TOK Written Descriptors

 

Part 1 External Assessment Descriptors
A	Knowledge Issue(s) (10 points)
	Is/are the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title recognized and understood, and prominently maintained throughout the essay? The phrase 'problems of knowledge' refers to possible uncertainties, biases in approach to knowledge or limitations of knowledge, and the methods of verification and justification appropriate to the different Areas of Knowledge. If appropriate, intermediate points (1,3,5,7 and 9) may be awarded by the assessor.
Achievement Level	The candidate has:
0	not recognized any problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title.
2	a very poor recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title; the development of ideas is irrelevant to the prescribed title.
4	a poor recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title; the development of ideas is generally irrelevant to the prescribed title.
6	a satisfactory recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title; the development of ideas is generally relevant to the prescribed title, is a balanced enquiry, and, for the most part, reflects the voice of the candidate.
8	a good recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title; the development of ideas is consistently relevant to the prescribed title in particular, and to TOK in general; it is a balanced enquiry, and reflects the voice of the candidate.
10	an excellent recognition and understanding of the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title; the development of ideas is consistently relevant to the prescribed title in particular, and to TOK in general; it is a balanced, purposeful enquiry, and reflects the voice of the candidate.

 

B	Quality of Analysis (10 points)
	Do the analysis, and the treatment of counter-claims, show critical reflection and insight in addressing the problem(s) of knowledge? If appropriate, intermediate points (1,3,5,7 and 9) may be awarded by the assessor.
Achievement Level	The candidate demonstrates:
0	no concern with the problem(s) of knowledge implied by the prescribed title.
2	a very poor level of critical reflection; the discussion is entirely superficial or the arguments are logically invalid; the main points are not evaluated, and there is no acknowledgement of their implications.
4	a poor level of critical reflection; the discussion is generally superficial, or the arguments are logically invalid; some of the main points are justified and evaluated, but there is little acknowledgement of their implications.
6	a satisfactory level of critical reflection and some insight; the discussion is adequately detailed and, in general, the arguments are logically valid; the main points are justified and evaluated, and there is acknowledgement of their implications; counter-claims are identified.
8	a good level of critical reflection and insight; the discussion is detailed, and the arguments are logically valid; the main points are justified and evaluated, and there is acknowledgement of their implications; counter-claims are identified and evaluated.
10	an excellent level of critical reflection and insight; the discussion is detailed, and the arguments are logically valid; the main points are cogently justified and evaluated, and there is effective acknowledgement of their implications; counter-claims are identified and thoroughly evaluated.

 

C	Breadth and Links (5 points)
	Does the essay reflect an awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge, and of how they may be linked? The terms 'Ways of Knowing' and 'Areas of Knowledge' refer to the elements of the TOK diagram. This is not to discourage reference to elements which do not feature on the diagram and which may be equally relevant and appropriate. The word 'across' here denotes links and comparisons across elements in the same radial section of the diagram. The word 'between' here denotes links and comparisons between elements in different radial sections of the diagram.
Achievement Level	The candidate demonstrates:
0	no awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge.
1	a very poor level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; links are attempted but are inappropriate.
2	a poor level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; some links are drawn either across or between them, but these are not always appropriate.
3	a satisfactory level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; appropriate links are drawn either across or between them.
4	a good level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; appropriate links and comparisons are drawn across and between them.
5	an excellent level of awareness of different Ways of Knowing and different Areas of Knowledge; effective links and comparisons are drawn across and between them.

 

D	Structure, Clarity and Logical Coherence (5 points)
	Is the essay structured, clear and logically coherent? If the essay is of fewer than 1200 words or exceeds 1600 words in length, zero will be awarded for this criterion. This criterion is not intended to assess linguistic skills. Rather, it is intended to assess the extent to which the main ideas are clearly and coherently conveyed in an appropriately structured form.
Achievement Level	The essay is:
0	unstructured, unclear or logically incoherent or has no relevance to the prescribed title
1	very poor in its structure, clarity and logical coherence
2	poor in its structure, clarity and logical coherence
3	satisfactorily structured, adequately clear and logically coherent enough to convey the main points
4	well structured, with a concise introduction, and a clear, logically coherent development of the argument leading to a conclusion; concepts and distinctions are defined and clarified.
5	excellently structured, with a concise introduction, and a clear, logically coherent development of the argument leading to an effective conclusion; concepts and distinctions are succinctly defined and clarified.

 

E	Examples (5 points)
	Is the essay well supported by appropriate examples drawn from a variety of sources?
Achievement Level	The candidate uses:
0	no examples relevant to the prescribed title.
1	very poor (or inappropriate) examples, drawn from narrow sources, not supporting the main points of the essay.
2	poor (rarely appropriate) examples, drawn from a limited variety of sources, to support the main points of the argument.
3	satisfactory (generally appropriate) examples, drawn from a variety of sources, to support the main points of the argument.
4	good (consistently appropriate) examples, drawn from a variety of sources, including the candidate's own experience, to support the main points of the argument; the examples reflect a degree of cultural diversity.
5	excellent (consistently appropriate and effective) examples, drawn from a wide variety of sources, including the candidate's own experience, to illustrate succinctly the main points of the argument; the examples reflect a high degree of cultural diversity.

 

F	Factual Accuracy and Reliability (5 points)
	Are the affirmations factually accurate and, if sources were used, were they reliable and correctly cited? For assessment purposes, the concept of 'fact' does not encompass definitions or terminology. In the case of essays that do not require facts to support the argument, the assessor will award the point average of criteria C and E for criterion F. Essays which require facts to support the argument, but omit to use them, will be awarded zero.
Achievement Level	The affirmations in the essay demonstrate:
0	no factual accuracy (or have no relevance to the prescribed title), or sources (if used) are unreliable or incorrectly cited (or not cited at all).
1	a very poor level of factual accuracy, and sources are unreliable, or have not been correctly cited, according to a recognized convention.
2	a poor level of factual accuracy, and sources are mostly unreliable, and have not been correctly cited, according to a recognized convention.
3	a satisfactory level of factual accuracy, and sources are mostly reliable, and the majority are correctly cited, according to a recognized convention.
4	a good level of factual accuracy, and sources are reliable, and are correctly cited, according to a recognized convention.
5	an excellent level of factual accuracy, and sources are reliable, and are consistently and correctly cited, according to a recognized convention.