you want more detailed notes on this essay you can pick up the detailed essay notes from this link.

AoK Natural Sciences - bits n bobs

Whilst preparing a "Christmas lesson" on AoK Natural Sciences I was digging through some of my resources and came across a long series of activities that I previously used for AoK Nat Sci.

I link them below as you may find some of them useful..., it's free & downloadable at this link.

The Christmas Lesson will be coming on Monday next week.

Unsubstantiated assertions in ToK Essay

One of the most frequent mistakes that I saw in the ToK Essay as a ToK Examiner was students writing unsubstantiated assertions. An unsubstantiated assertion is a claim, or statement, which is made without any substance (obviously). Rectifying this mistake is the one of the easiest things that students could do to move from the 3-4 mark band to the 5-6 band.

Let's look at an example:

Scientific knowledge is always objective, and therefore is more important than any of the other types of knowledge.

typical sentence from essays awarded <5 marks.

The above sentence is very typical of the essays that I would see in the 1-4 mark bands. The sentence not only contains 2 unsubstantiated assertions, but also an absolute statement (which is also not a good characteristic).

"Scientific knowledge is always objective": this is an unsubstantiated assertion. We might ask questions such as how do we know this ? where's the evidence ? This statement is also an absolute statement ("always"). Again, we might ask how we know this ? and where's the evidence ?

" Scientific knowledge...., is more important than the other forms of knowledge": Again, this is an unsubstantiated assertion as no evidence is given, it is stated as a fact rather than a claim/argument.

How to avoid unsubstantiated statements.

Unsubstantiated statements are fairly easy to avoide by using any of the following:

1. Cite research, or evidence, which demonstrates the statement.

2. So, in the case of the statement that "Scientific knowledge is always objective" if you can find research that has shown that scientific knowledge is always objective cite it. (Obviously, it's highly unlikely that you would find such research...,).

3. Quote someone who has put forward your claim as an argument.

4. Find a theorist/researcher/writer who has put forward the same claim as the one that you are making and quote them. This gives your argument 'substance'. Eg Jones (1984) argues that all scientific knowledge is objective. (I made up Jones 1984 because no person with credibility would claim that all scientific knowledge is objective, don't make up sources in your essay because the examiners will find you out !).

5. Use a hedging statement.

6. A hedging statement is a word, or statement, which makes the assertion propositional. Examples of hedging statements are: "it could be argued...,", or "one perspective is that...,"

Conclusion.

Changing unsubstantiated statements to substantiated statements is a very easy way to quickly improve the quality of ToK essay writing. Of course it won't necessarily bring coherence, analysis and pertinence to the essay, but it will help the essay move to 4+ marks.

If you want more help writing the ToK Essay you can pick up the e-book at this link, or look at other services offered at this link.

Enjoy your ToK writing!
Daniel,
Lisbon, Nov 2022

Cargo Cults of Melanesia (Free Lesson)

The Cargo Cults of Melanesia make a fascinating case study (RLS) for AoK Human Sciences, Knowledge & Technology, and Knowledge & Indigenous Societies.

I've been using this case study for a few years, and I've found that it really helps to give the students a sense of the reality of knowledge construction.

Obviously the use of this case study has the potential to produce concerns of 'othering' - the treatment of apparent difference as the central defining feature of a person / group of people. I think that the best way to ward against this is to discuss the danger of othering with the students, that is to raise the awareness of normalisation of self and treating those beyond our perceived in-group as other.

I have always felt a little uneasy about the inclusion of "Indigenous Societies" on the ToK Syllabus. However, I can see the benefits of studying non-industrial societies in order to improve our own understanding of knowledge construction.

(free) Lesson Resources !

A link to resources & activities is here: https://sites.google.com/.../the.../cargo-cults-polynesia

More on the Cargo Cults can be found in this Scientific American article, and this article from The Guardian.

Art and Ethics

A lesson for DP1 Students on Art & Ethics which can be placed within Area of Knowledge The Arts, and any of the optional Themes, particularly Knowledge and Language, and Knowledge and Politics.

Lesson Objectives.

By the end of this lesson you should have:

• Considered the relationship between artistic freedom and ethics.

• Considered issues of denotation and connotation of knowledge.

• An introduction to 3 of the main schools of Ethics.

Starter Activity.

Here we introduce 3 of the main schools of ethics.

The PDF version of the file is available here.

Group Learning.

Each group will be given a case study.

Your objective is to prepare a short presentation (maximum 4 slides) answering the following 2 questions:

• What are the ethical issues arising from the production, or display, of this artistic knowledge?

• Is it possible to resolve these ethical issues ?, if so, how

Your Presentation should have the following slides:

1. Context (e.g. what is the artwork?, who was the artist?, When was it created? etc).

2. Controversy. (e.g. What & why was there controversy associated with this artwork? What were the ethical issues? etc)

3. Justification ? (e.g. Is the artwork justifiable in either artistic or ethical terms?)

4. Resolution ? (e.g. Is it possible to resolve an artistic & ethical conflict? and if so how?)

Group 1: Fountain (1917) by Marcel Duchamp

Resources:

Context & reasons for controversy from The Tate Gallery, London.

Short video explanation of controversy.

Extra hint: Part of the ethical issue here is about Gatekeepers & the context of art.

Group 2: Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn (1995) by Ai Weiwei

Resources:

Clear explanation of what & why.

Context & a short explanation of controversy from The Guggenheim.

The case for Ai Weiwei's piece Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn (Video)

Extra Hint: the ethical issues here relate to duplicitous values.

Group 3: My Bed (1998) by Tracey Emin.

Resources:

Context & Controversy (4 min read)

Tracey Emin explains the origin of My Bed, and its meaning to her (video).

Extra hint: The ethical issues here partly concern what the work means to the artist (connotation) vs how others interpret the work (denotation).

Group 4: Piss Christ (1987) by Andres Serrano

Resources:

Context & explanation by Andres Serrano

Context & controversy from Artland Magazine

Andres Serrano explains the piece in The Guardian

Extra hint: One of the ethical issues that the artist draws is between popular culture, meaning and that which is defined as art.

Group 5: Helena (2000) by Marco Evaristti

Resources:

Quick video explaining the work.

Explanation of the work, and intention of Marco Evaristti

Evaristti's explanation of his work (search down for "Helena).

Extra hint: The role of the viewer (or audience) is, arguably, the focus of this work.

Group 6: Statue of Edward Colston (1895) by John Cassidy

Resources:

Wikipedia article giving outline.

Guardian article giving context & controversy.

Interesting video of the outcomes of the controversy.

Extra hint: The issue of whether we should judge the past by the standards of today is salient here.

Group 7: The Parthenon Marbles (5th Century BCE) by Phidias

Resources:

Video explaining the Parthenon Marbles and the controversy.

Wikipedia article giving an overview

Extra hint(s): There are ethical issues concerning originality, and cultural appropriation here.

Balloon Game - Ethics & ToK version starter activity.

Most DP Students will have played the Balloon Game / Shipwreck Game by the time they reach DP. I think it's a great icebreaker, and pastoral activity to play with students of all ages.

In this starter activity we 'up-cycle' it so that it has a ToK twist, we use it as a game to introduce students to the 3 main ethical schools (Virtue Ethics, Deontology and Utilitarianism).

Why introduce ethics in this way ?

Ethics are a subset of the Knowledge Framework for all Areas of Knowledge ( a welcome change from the previous version of the ToK Syllabus). ToK students don't have to know the details of ethical schools, nor be able to explain ethical thought in any detailed way. They only need to know what the ethical issues are that could pertain to any of the Areas of Knowledge. However, rather than teaching the specific ethical issues arising from each area of knowledge it makes far more sense to give students a basic grounding in the main schools of ethics so that they can apply them to the AoKs.

The Balloon Game - Ethics in ToK version.

The Ethics in ToK Balloon Game Handout

The game is pretty straight forward. I put the students into groups, and allocate a school of Ethics to each group to make their decisions.

The PDF version of the file can be downloaded here.

An interesting aside...,

The words 'ethical' and 'ethics' are often in school's Mission/Vision/Values statements. I think they're alluding to some form of virtue ethics. As a ToK teacher I want my students to develop a more precise use of language relating to knowledge. So, I always ask my students to ask "what type of ethics are we referring to ?" when they see it in the school values statements. When we think about it a school aspiring to be deontological will do things very differently to a school aspiring to be utilitarian etc. I know it's a bit pedantic, but a spot of pedantry when it comes to how we behave towards each other may not be a bad thing !

Have a great day,
Daniel,
Lisbon, November 2022.

For more on Ethics you can check out this very clear BBC Site, and there's a lot of good content on the ToK2022 site.