tok essay titles 2023 unpacking

EXPLAINED: May 2024 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles

What happened to this post? HackIB has been acquired by MyIBTutor . All content is now available on the MyIBTutor Blog with more exciting IB content to come! Click here to see it for yourself!

Looking for November 2024 Session TOK Essay titles? Click here.

TOK Essay Titles – May 2024 Examination Session

The titles for May 2024 are released! Here they are below:

Make sure to bookmark this page as I explain and provide examples for each of these titles in depth! UPDATE: Title 1, 2, 5 and 6 are now available. Stay tuned for more! For general guidance on how to write a good TOK essay, check out my TOK Essay advice collection .

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history? Discuss with reference to the arts and history.

How can we reconcile the opposing demands for specialization and generalization in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Do we need custodians of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

This title attempts to challenge students on the main school of thought that you learn over the TOK course. The gist of your TOK teaching on both of these AOKs probably boiled down to something like: everything is art and it’s just whatever the artist wants to create, while history is always biased because the winners always write all of history. However, this eliminates much of the nuance in each of these AOKs that are worth exploring. That’s what makes this prompt interesting.

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts? I will be honest, I never thought we really ‘celebrated’ subjectivity. It just, was. Inherently, art is a subjective exercise – you can think about this point a little further. You will find some heated discussion on whether art is subjective or could it be objective on the internet and I won’t delve into that here, because it isn’t the point of this title. The key here is to focus on the EXTENT of subjectivity and is it to the detriment of the area of knowledge itself. Then, we have to consider, whose subjectivity are we talking about: is it the artist’s subjectivity, or the audience’s subjectivity. For example, the Mona Lisa wasn’t that well known when it was first painted. I’m sure the Da Vinci thought it was quite a nice piece, but it seems like we didn’t really celebrate his subjectivity. It wasn’t until a certain audience found it subjectively good, that we accepted it as one of the greatest pieces of art in the world! That is an example of how subjectivity is relevant in the dissemination of artistic knowledge. For a more modern example, what about your favourite YouTuber? Do they truly make what they want? NO! They are often beholden to sponsors, and you – the audience! What you want to see, is what they will make! So it is YOUR subjectivity that drives their decision to produce art, not necessarily purely their subjectivity. Subjectivity by definition is just a person’s opinions, emotions, thoughts. This connects well with the TOK concept of values. What VALUES and WHOSE values are determining what art is created (in a variety of contexts), how art is perceived, and how art changes in its reception over time? These are all good questions to ponder. For more unconventional examples about art, think about how museums choose what art to display, what constitutes good art for prizes like the Nobel Prize for Literature, or why some art is considered more expensive than others? Are there systematic ways to think about our subjectivity and how we apply it to art? Is it really overly celebrating subjectivity or simply a necessity to make sense of the abundance of artistic knowledge in a sea of information today?

History gets a bad rep in the TOK classroom. Students like to trash on History calling it biased and unreliable. In this prompt, I don’t want you to refute these claims, but just think about how they aren’t necessarily catastrophic as we might think. We aren’t denying that biases in history could be problematic. I would be suspicious too, if the only accounts of the Rohingya Genocide came from the Myanmar military. However, the word condemned in the title suggests that we might be too harsh on historians when they get things wrong. We should focus on how the historical method recovers itself from failures in biases from its sources. Yes, it might be biased, but is it better than no history? Furthermore, does subjectivity actually ADD value to the way we produce, and interpret historical knowledge? While I’m sure a completely objective, news story like report of what happened in 1886 would be a historian’s dream, that isn’t the case! No matter how objective we try to be, we colour the events we experience by our own opinions, feelings and emotions. But isn’t that history in itself? In an almost cliched way, history’s subjectivity tells us more about what happened in the past and their beliefs and values more than words could ever say.

In both the historical and artistic discussions, you should focus more on the methodologies of these AOKs and how they achieve their AOK’s purpose. Subjectivity manifests in different ways in these AOKs and their methodology reflects that. In the overt awareness of subjectivity in the Arts, its method to produce knowledge is characteristically defined by subjectivity. In History, the method is to identify the covert influences of subjectivity, then to produce the most truthful knowledge possible. You can see that the goals of these two are different, and hence they deal with subjectivity differently. Don’t fall in the trap of focusing your discussion too much on your examples, but generalise to the patterns of how subjectivity manifest in your AOKs and whether their treatment of it is problematic.

It is crucial, when writing the essay for this prompt, to clearly define in your introduction what specialisation and generalisation means. DO NOT use the dictionary definitions here – since this is a TOK Essay, you want to make a TOK version of specialisation and generalisation, in terms of how these two things differ in the production of knowledge. Clearly defining the two in this way will form a solid foundation for you to have a nuanced discussion on this process of reconciliation between the two. The prompt hints at the competing demands on knowledge of specialisation and generalisation – i.e. you might not be able to produce knowledge in the same way if you were aiming for specialisation versus generalisation. So, this provides a point of contrast for you to choose examples and frame your discussion. Remember, the idea of competing demands is an ASSUMPTION, not an argument posed by the question. You should focus on how your chosen examples demonstrate a way to balance the interests of both and reach a ‘middle-ground’ rather than arguing that specialisation or generalisation are compatible with each other. TLDR: Don’t challenge the assumption.

For the first AOK of Mathematics, you should have encountered many personal examples just from your study of IB Maths. Most of your learning has been on generalisation, and the application of such generalisations. For instance, you learn about Calculus, a general topic within Mathematics, and then apply it in various contexts. Mathematicians love generalisations – that Calculus you learned? Well, the definition of a derivative generalised for all functions could be summarised by the first principles of derivatives function that HL AA students learn. You would have less interaction with specialisation of Mathematical knowledge. In a broader sense, the specific components of mathematics, cannot be separated from the general. You can’t solve calculus problems without the fundamental theorem of calculus. However, you could argue that the fundamental theorem of calculus didn’t need calculus problems to exist. Thus, an interesting dilemma arises in Mathematics – the generalisation could be produced, without a particular need for specialisation, but specialisation often calls for generalisation to first exist.

Looking at the latest mathematics research, you will find that applied mathematics is most common. Rarely do you see people get excited by new discoveries of solutions to elliptical curves, but more do when you tell them a new mathematical model to improve our prediction of the weather. We may place greater value on specialisation of knowledge, because we could see its usefulness more immediately, but, the Area of Knowledge does not require such specialisation to produce knowledge. So, do we encourage people to produce knowledge with the goal of specialisation in mind, or do we tell them to produce whatever theoretical generalised mathematical knowledge they can? Look to how mathematics is applied to Quantitative Finance, Econometrics, and Actuarial Science. They specialise mathematical knowledge and provide for some of the most lucrative careers. Does that speak to our preference and demand for specialised knowledge? But then again, what of the interdependence between generalisation and specialisation? How do we balance the two and how does the methodologies of the AOK contribute to this balancing act?

For the second, complimentary AOK, you could have discussions with all of the AOKs. For the Sciences, you could present a similar argument about needing to have some general theories before you could specialise. The scientific method is essentially one big generalisation process – you take specific observations and you make inferences so that you can generalise about some natural process. However, the knowledge that produces need not be general, it can still be specific. If we take specialisation as the goal, then we could pose narrow hypotheses to test. If we take generalisation as the goal, then we might need multiple of these narrow hypotheses to form a full picture, testing each individual case. Thus, specialisation could lead to specialisation alone, but more often, generalisation is the result of many specialisations.

One last question you might want to consider and attempt to answer in your essay is, do you want to know something about everything or everything about something? The answer to that will depend on your AOK. While we want to know about everything on everything, that is simply not reality. So, what trade offs do we make in each AOK, and how does each AOK decide on what we need to know more on?

You might be able to appreciate how long it takes ideas to actually be implemented in reality by looking at the recent Nobel Prize winners for Economic Sciences. The winner of the 2017 prize was Richard H. Thaler, for his contributions to behavioural economics. He explored the impacts of limited rationality, social preferences and the lack of individual self-control on economic decision making on an individual and market level. He started these findings from the 1980s, but it is only recently, in the 2022 revision of the IB syllabus that Economics students learn about the field of Behavioural economics in any detail! So why is it so?

To some extent, it is hard to criticise things for moving slowly. After all, new discoveries like behavioural economics represents a fundamental paradigm shift towards the way research is conducted in the particular AOK. Often times, fresh ideas are left to “ferment” so that their truthfulness can be tested with time. Nothing is more embarrassing than going down a rabbit hole only to find that your assumptions turned out to be monumentally incorrect. Even if we are making a big shift in light of new ideas towards the way we produce knowledge, doing so takes time! For many years and still now, we rely on strong assumptions of rationality to make economic models function. While the psychology of such behaviours are well researched, applying them to an Economic setting may not be. That is to say, it is important to consider how these new ideas arise, and what effect it has on existing knowledge, and the way we produce future knowledge. New ideas is simply new knowledge, but with the added implication that it has some effect on the existing knowledge within an AOK. It could potentially change how we view current knowledge, or how we conduct research given a particular discovery.

In the AOK of the human sciences, which broadly follows the scientific method, you could drawn some inspiration from the philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s view of scientific progress. He argues that within a period of “normal science” where we make incremental progress under the assumption of an overarching model, but there comes a point where we notice accumulation of imperfections with such a model that leads to new paradigms – new ideas, that fundamentally change how we do science. Then we undergo a sort of scientific revolution, where there are debates and decisions made over what sort of model we need to follow, until everyone eventually accepts the new paradigm and returns to a normal science period so that continual small improvements are made to knowledge, until another paradigm shift happens again. While you are not expected to demonstrate such strong philosophy knowledge within the TOK Essay, it is helpful to consider how each AOK handles such ‘revolutions’. For instance, it is harder to irrefutably find falsities in human sciences given the difficulty in replicability and corroborative studies compared to natural sciences.

As for complimentary AOKs, any would suit here, as each AOK has a very different way to handle new ideas. Many factors influence the way new ideas is accepted. For this title, we need to take the assumption that their acceptance is slow, not argue with it. Instead, you should consider what factors influence this slowness, and how different AOKs have different factors in mind when deciding how to accept new ideas. This relates to the nature of the AOK (what is its purpose) and the methodology guiding knowledge production in them.

Have you ever said something that sounds very weird out of context? That might have just been something silly with no real consequences, but in the realm of knowledge, we need to be careful about the consequences of knowledge taken out of their original context. This article highlights how the context of medical treatment matters a lot! As you can imagine, something that works in one field, doesn’t always apply in a straightforward manner to another. This is why there are whole research teams dedicated to what we call “translational research”. That is, trying to “translate” what you get from something like a lab setting, into actual products, like life-saving medications.

The obvious links to AOKs here are the Natural and Human Sciences. For Natural Sciences, we often start off knowledge production in a lab setting, or in a controlled environment. However, the application of such knowledge is rarely as controlled! So an interesting point to consider is how natural scientists have to account for the fact that their findings won’t ever be used in as perfect a setting as their research. Sure, you might have developed bullet proof wood , but how is that going to work in practically when it comes to mass manufacturing it for the army or the police? This is one of the biggest challenges that natural scientists face. It’s not that we aren’t trying to produce exciting knowledge, but that the application of such knowledge in a practical and appreciable context is often very difficult. Something like the mRNA technology (which recently was awarded a Nobel) took a long time to be developed into actual vaccines. The question then is, do we underestimate this process? Often it depends on the goal of the scientist. If the knowledge producer set out with an idea to commercialise in mind, then they would often consider the practical implications of findings. However, people studying theoretical physics for example, would struggle to immediately find very accessible real life implications. That doesn’t mean the knowledge is worthless, but certainly, the challenges are there.

What about non-scientific disciplines? Recently, I went to an art exhibition that trend Van Gough’s paintings into a 3D digital display. There was a Banksy exhibition that took the original murals he painted on the street, into this museum environment. Does changing the context of how art work is shown, and the manipulation of artistic knowledge change its meaning? What is the goal of transforming art into a different context? There are many reasons. Sometimes, it is to create satire (have a look at the parodies of the Mona Lisa), bringing old art onto a new audience (like VR exhibitions of Da Vinci), or simply making it more accessible to people (by making art works digitally available). The producers of these adapted forms of knowledge take great care in considering how this impacts the meaning of the art in its changed form. When artwork is so subjective, the context of art is often required to understand the artist’s meaning and intention, to ‘interpret’ works accordingly. At the same time, as we know art is quite subjective, is a ‘correct interpretation’ always required? If we are to remain artistic purists, then many of the joys of art could be lost! Imagine if you were admonished for listening to Taylor Swift through Spotify on your AirPods because it isn’t the original uncompressed music file with all the details, and you aren’t listening to it on the exact set of thousand dollar speakers it was created with? It would be ludicrous to assume that artistic knowledge is always going to be disseminated in the same context. Thus, this must be a consideration of artists. Is this consideration more or less difficult for different types of art? How is this consideration different to science considering there is no ‘right’ answer to interpreting art?

When thinking about this title, we aren’t arguing whether it is difficult. I think we all agree it is. However, it is about whether we underestimate just how difficult it is! Center your focus on how each AOK’s methodology highlights the consideration of being able to change contexts, and whether that affects the interpretation of the knowledge in question.

The term ‘custodians of knowledge’ is not something TOK students have likely heard of before, but this concept is relatively simple to understand. If you think positively about it, it could be protectors of knowledge, people who preserve knowledge, keeping it for generations to come – for example, some people might consider the Indigenous Peoples’ in Australia to be custodians of their unique cultural knowledge and what they call dreamtime stories. In this way, they keep culture alive, even if most people nowadays speak English and don’t readily tell their history. However, thought about negatively, it could also mean “gatekeepers’ (pardon the Gen Z language) of knowledge. The idealogical “protection” of knowledge could also be seen as a way to prevent some forms of knowledge from becoming knowledge in the first place. Talk to any university academic, and they will tell you how many times their research papers have been rejected. That’s why there is a bias towards statistically significant results, while research that showed that nothing significant has happened doesn’t often get published. Thus, these two contrasts provide for interesting discussion, particularly when considering how each AOK has different forms of custodians of knowledge and how they “gatekeep” or “protect” knowledge in different ways.

Take the AOK of the arts as an example. The career of artists are laughed upon because it is so hard to “break in” to the fine world of art. Many artists aren’t acclaimed until they are long dead. Perhaps most famously, the Mona Lisa wasn’t very well known until several hundred years after it was made. Thus, artists are often at the mercy of custodians of artistic knowledge like art curators and critics, who decide what merits acknowledgement as knowledge. After all, knowledge is only knowledge when there is consensus it is. And if the big wigs in the art industry doesn’t think it’s worth a mention, your art, however brilliant it seems to you, would not reach the consensus required to be considered knowledge. Of course, there are debates on the necessity of custodians in such a subjective AOK. After all, there were many times I questioned how some “artworks” even made it into the modern art museum when it’s literally splashes of paint on a canvas. I digress. However, there is something to be said about maintaining some form of standard to art. We judge whether some art is good or bad, but not in a very rigorous way. Custodians of knowledge supposedly have a framework to make such judgement in a way which preserves the nature of the AOK, and the knowledge within it. Therefore, discussion about the necessity of the custodians should focus on how they contribute to the purpose of the AOK, and whether it is compatible with the nature and methodologies of the AOK.

To further illustrate what I mean, you could see that Natural Sciences might present a stronger argument to the necessity of such custodians. We implicitly “trust” science, for better or for worse, because we know that there is a level of credibility imbued by the scientific method. It is the custodians’ role to maintain the standard of adherence to the scientific method that keeps this credibility alive. This is why, when flat earthers argue that they can’t see the curvature of the earth from the horizon, that it doesn’t get published in a scientific journal as fact! This is why, when research emerges that denies the existence of climate change, custodians have a responsibility to retract such research . However, at the same time, it also places much pressure on producers of such knowledge to create something worthy in the eyes of custodians. You might have heard of the data manipulation scandal that forced Stanford’s president to resign. Thus, custodians do appear quite important in this AOK, when we value the truthfulness of knowledge so much, but that isn’t without its consequences.

I recommend picking two contrasting AOKs that value much different things when writing the essay. While comparison is not a requirement for the essay, it gives you a more nuanced understanding of the question and thus a more reflective piece. For instance, we have just demonstrated that art is relatively subjective, while the sciences are less so. Thus, this influences the role which custodians need to play in each AOK.

The framework to answering this title for many students will follow a similar structure: an example of when novel evidence was accepted and had groundbreaking impacts, and another example where such evidence was problematic and disputed. Repeat this for the second AOK you choose and you’ll have 4 contrasting examples. This is not the only way to approach this title, but is my personal preference considering the structure I suggest to most students that ensures firstly, you will pass the basic criteria of a TOK Essay, and secondly, you will have a strong foundation to succeed. However, since everyone will have a similar style and collection of examples, it is even more important for this title, that you tease out the meaning and the effect on each area of knowledge, and knowledge in general, that your examples represent.

To demonstrate what I mean, let’s focus on two natural sciences examples. First, consider the case of “Cold Fusion”, a theory that you could supposedly have nuclear fusion at room temperature, discovered and subsequently debunked in 1989. A contrasting example, could be recent Nobel Prize winner of Medicine and Physiology, for the research on mRNA vaccines. Immediately, it is obvious that one shows where recent evidence isn’t the strongest, while the latter shows that it could be. But the focus should be on are we TOO QUICK in assuming so, not whether we should or not. Well, what are the reactions and timelines for each example? While Cold Fusion was met with excitement from the general public for the potential it holds for energy production, I wouldn’t say we ‘assumed’ it to be strong. Looking at the news reports from that time, you can see that there was great anticipation about the discovery, leading to lots of sudden funding and interest to investigate it and replicate it. As for mRNA, that discovery took a long time! First the technology, and the getting it to not appear foreign to the human body was very tricky. Even after it was discovered, we waited quite a while, with many people’s first experience with mRNA to be their COVID 19 vaccine. What you need to draw from these two examples is the methodological similarities and differences which reflect the NATURE of Science, and thus, the purpose of science. You see in both how there is an emphasis on replication which corroborates or falsifies, and only after doing so for a long time do we accept it to be true, otherwise it is debunked. So yes, there are moments where Natural Sciences provides strong compelling evidence that ends up false, there are many hurdles with in the methodology of the Natural Science that prevents us from being TOO QUICK to assume it to be true.

For this prompt, it is too easy to fall into the debate of why something was true or why something was false and tricked the population. This is not the point of the essay. You should avoid talking about the specifics of your examples at length. You need to demonstrate how your examples reflect the wider methodologies of the Natural Sciences (and similarly, for your second AOK) that either encourages or discourages our assumptions that novel evidence is always best. As you can see from my examples above, I focused on how such assumption does not happen too quickly because there are many ways we verify scientific knowledge to be true. I don’t discuss the specifics of the actual science behind Cold Fusion or mRNA as that isn’t required. You are better off focusing on the methodologies behind the AOKs themselves and answering the question.

Some interesting complements to the Natural Science AOK could be History (particularly focusing on revisionism and how historical events could be interpreted differently over time), Mathematics (how could the methodologies differ and are there ‘mistakes’ in Maths), or even Human Sciences (replication is a bit more difficult with that!).

Share this:

20 responses to “explained: may 2024 tok essay prescribed titles”.

Hi, when will you deconstruct #6? Much appreciated.

I just did! Hope it helps.

Thank you so much!

hello! when will you deconstruct #2? would really really appreciate it !!!

Just posted!

Hi when will you deconstruct No. 5? Much appreciated.

Could you please deconstruct no5. ?

Check it out!

Please Please deconstruct 5 ASAP, first draft due in 5 days!!!! Thanks!

I just did! It’s a very interesting title.

Hi, when will you deconstruct #3? Much appreciated.

I have just posted this. Thanks!

Hi, when will you deconstruct #4? Thanks!

Just updated!

Hi, is there more in depth analysis of title 4 coming?

Sorry it took a while, but it’s here now!

I have a question, for PT3, so what will be our possible counterclaim? is it another factor that will make it slow? or find another RLS that show sometimes fresh ideas can be adopted fast ?

I would reread the prescribe title. The title is asking you “why”. So all you need to do is propose different sorts of reasons as to why this slowness occurs. You don’t need to challenge the assumption within the title that it is slow. Accept that it is slow, and propose various ideas for why that is the case according to the properties of your chosen AOK.

Could you explain how you would format number One. Would I only be talking about two examples one for each AOK and what about them? Introduction, aok 1 and aok2 and conclusions

For sure! You should refer to my article on structuring for TOK Essay for more details. In general though, you can approach this prompt with two examples for each AOK, with one example about subjectivity being overly celebrated, and one not in the arts, while for history, it would be one where it is condemned unfairly vs not.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

IB ToK Essay Titles and Topics: May 2023

Here are links to ideas and suggestions relating to the the six May 2023 IB ToK Essay topics:

• Topic 1. Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• Topic 2. For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.
• Topic 3. Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in "bubbles" where some information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• Topic 4. Do you agree that it is "astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power" (Bertrand Russell)? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
• Topic 5. Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics.
• Topic 6. To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Title 1: Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 1 include:

• the distinction between necessary and sufficient requirements
• the relation between replicability and objectivity
• the relation between replicability and sharable perspectives

These thoughts, and others, will be developed here shortly: come back soon!

Title 2: For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

Thoughts to consider with essay 2 include:

• the relation between explicability and effability
• the limits of language and expressibility
• the relation between explanation, understanding and knowledge

Title 3: Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in "bubbles" where some information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 3 include:

• can there be purely subjective knowledge?
• can there be purely objective knowledge?
• what is required to share another's perspective?

Title 4: Do you agree that it is "astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power" (Bertrand Russell)? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 4 include:

• the varieties or types of power
• is knowledge always inversely proportional to power
• could one have power without any knowledge?

Title 5: Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics.

Thoughts to consider with essay 5 include:

• the relevance of truth to representation
• the distinction between practical and theoretical knowledge
• is written language a visual representation?

Title 6: To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Thoughts to consider with essay 6 include:

• the difference between a method and a methodology
• can any knowledge be unmethodically?
• must a methodology be consciously deployed?
• 1. Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• 2. For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.
• 3. Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in "bubbles" where some information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• 4. Do you agree that it is "astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power" (Bertrand Russell)? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
• 5. Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics.
• 6. To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.
• About Dr Phil Joyce
• Standard of Service
• Terms of Engagement

• Philosophy Degrees by Distance Learning
• Critical Thinking Tutor
• Oxbridge Application Tutor
• Logic Tutor
• University Philosophy Application Advice

Mastering ToK Essay Structure: A Comprehensive Guide

• December 5, 2023
• Student Support , ToK Essay

Introduction to ToK Essay Structure

December is the busy essay writing season for May session schools! I’ve been reading ToK Essays from students all over the world in which I am frequently seeing problems of structuring the ToK Essay effectively. This post aims to address the often-asked question, “ How do I structure my ToK Essay? “

The International Baccalaureate (IB) doesn’t prescribe a single structure for the ToK Essay. They require that you “ provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title ” (IB ToK Essay Assessment Instrument, 2020) Achieving this requires a well-thought-out structure that fosters clarity, coherence, and critical exploration. Let’s break down the essentials that every ToK Essay should include, regardless of the chosen title or structure.

Essential Elements of ToK Essays

• Knowledge Arguments (or Knowledge Claims): For each Area of Knowledge (AoK) considered, formulate at least one main knowledge argument or claim.
• Real World Examples: Illustrate your knowledge arguments with real-world examples, which may also include evaluation points.
• Evaluation Points: Consider alternative viewpoints to your knowledge claims. These are crucial for a balanced and critical exploration.
• Implications: Reflect on the implications of your arguments and any conclusions you reach.

These four elements are non-negotiable in any ToK Essay.

Additional Components for Enhanced Essays

• Definitions of Key Concepts: Best integrated within your knowledge arguments.
• Thesis Statement: A sentence summarizing the essay’s main argument. Typically found in the introduction, it helps organise your arguments and maintains coherence.
• Unpacking the Prescribed Title (PT) in the Introduction: Offer your interpretation and explanation of the essay question here.

For a more detailed exploration, refer to my e-book, “ How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps ” linked here

Common ToK Essay Structure

A widely used structure, found in about 75-80% of ToK Essays, looks like this:

This structure is effective for most Prescribed Titles and can lead to high scores.

Alternative Structure for Deeper Analysis

Some students opt for a different approach:

This structure cleverly uses the Knowledge Argument against PT in AoK 2 as evaluation points for the argument supporting PT in AoK 1. This method allows for a more in-depth comparative analysis and potentially higher scores.

Remember, the optimal structure for your ToK Essay is one that enables you to “provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title”. For further assistance with essay structures and content, consult my e-book “How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps” or detailed notes for each ToK Essay this season (links in the video description).

Embarking on your ToK Essay journey with a clear understanding of its structure is key to success. Happy writing, and remember, the path to knowledge is as much about the journey as the destination!

Stay TokTastic,

Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch the YouTube video:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from toktoday.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Unpacking the 2024 November TOK Titles: A Comprehensive IB Solved Guide

The November 2024 IB Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay Titles are out!

Let's be honest – tackling the TOK essay can be a daunting task. With so many ideas, concepts and topics at our disposal and a myriad of ideas swirling around, it's easy to feel overwhelmed at the outset.

That's where we come in.

In this article, we'll delve into each title and offer some strategic advice on how to approach them.

General Tips to Unpacking a Title

When we first encounter a prompt, we want to think in terms of perspectives and counter-perspectives (formerly known as claims and counterclaims). This framework allows for a structured essay, exploring the title through the lens of two chosen Areas of Knowledge (AOKs) and weaving in different arguments. While the ultimate conclusion you draw may often reside somewhere between these extremes or on a conditional basis (e.g. perspective 1 is correct in certain circumstances, while perspective 2 is a better approach in other), starting with opposing arguments can facilitate the development of a more nuanced exploration and argument.

So let's get to it – here is everything you need to know about the November 2024 TOK Essay titles:

Title 1:  Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: History (Mandatory) and Natural Sciences/The Arts/Human Sciences

This title prompts an assessment of whether we have different levels of responsibility to acquire knowledge across different AOKs. While you are open to argue against the title directly, suggesting that the responsibility is the same across AOKs, this would be unwise. It would be better to reflect on each AOK and perhaps present one perspective in support of the responsibility and one perspective against it, drawing a conclusion on which argument is stronger in each AOK.

Also consider the difference between the acquisition and production of knowledge – perhaps we have a broader responsibility to produce new knowledge in some areas of knowledge but not necessarily to acquire it as individual knowers.

Some perspectives you may consider:

Perspective: We have a responsibility to acquire knowledge to ensure that we construct an accurate record of the past. It is our responsibility to know our History and learn from the past.

Counter-Perspective: Historical knowledge is limited by subjectivity and collective memory, hence it is not essential to acquire knowledge of our past to build a successful future.

Perspective: We have a responsibility to acquire artistic knowledge to understand cultures and societies.

Counter-Perspective: The acquisition of knowledge in the Arts is for aesthetic purposes and enjoyment, not the fulfilment of a responsibility.

Natural Sciences/Human Sciences

Perspective: We have a responsibility to acquire new scientific knowledge for the continual development of mankind.

Counter-Perspective: Understanding how the world/humans work is not necessary knowledge for knowers to acquire.

Title 2:  In the production of knowledge, is ingenuity always needed but never enough? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Mathematics (Mandatory) and Natural Sciences/The Arts/Human Sciences

This is a super interesting title – ensure you define 'ingenuity' from the outset. The essay almost structures itself – your first paragraph in each AOK can consider how/whether ingenuity is 'always needed', exploring how this plays out in each AOK, while the second paragraph can explore whether or not it is 'never enough'.

Some ideas you may consider:

Paradigm Shifts – To revolutionise an AOK, often ingenuity is needed to enact a paradigm shift (a new way of thinking which changes the entire knowledge structure of an AOK) and to ensure progress.

Creativity – Creative thinking is important not only for AOKs such as the Arts, but even in Mathematics and the Sciences. Discovering innovative ways of devising experiments or utilising clever analogies to explain incredibly complex concepts is integral to these AOKs.

Structure – Ingenuity is only valuable within a framework for knowledge production, whether this be an artistic process or the scientific method.

Title 3:  How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: History, Natural Sciences, The Arts and Human Sciences

The 'How' of this title restricts the scope to discussing different 'benefits' rather than a standard 'perspective-counter' analysis. It will also be important to define exactly what 'severing ties' involves – does this mean completely ignoring all past knowledge or simply becoming less attached to existing ways of thinking?

Some ideas for this title:

Fresh Ideas and Paradigm Shifts – By severing ties, you open up the possibility of acquiring knowledge which can overhaul an entire AOK, drastically accelerating progress.

Bias – By severing past ties, knowers can free themselves of the biases of their predecessors.

Innovation – Since existing frameworks of thinking often lead to similar conclusions, you can expand the possibilities of new knowledge by severing past ties.

However, you may interestingly conclude that these benefits are only reaped when ties to the past are severed to an extent, as it may be detrimental to an AOK to entirely negate past knowledge.

Title 4:  To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Human Sciences and History/Natural Sciences

This prompt is very focused on your definitions. I would suggest defining these terms distinctly and precisely from the outset. The primary question which this title is asking is whether hypotheses are mere "speculation" or "guesses", or if there is a significant difference.

Also, if selecting the Human and Natural Sciences, please ensure that your perspectives aren't repetitious and highlight the differences between these AOKs.

Development – Speculation and hypothesis differ in the fact that the development of a hypothesis generally requires significant prior research and an understanding of existing knowledge

Experimentation – Hypotheses are developed purposefully and then empirical experimentation are conducted to provide evidence either in support or against them

Emotion – Speculation tends to come from 'feelings' or 'impressions', whereas the development of a hypothesis is far more methodical

Title 5:  In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Human Sciences/History/Natural Sciences

This title allows you to reflect on whether or not we dismiss 'anomalies' (a key term to be defined) too quickly when producing knowledge.

Paradigm Shift – Anomalies are often the prompt for a paradigm shift in the sciences, causing us to challenge existing beliefs and ideas

Exceptions – Often rather than investigating anomalies further and considering an overhaul of existing knowledge, anomalies are dismissed as 'exceptions' to the rule, rather than a justification to question the rule itself

Generalisation – There is often a focus on generating 'general' rules and theories which can lead anomalies to be dismissed (think of the Human Sciences – how often do we produce a rule about human behaviour but ignore those who behave contrary to the rule)

Title 6:  In the pursuit of knowledge, what is gained by the artist adopting the lens of the scientist and the scientist adopting the lens of the artist? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

Recommended AOKs: The Arts and the Natural Sciences

This title requires you to define the 'lens' of each of these AOKs from the outset. It will be better to define them quite opposingly – the scientist is more methodical, experimental and structured, whilst the artist is more free-flowing and creative. You will then be able to take these attributes and argue which elements would be better across the two disciplines.

Creativity – Scientists can benefit from the creativity of artists when developing innovative ways of experimenting, presenting results and constructing abstract theories

Structure – Artists can often benefit from a methodical approach to constructing art, particularly when aiming to convey a specific message or purpose through their art

Flexibility – Artists are often quite flexible when constructing an artwork, always willing to change and adapt to their free-flowing thoughts, an attribute which is highly beneficial for scientists who at times may become rigid in their thinking and fixed to pre-existing scientific beliefs.

And that's it - our comprehensive guide to the 2024 November TOK Titles! If you're still racking your brain as to how to begin the writing process for your TOK essay, why not check out our post on The Complete IB TOK Essay Guide . Or check out one of our Grade A Exemplar TOK Essays ! Or better yet, if you are looking for some more personal assistance with your IB TOK Essay, click below to reach out to us and we can work with you through the entire writing process, from title selection to the best structure for success!

• Internal Assessment Guides

Recent Posts

The Secrets to Success in the Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay

Unpacking the 2023 November TOK Titles: A Comprehensive IB Solved Guide

theframework

Sat, 10 Sept

TOK Workshop

UNpacking '23

deconstructing the TOK titles for 2023. This is a title unpacking session. The objective is to equip the student/teacher with the exploratory scope and possibilities of each title.

Time & Location

10 Sept 2022, 5:00 pm – 11 Sept 2022, 7:00 pm

About the Event

So here are the new titles for TOK 2023.

1. Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge. 2. For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained?

Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences. 3. Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in “bubbles” where some information and voices are excluded?  Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge. 4. Do you agree that it is “astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power” (Bertrand Russell)? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge. 5. Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics. 6. To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Excited? Confused?

So let's unpack them carefully and explore them thoroughly.

The objective is to have a framework for the essay ready by the end of the session.

+$2.75 service fee

Share This Event

• Essay Guides
• Exhibition Guides
• SOS Same Day Support
• For Teachers
• Tips & Resources

Nothing Found

It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help.

What are you interested in? Online tutoring Essay / Exhibition Script Feedback Other Country

Upload file

This will close in 0 seconds

¿En qué estás interesado? Tutoria online Ensayo / Feedback de borrador Otros País

Subir archivo

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed title #5 – key terms

Published by author on september 27, 2022 september 27, 2022.

Once you get the set of prescribed titles for your cohort, the first step is going through each one and analyzing the key terms.

5. Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics.

“ Are visual representations always helpful ” – Make sure that your essay clearly answers this question.  Your investigation of different AOKs and different specific examples throughout your answer may lead to multiple answers to the question which is perfectly fine.  Your essay does not have to have one definitive answer to this question – in fact an essay that has one definitive answer to this question is likely flawed.

“ visual representations ” – charts, diagrams, models of the atom, maps, a painting of a WWI battle are a few examples of visual representations. Models of the atom, for example, can be helpful in explaining some characteristics of the atom but the model may simply or exclude key aspects of the atom.  A painting of the battle of the Somme in WWI may provide some information about it, but what if the painter was not at the battle or did not even fight in WWI?  Even if the painter had been in the battle, his or her depiction of the situation might be affected by bias, limited information, patriotism, etc.

“ always ” – there may be nothing in TOK that you could argue is “always” anything.  Successful essays avoid one-sided arguments and should look at a situation and a prescribed title from a variety of angles / perspectives.

“ helpful ” – if you choose May 2023 TOK prescribed title #5 you could view “helpful” in a number of different ways.  However, all of these ways should be directly connected to knowledge . Look closely at specific examples where visual representations are helpful or are not helpful in the production or acquisition of knowledge.   

“ communication of knowledge ” – there are many different ways in which knowledge can be communicated. Analyze specific examples where visual representations play a role in communicating knowledge and look at the precise way knowledge is communicated. Make sure you can evaluate whether or not it is helpful.

TOK prescribed titles frequently use phrases such as the “sharing of knowledge” and the “acquisition of knowledge” but May 2023 prescribed title #5 may be the first time that the phrase “communication of knowledge” has been used.  “Communication of knowledge” can include both “sharing” and “acquisition” though. 

May 2023 TOK essay #5 should only discuss the AOK(s) mentioned in the prescribed title.

Related Posts

May 2023 tok essay prescribed title #3 specific example – indigenous people of northern japan.

Article: “Japan’s forgotten indigenous people” http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200519-japans-forgotten-indigenous-people In the Japanese school curriculum (set by the central government in Tokyo) there is very little time and space spent on the Ainu, an indigenous group that has almost Read more…

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed title #1 specific example – Japanese myth on the birth of Japan.

The extract below is a translated Japanese creation myth in an ancient text named Kojiki. The original text is written in an type of writing that the vast majority of modern Japanese people cannot read. Read more…

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed title #4 specific example – photo of an execution during the Vietnam War.

Eddie Adams’ iconic Vietnam War photo: What happened next https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42864421 Consider the different aspects where is there “a little knowledge” regarding the photo and the actual incident. Then look into the larger question that is Read more…

Privacy Overview