The TOK Essay must be written in standard 12 type size and be double spaced.
The maximum length of the essay is 1,600 words.
Extended footnotes or appendices are not appropriate for the TOK essay.
The word count includes:
• the main part of the essay
• any quotations.
The word count does not include:
• any acknowledgments
• the references (whether given in footnotes, endnotes or in-text) and bibliography
• any maps, charts, diagrams, annotated illustrations or tables.
If an essay exceeds the word limit, then examiners are instructed to stop reading after 1,600 words and to base their assessment on just the first 1,600 words. Students are required to indicate the number of words when the essay is uploaded during the submission process.
1. Do historians and human scientists have an ethical obligation to follow the directive: “do not ignore contradictory evidence” Discuss with reference to history and the human sciences.
2. Is our most revered knowledge more fragile than we assume it to be? Discuss with reference to the arts and one other area of knowledge.
3. How can we reconcile the relentless drive to pursue knowledge with the finite resources we have available? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
4. Do the ever-improving tools of an area of knowledge always result in improved knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
5. To what extent do you agree with the claim “all models are wrong, but some are useful”(attributed to George Box)? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.
6. Does acquiring knowledge destroy our sense of wonder? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
The assessment instrument provided describes five levels of performance in response to this driving question.
These levels are to be seen as holistic descriptors rather than as a checklist of characteristics.
| Does the student provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title? | |||||
| Excellent 9-10 |
Good 7-8 |
Satisfactory 5-6 |
Basic 3-4 |
Rudimentary 1-2 |
0 |
| The discussion has a sustained focus on the title and is linked effectively to areas of knowledge. Arguments are clear, coherent, and effectively supported by specific examples. The implications of arguments are considered. There is clear awareness and evaluation of different points of view. |
The discussion is focused on the title and is linked effectively to areas of knowledge. Arguments are clear, coherent and supported by examples. There is awareness and some evaluation of different points of view. |
The discussion is focused on the title and is developed with some links to areas of knowledge. Arguments are offered and are supported by examples. There is some awareness of different points of view. |
The discussion is connected to the title and makes superficial or limited links to areas of knowledge. The discussion is largely descriptive. Limited arguments are offered but they are unclear and are not supported by effective examples. |
The discussion is weakly connected to the title. While there may be links to the areas of knowledge, any relevant points are descriptive or consist only of unsupported assertions. |
The discussion does not reach the standard described by the other levels or is not a response to one of the prescribed titles for the correct examination session. |
| Possible characteristics | |||||
|
Insightful |
Pertinent |
Acceptable |
Underdeveloped |
Ineffective |
|
Refer to the offical IB guide P. 48 for more information
