unpacking tok essay titles

Unpacking ToK Essay Titles

• December 8, 2023
• Student Support , ToK Essay

Introduction to Unpacking Essay Titles

I’m reading lots of essays from May 24 students at the moment, a common challenge that I see students face is effectively unpacking the Prescribed Title (PT) in their Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essays. Unpacking the PT is a crucial step in the essay-writing process, and this post aims to guide you through this task to improve the clarity and coherence of your essay.

What Does Unpacking the PT Mean?

Unpacking the PT involves explaining your interpretation of the essay title at the start of the essay, typically in the introductory paragraph. Although the ToK Essay marking rubric doesn’t explicitly require this, it significantly aids the examiner in understanding the direction and focus of your essay. It sets the stage for a “ clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title. ” (ToK Essay Assessment Instrument, IB 2020)

Examples of Unpacked ToK Essay Titles (May 24 Session)

To illustrate, let’s examine unpacked versions of three titles from the May 2024 session:

Unpacking as a Prelude to the Thesis Statement

The unpacking of the title should lead into your thesis statement, which is the main argument of your essay. It provides a wider perspective on your more focused thesis statement. Ideally, this unpacking should form the opening sentence or sentences in the introduction of your essay.

Further Resources

For more detailed insights into crafting your ToK essay introduction, refer to the earlier video on this topic. Additionally, the ebook “ How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps ” and the detailed guidance notes for each Prescribed title in this season offer invaluable assistance in navigating the complexities of ToK essays.

In conclusion, unpacking the Prescribed Title at the beginning of your ToK essay is a critical step that frames your argument and provides clarity to your exploration of the essay title. By carefully defining and contextualising your approach to the title, you set a solid foundation for a coherent and critically engaged essay.

Stay Toktastic !

Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch on YouTube:

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

We noticed you're visiting from Hong Kong. We've updated our prices to Hong Kong dollar for your shopping convenience. Use Euro instead. Dismiss

• May 20, 2023

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

The November 2023 titles for the IB Theory of Knowledge Essay have been released! Let's face it – the TOK essay can be very intimidating. With so many topics to choose from and so many ideas bouncing around, it can be hard to know where to begin. That's where we come in. In this post, we'll take a closer look at each of the titles and give you some tips for approaching them.

General Tips to Unpacking a Title

Whenever we approach a prompt, we always want to think in terms of perspectives and counter-perspectives (for those who are familiar with the old syllabus, these were previously known as claims and counterclaims). This allows us to structure the essay within the two selected AOKs, creating four paragraphs directly addressing the title and with consideration of varying perspectives on the title. While the final conclusion that we draw will likely lie somewhere in the middle, or argue that each perspective is more/less correct in different circumstances, it is often helpful to think of the two extremes first before trying to come up with a more nuanced conclusion.

So let’s get into unpacking them – here is everything you need to know about each of the November 2023 TOK Essay titles:

Title 1: Are facts alone enough to prove a claim? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History

For this title, the perspective and counter-perspective are straightforward – either facts alone are enough to prove a claim, or they are not.

Some ideas to think about which support the first perspective:

Facts are objective – By providing objective evidence for a claim, facts can be a highly reliable form of evidence to support claims made by knowers. This objectivity allows for the same claim to be proven across time, in different cultures and by unique knowers.

Facts allow for conclusions to be drawn through logic – By combining an array of established facts, deductive reasoning can be utilised to draw conclusions about the world and produce new knowledge. Often facts form the premises from which knowledge claims can be made, allowing a knower to prove a claim by first establishing a series of interconnected facts.

Facts can be tested – This is particularly important for science-based AOKs which rely upon falsification as an important method of producing new knowledge. Since facts can be tested, the veracity of a knower’s claim is always available to be disproven by empirical evidence.

For your counter-perspective, you have a far greater degree of freedom in your discussion. This is where you can really differentiate your essay from others, as it is your job to decide which other important elements beyond facts alone may be necessary to prove a claim. Some ideas from us:

Opinions – Whilst opinions lack the objectivity of facts, they are often important to proving knowledge claims, as these claims are often unable to be proven by facts alone. Rather inferences must be drawn to create meaning from facts. This can be illustrated through a very simple claim: Imagine for instance that we were trying to prove the claim that Germany were responsible for World War I. Whilst we could drawn upon facts, such as the fact that they issued a blank cheque to Austria-Hungary or the fact that they invaded Belgium in August 1914, ultimately we rely upon the opinions of historians in making a judgement on how important this was in the context of the war.

Personal Experience – Whilst personal experiences only provide anecdotal evidence and cannot allow us to draw broader conclusions, they may be necessary to prove a claim which involves emotion or personal beliefs.

Creativity – Creative thinking may be necessary to prove claims, particularly in the sciences, where facts alone are insufficient. For instance, scientific theories, whilst based in fact, are often dependent on analogies, comparisons and metaphor to explain abstract concepts for which there may not yet be any measurable or empirical evidence.

Title 2: If “the mathematician’s patterns, like the painter’s and the poet’s, must be beautiful” (G.H. Hardy), how might this impact the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and the arts.

This title is far more intricate than the others, relying heavily upon the definitions you impose upon key terms. The concept of the “mathematician’s patterns” and the term “beautiful” must be defined in the opening of the essay, as this will restrict the scope of your knowledge exploration. The way in which we would recommend splitting up this topic would be to first discuss the impact upon the production of knowledge in mathematics and then within the Arts. Some ideas for the perspectives and counter-perspectives which you may explore include:

Beauty in Mathematics – You will want to consider the importance of beauty in Mathematics. This is not referring to beauty in the traditional sense but perhaps considering other ways in which Mathematics may be considered beautiful such as in its way of transforming complex real-world problems into simple symbols which can be solved. This can impact the production of knowledge as mathematicians may choose to ignore solutions which are complex and rough – in other words, ‘mathematically ugly’.

Beauty in Art – In discussing this AOK, you may consider the debate between aestheticism and purpose within the Arts – In other words, is Art merely supposed to ‘look good’ or does it have a greater purpose, and how does this relate to the production of knowledge in and through the Arts.

Title 3: In the acquisition of knowledge, is following experts unquestioningly as dangerous as ignoring them completely? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Human Sciences and Natural Sciences/History/Math

This title presents a very contemporary issue which is the questioning of experts and trust in the knowledge produced by experts. Nonetheless, there is a clear perspective and counter-perspective presented by this title – it is either more dangerous to follow experts unquestioningly or more dangerous to ignore them completely.

Some ideas relevant to the first perspective:

Evidence over Experts – By following experts unquestioningly, rather than examining the quality of their evidence and research methods, we fall into the trap of making arguments from authority without confirming that their conclusions are actually correct.

Subjective Experiences – While experts are helpful in drawing general conclusions/findings about the world, they do not account for subjective, individual experiences. This is particularly relevant in the Human Sciences, as theories and claims of human behaviour may not apply to all people due to the uniqueness of humans.

Lack of Progress – It is only by questioning established paradigms and claims made by existing experts that we are able to progress and acquire new knowledge. If all experts are followed unquestioningly, there can be no overhaul of existing knowledge when necessary.

Some ideas relevant to the counter-perspective:

Established Research Systems – Experts are trained in effective research methodologies and have systems to maximise the reliability of the claims they make. By ignoring experts, we are instead relying upon knowledge of laypeople whose claims have not been rigorously assessed for their veracity.

Manipulation and Logical Fallacies – By ignoring the claims of experts and instead acquiring knowledge through prominent figures such as celebrities and the media, we expose ourselves to manipulation and the array of logical fallacies employed by these individuals who have their own agenda beyond the dissemination of knowledge.

Knowledge Framework – Experts develop knowledge frameworks which can guide the production of new knowledge. By ignoring experts, we are often left to deal with problems on a case-by-case basis which can lead to a lack of consistency and structure within the knowledge which is acquired.

Title 4: Is it problematic that knowledge is so often shaped by the values of those who produce it? Discuss with reference to any two areas of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: History, Arts, Human Sciences

This title has a focus on context and values, integral elements of the knowledge framework within the new syllabus. It also has two clear perspectives to be explored – the claim that it is problematic or the claim that it is not, keeping in mind that across both perspectives, it must be specified how knowledge is shaped by individual values.

Some ideas for the first perspective:

Bias – The shaping of knowledge by one’s individual values can create bias which may impede the reliability of knowledge produced through the lens of these values.

Subjectivity – If subjective beliefs founded in one’s values are imported into the production of knowledge which should be based on facts and evidence, this can be problematic for this knowledge.

Lack of Diversity/One-Sided Knowledge – When entire banks of knowledge are produced by individuals from the same background, culture, beliefs or school of thought, this can lead to the omission of other perspectives on an issue, which can limit the knowledge which is produced.

Individual Perspective are Important – It is often important for a knower to incorporate their own personal perspective in the production of knowledge as this is ultimately the only way in which interpretations and opinions beyond mere facts can be drawn.

Knowledge about the Knower – We can often learn more about a knower, their values and the social norms of their time when evaluating knowledge claims which are shaped by individual values, providing a second layer of ‘knowledge within knowledge’.

Specific Knowledge – Whilst not broadly applicable to people or contexts with different values, knowledge produced by those with particular individual values can be more specific and applicable to knowers within the same value system. This form of ‘insider knowledge’ may be shaped by the personal experiences of an individual, which is an asset to the production of knowledge rather than a hinderance.

Title 5: Is it always the case that “the world isn’t just the way it is, it is how we understand it – and in understanding something, we bring something to it” (adapted from Life of Pi by Yann Martel)? Discuss with reference to history and the natural sciences.

This title touches upon the debate between objective and relativistic views of knowledge and the world. The phrase ‘is it always the case’ allows us to derive two perspectives to explore – it either is always the case or it is not. The first perspective requires arguments which explain why this may always be the case, whereas the second only requires you to provide some exceptions/circumstances in which this would not be the case.

Interpretation creates Meaning – It may be argued that all elements of the world must be interpreted and doing so involves the unique lens of each individual knower. In this way, what we bring to the production of knowledge is our own distinct interpretation of the world around us.

Questioning creates Meaning – We could also consider how the questions which knowers ask are unique and based upon our own individual understanding of the world. This means that something new is created each time a new knower attempts to understand the world, as the questions asked and curiosity of each individual provides a distinct approach to knowledge.

Some ideas for the counter-perspective:

Objectivity Exists – It may be argued that there are some elements of the world which are fixed, unquestionable and objective. These components of knowledge are not dependent upon the interpretation of the individual, as there should be objective standards from which everyone should draw the same conclusion.

Repeatability – Particularly in the Natural Sciences, there are some elements of knowledge which are repeatable and not reliant upon the interpretation of the individual knower. This concept of repeatability is a foundational tenet of the sciences and the production of new knowledge of the world around us.

Title 6: Faced with a vast amount of information, how do we select what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Recommended AOKs: Natural Sciences and Human Sciences/History/Arts

This title questions the way in which we determine whether a piece of information is significant for knowledge. Since this is a ‘how’ question, there are many perspectives which can be explored, rather than a clear binary of perspectives. Some ideas from us:

Selection through Merit – This concept is particularly relevant to the Natural Sciences, as the theories which are ultimately deemed as significant are those which are not falsified. This merit-based approach pits scientific theories against each other to determine which are significant for the acquisition of knowledge.

Selection through Structure and Processes – By establishing set systems and procedures for filtering the vast amount of information available within an AOK, we can make selections as to which knowledge is significant.

Selection through Applicability – When judging what is significant for the acquisition of knowledge, a knower may have to consider the vast amount of information and decipher which piece of information is most applicable to their context, values or specific circumstances.

So there you have it! By now, you should have a better idea about which TOK essay title stands out the most to you and maybe even a few ideas about what to write. But where do you begin? Don't worry, we understand that writing a Theory of Knowledge essay can be a daunting task, but with the help of our expert IB tutors, you'll be on your way to success in no time. Plus, with online IB tutoring available, you can get the help you need from anywhere in the world. Don't let the TOK essay stress you out – contact us today to learn more about our IB tutoring services and how we can help you succeed in your IB studies.

IB Solved: Achieve Your IB Dreams and Secure Your Future!

• Internal Assessment Guides

Recent Posts

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

Opmerkingen

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

Breaking Down TOK Essay Titles 2021 | Part 1

 The TOK Essay is something many of us dread… Many of us feel like we’ve learned nothing in TOK up until this point and now we’re expected to write an essay!? What makes matters worse is that the Titles are sometimes ridiculously confusing as well – so you might feel like you have no idea which way to tackle the question. We’re here to help you out. Today we’re breaking down the first 3 2021 TOK Essay titles to get your creative juices flowing! 

Note: Following these suggestions will not guarantee you a good score on your TOK Essay! These are our thoughts on the best ways to consider the questions, but ultimately it’s the quality of your arguments that will make or break your essay!

https://lanterna.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/circle-cropped-5-min.png

Want to know how to get an A in TOK?

Joao (left) is one of more than 300 IB graduates working with Lanterna who smashed the IB. He knows exactly how to get an A in your TOK Essay and can give you tips on how to do the same. What are you waiting for? Meet him today!

Get Your Tutor Today

“Accepting knowledge claims always involves an element of trust.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.

We deem this to be a relatively difficult question to answer, specifically because the element of ‘trust’ is crucial to this question. A natural first step will be to define what an element of trust really is in this context. Who needs to trust whom, and what degree of trust can represent an ‘element’ of trust. Only when that is established, or at least explored, can we dive further into the question. 

The prompt also asks you to discuss the claim with reference to 2 specific areas of knowledge. Typically establishing the areas of knowledge that you wish to explore will give you much more guidance into how to craft your core arguments. It would, for example, be interesting to compare and contrast the areas of knowledge of mathematics and history, or perhaps contrasting natural sciences and religious knowledge systems .

If we choose mathematics and history as our two areas of knowledge, one could make an argument that ‘trust’ does not play a part in the acceptance of mathematical knowledge claims as the knowledge can be considered verifiable. Meanwhile, within history we must believe the words of those who documented the historical events – our whole understanding of history is shaped by the words of others. Naturally, then, in order to accept historical knowledge we need a greater element of trust. 

The quote states that “accepting knowledge claims always involves an element of trust”, thus with our approach this claim appears not to be true! But perhaps you reach a different conclusion based on your arguments and examples.

A potential structure for this essay could be:

• Examine the wording of the claim, defining ‘knowledge claims’, ‘accepting’, and ‘an element of trust’. Be sure to specifically consider the importance of ‘trust’ in this context.
• Discuss the importance, or lack thereof, of ‘trust’ within AoK #1
• Discuss the importance, or lack thereof, of ‘trust’ within AoK #2
• Explain the differences in the role of trust within the two AoK’s and why they lead to us accepting knowledge claims differently.
• Circle back to the original claim, verifying or denying the validity of it!

Within areas of knowledge, how can we differentiate between change and progress? Answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

If prompt 1 was difficult, this one might be the most difficult of them all! It’s a very nuanced question, asking students to aptly compare and contrast the concepts of ‘change’ and ‘progress’ as it relates to knowledge. Naturally, this question can be spun a multitude of ways, but this is how you could approach this 2021 TOK essay title! 

Progress could be defined as change that leads you closer to the verifiable truth, while change is simply moving from some personal/shared knowledge to some other personal/shared knowledge. According to this definition, progress would be seen when a mathematical proof is discovered allowing mathematicians to come closer to understanding and accepting the ‘truth’. However, when a religious system , such as Pope Francis modernizing the Catholic Church, that may only be seen as ‘change’ and not progress, as the development is not necessarily bringing knowledge closer to some verifiable truth. Be aware, this is a difficult approach to take as the line between change and progress is very thin, so be sure that the RLEs (real life examples) you choose clearly demonstrate the difference between your definitions of change and progress.

Another approach you could take would be to define change as being a radical, larger transformation of personal or shared knowledge while progress may only be incremental. For example, one could consider the Industrial Revolution as being not progress, but change, as it so fundamentally changed the way that we live our lives today. Meanwhile, a new software update on your phone, though ‘changing’ something, might be considered to be progress rather than change. You might want to consider the AoK’s of History – allowing you to look at historical events and describe them as progress/change depending on the context, as well as Natural Sciences – considering the impact that discoveries had on the progression of knowledge and whether they would thus be considered a ‘change’ or simply ‘progress’ of scientific knowledge.

Last, you may define the difference between change and progress according to the following – change in knowledge implies that previous knowledge is now falsified or rejected in favour of new knowledge, whilst progress implies that the previous knowledge is still intact, just improved. With this approach you could quite clearly focus on the development of theories within the Natural or Human sciences and how, historically, we have had changes in theories or progression of theories leading us to the shared knowledge today.

https://lanterna.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Screen-Shot-2019-04-10-at-15.54.40-212×300.png

Grab Free TOK Resources!

“Labels are a necessity in the organization of knowledge, but they also constrain our understanding.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

This might be our favourite 2021 TOK essay prompt! Although not an easy one, it’s one that I think a lot of people have thought about even outside of TOK class. We as humans are constantly labelling, judging, and assigning personal beliefs/ideals when attempting to understand or absorb new knowledge. To what extent does assigning these labels help us in our day-to-day and to what extent does it distort the world that we live in? It’s an interesting thought!

When looking at this question, our minds go directly to the area of knowledge of Art . Take music as an example. We are very quick to place musicians and music in boxes “Bach was a baroque musician”, “ Miles Davis was a jazz musician”, “Taylor Swift’s latest album was pop” – and thus our perception of the music is skewed accordingly. Although it may be true that largely Miles Davis was a jazz musician, and there is nothing wrong with categorizing him as such, we might become blind to understanding the true depth of his art when looking at it in this 2D way. Miles Davis’ music was influenced by Jazz, Blues, Bebop, elements of Bossa Nova, and much more! Similarly, taking visual art as an example, all artwork made by Picasso are instantly labelled as masterpieces, whether they were actually that or not! By labelling his works as such, it may dissuade people from actually questioning the true intent of the artist, and whether they achieved their goal! Labels, although useful, can largely skew how we would otherwise perceive the art.

Another AoK to consider with this prompt would be with regards to history . When considering historical claims, we are always acutely aware of the potential biases associated with their knowledge. We might blindly disregard knowledge from a seemingly biased source because we label it as ‘false facts’ automatically! Although labelling certain knowledge as biased may help us to quickly make decisions as to the truth of the facts stated, it may also lead us to incorrectly judge other knowledge. It might be that some of the knowledge we classify as incorrect due to bias is in fact correct, but by labelling we hampered our understanding!

This is just one approach to take with regards to this question – we think there is massive scope for discussing this prompt within all 8 AoK’s! Just pick the one you think you have the strongest RLEs for. 

So there we have it, three of the 2021 TOK essay titles broken down! Still feeling unsure? We’ve got elite IB tutors ready and able to help you put your best foot forward…

Check out Part 2 Here

Share article links

Related Articles

• IB Theory of Knowledge
• Most Popular

Theory of Knowledge IB Guide | Part 4

Pt. 4 – The Ways of Knowing: Language, Senses, Emotion and Reason  What are the Ways of Knowing? All knowledge comes from somewhere. Even if we say it is innate (comes from within us) we still have to say how that knowledge appears. The Ways of Knowing are what they sound like, the methods through which knowledge becomes […]

Breaking Down TOK Essay Titles 2020 | Part 2

Looking for the 20/21 titles? Click here! Here we go! Here are our ideas for the second half of the May 2020 TOK Essay Titles. Read on to be inspired!    “The role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? This question, […]

• IB - Understanding It

Breaking Down TOK Essay Titles 2022

The TOK Essay can be a daunting task, and many of us struggle to even begin out of fear of doing something wrong. Not only are you expected to learn the philosophy of all the areas of knowledge, but now you have to write an essay about it too!? TOK Essay Titles in Human Sciences […]

May 2022 TOK essay titles

TOK Home > Free TOK notes > TOK essay guidance > May 2022 TOK essay titles

M22 prescribed essay titles

The M22 TOK prescribed essay titles are now being written by Northern Hemisphere schools, for a mid-March deadline. Check out the M22 TOK essay webinar , which models what an initial unpacking session would look like. Below you’ll find the key words to pin down in the essay introduction, links to the  BQ framework , and other consideration points.

Prescribed title 1

The ideas you see here roughly correspond to the initial unpacking session you will have with your TOK teacher. You’ll then go on to have three face-to-face interactions with your teacher, in which you’ll discuss your progress in writing the essay , working through any difficulties and challenges you experience.

Make sure you pin down…

• I ndependent of culture

relates to…

• Perspectives (BQ4) – think about how knowledge is subject to interpretation, and whether that interpretation is culturally-driven.
• Creativity (BQ5) – think about the development of knowledge, and the role culture plays in this.

BEAR IN MIND…

• Knowledge itself will require a definition
• Can knowledge be produced without a cultural background?
• Mathematics – the assumption is that this is independent from culture – is that true?
• See culture in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 2

Make sure you pin down….

• World of difference

RELATES TO…

• Foundations (BQ1) – think about the nature of truth, role of facts, etc. – and come up with your own definitions of these.
• Spin (BQ3) – facts can be used to mislead us, by presenting half-truths (“A truth that’s told with bad intent / Beats all the lies you can invent.”- Blake)
• Angelou’s full quote also refers to ‘facts can obscure the truth’ – tricky to decide whether to include this section of the quote
• Ensure it establishes (or refutes) world of difference – not just difference
• A broad question in terms of which AOKs you can select
• See truth in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 3

• Solid justification  
• More highly
• Values (BQ2) – this could be one of the bases for this essay, that highly regarded knowledge is synonymous with knowledge that helps us to improve our values
• Perspectives (BQ4) – perhaps highly regarded knowledge is that which is the most objective (and therefore least vulnerable to interpretation)?
• Experts (BQ6) – think about how do we regard knowledge with more discernment
• What does ‘solid’ justification mean (as opposed to just plain old ‘justification’)?
• Regarding something highly is vague – needs pinning down very clearly
• The purpose of knowledge needs to be considered
• See justification in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 4

• Telling of stories
• Spin (BQ3) – think about communicating ideas via means that aren’t always factually-based.
• Creativity (BQ5) – think about how we create knowledge via our imagination.
• What does ‘give knowledge meaning’ mean – and how does this happen via ‘telling stories’?
• The most prescriptive of the PTs
• There is a lot of cross-over between history and the human sciences – it could be harder to craft a contrasting essay. 
• It could also turn into a descriptive essay (it’s not “to what extent to historians and human scientists…”)
• ‘Telling stories’ really needs to be nailed down.

Prescribed title 5

• Good  
• Interpretations
• Perspectives (BQ4) – think about how our perspectives lead us to make different interpretations. When does this strengthen our claims (perhaps personal experiences)? When does this detract from our claims (perhaps when we seek to confirm our biases)?
• Experts (BQ6) – think about how experts make discerning judgements on the world – in terms of humility, evidence, an agenda that doesn’t seek to be served, etc.
• There is quite a lot for students to do with this essay – interpretations within the arts will probably be evaluated in a completely different way to other AOKs
• See interpretation in our key concept resource

Prescribed title 6

• Ethical grounds  
• Boundaries of acceptable investigation
• Values (BQ2) – clear links with this BQ. Think about how and who should decide on the ethical boundaries of knowledge?
• Creativity (BQ5) – this is about creating new knowledge, so it also links to this BQ
• “If we conclude”… but if we don’t? 
• Who is the ‘we’? Not a bad thing – this is a great way of including a consideration of perspectives in this essay. The experts? The authorities? Ordinary knowers? Etc.

M22 essay webinar $24.99 / $49.99

This webinar discusses the M22 titles, and how to begin writing the TOK essay. We look at the key words of the titles, link them to the course, and run over possible approaches. This is a great starting point for writing the essay, and works similarly to the initial unpacking session that teachers run with their students.

• Group ticket – $49.99
• Individual ticket – $24.99

Essay Guides

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

From 6000 to 8000+ words each, these comprehensive essay guides are designed to help you understand the key terms of the title as well as how to approach it using the different AOK’s and other applicable TOK concepts such as the Knowledge Framework .

Each aok section includes a range of real life examples whilst also addressing the potential implications of different claims and counterclaims ., unpacking the title.

• Exploring the Question
• Relevant Concepts
• Points to Remember
• Knowledge Framework Connections

Areas of Knowledge

• Mathematics
• Natural Sciences
• Human Sciences

Also included with your purchase are THREE additional ToK essay resources including:

• The ToK Essay: Top Do´s & Don´ts
• ToK Essay Introductions (Examples & Analysis)
• ToK Essay Conclusions (Examples & Analysis)

To get instant access to the guide and bonus resources, please click the ‘Purchase´ button on the guide page. If you do not have a PayPal account, please choose the ‘Guest Checkout’ option.

Please do not directly copy and paste sections of these essay guides into your work. They are designed to help you understand the question and formulate your own ideas and arguments.

When ordering a guide, please ensure that you have chosen the correct title as guides cannot be exchanged once purchased.

These guides are currently only available in English .

Essay Guides November 2024

TITLE 1: Our Responsibility to Acquire Knowledge

TITLE 2: Ingenuity in Knowledge Production: Necessary but Insufficient?

TITLE 3:  Severing Ties with the Past: Benefits for AOK’s?

TITLE 4: Hypothesis vs. Speculation: Any Significant Difference?

TITLE 5: Dismissing Anomalies in Knowledge Production

TITLE 6: Artists & Scientists: Swapping Lenses

Essay Guides May 2024

TITLE 1:  Subjectivity in History & the Arts

TITLE 2: Reconciling Specialization & Generalization in Knowledge Production

TITLE 3: Why Are AOK´s Slow to Adopt Fresh Ideas?

TITLE 4: Transferring Knowledge Between Contexts

TITLE 5: Are Custodians of Knowledge Essential?

TITLE 6: Recent Evidence: Inevitably the Strongest?

Before you go!

For your free tok essay guide.

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

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

TOK Essay Practice with MAY 2024 TOK ESSAY TITLES UNPACKED.

Age range: 16 - 18

Resource type: Lesson (complete)

Last updated

23 March 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This is a 24 page TOK resource which contains the following:

• detailed mind maps of May 2024 Essay titles with brief summary.
• detailed template to help organise each Essay title.
• list of TOK vocabulary with their definitions .

This is a very detailed resource to help teachers prepare their students unpack the essay titles and start writing them. The mindmaps are very useful in helping the teachers and students get a prespective on the Essay title and spark off new ideas.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to -25%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

TOK Essay Essentials: A Comprehensive Guide

Unlock your path to TOK Essay excellence with our professional bundle, 'TOK Essay Essentials: Basics to Checklists.' This comprehensive resource equips you with the fundamental knowledge needed to excel in your Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Essay. From mastering essay basics to expertly deconstructing essay titles and navigating the TOK Essay instrument, this bundle is your all-in-one solution for TOK success. Perfect for both beginners and seasoned TOK scholars, it provides essential insights and tools to enhance your understanding and performance, ensuring your essays meet the highest standards of evaluation. Elevate your TOK Essay writing skills with 'TOK Essay Essentials: Basics to Checklists' and embark on a journey towards creating compelling, standout essays

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

May 2023 TOK essay prescribed titles

The prescribed titles for the May 2023 TOK essay have been released. Check with your TOK coordinator / teacher for the official document.

Resources for the May 2023 TOK essay prescribed titles will be published shortly.

• Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Are visual representations always helpful in the communication of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and mathematics.
• 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.

Privacy Overview