TOK Presentations: What is your Real Life Situation & your Knowledge Question?

The fundamental question of the IB Theory of Knowledge class is How do we know?  We explore different methods and purposes of creating knowledge, weighing their advantages and disadvantages, their limitations and possibilities.  How knowledge is created in a biology class is different from creating knowledge in a literature class.  How knowledge is created in economics is different from how a tribal member knows which medicinal plant to use in a given situation.

Some general questions regarding the construction of knowledge are:

How do we justify our knowledge?  

What is allowed as good evidence?

What constitutes an acceptable explanation?

How do we know which model is the most accurate?

Knowledge questions are at the very center of the class.  An explicit aim of TOK is that the student learn to "formulate, evaluate, and attempt to answer knowledge questions."  At first many students find all this extraordinarily difficult.  Let's take a look at the criteria for Knowledge Questions.

The IB Course Guide gives clear criteria for Knowledge Questions.  They are:

1. Open-ended questions.  These are questions that have more than one plausible answer.  You must explain and justify your answer.  It does not inevitably mean that a question is irresolvable.  One answer may be more correct than another.
2. Explicitly about knowledge. 
3. Expressed in TOK terms.  These are a selection of terms:  Belief, Certainty, Evidence, Explanation, Fact, Hypothesis, Ideology, Interpretation, Judgement, Knowledge, Law, Paradigm, Theory.
4. Clear in the relationships between these terms

As we begin the first round of TOK Presentations, can we place our Real Life Situations and Knowledge Questions online below?  Please record these by 27 March.

Writing an Ethics Case: A Group Project

In class we have made some use of cases written by students and faculty of Santa Clara University.  The cases were placed someone before a difficult ethical decision in a real life situation.   Our task in the next two classes will be to write an ethics case based on our own experiences.  We will break into small groups and each group will write a case.  After finishing the project, we will use them as the basis of discussion in class.

Step 1: Brainstorm

What are ethical dilemmas that possibly could confront you as a student, as young person, as a son or daughter, as a citizen?  Brainstorm a list of five to ten possibilities.   The dilemmas should be personal and contemporary.  The situations should be real, not commonplace situations that others will evaluate in a quick and simple way.  It can be a dilemma you have encountered. 

As you evaluate the list of dilemmas to select one for development, eliminate the ones for which you have no personal experience or for which you have no personal familiarity through another person.  Choose a compelling problem that is difficult to decide.  

Step 2: Write a rough draft

Write a rough draft.  Make clear these three elements:

1.       Who is the protagonist?

2.       What issue does he or she face?

3.       What circumstances complicate the situation?

Step 3: Refine the story and think of two questions

Now revise and edit the story.  What details could bring out more nuances or complexity?  Is the choice too clear-cut?  Think of two questions that will stimulate thought.

Step 4: Turn in everything and post on the blog

Turn in your brainstorming, your rough draft, and your finished case.  Post your case on the class blog with the first names of all the people in your group. 

TOK Essay: Final Checklist

At this point I have read the first drafts of the TOK Essay and forwarded my commentary.  Next week we will spend a class or two in individual conferences so that I can explain my comments, if this is necessary. Then we will move forward in the last classes of the Ethics unit.

The final draft of the TOK Essay will be uploaded to the IBO website on January 21 (January 22 if your section is on that day).

Before submitting the final draft of the TOK Essay, let's look at some questions to evaluate your final draft.

Introduction

• Did you derive a knowledge issue directly related to the prescribed title?
• Did you directly answer the question posed in the prescribed title?
• Did you specify the ways of knowing or areas of knowledge that you will focus upon?
• Did you articulate the thesis you will argue?
• Does the reader have an idea of the path you will take in the argument?
• Is your introduction brief and concise?  Is every word necessary?

Body

• Have you defined key terms?
• Do not use a standard dictionary or a TOK textbook for definitions!
• Is your paper structured as an argument (a debate)? 
• Are you arguing your thesis consistently?
• Are you making assertions?
• Do you have reasons?
• Do you have evidence?
• Have you included strong counterarguments?
• Have you refuted the counterarguments?
• Have you considered other perspectives (e.g., cultural, philosophical, academic, gender, etc.)?
• Have you demonstrated an understanding of the complexity of the issue?
• Are you making distinctions within the ways of knowing or areas of knowledge?
• Are you making connections to the ways of knowing or areas of knowledge?
• Have you related the knowledge issue to your own life?  
• Are your examples personal or are they clichés? 
• Have you compared and contrasted the results of your analysis of an issue involving two areas of knowledge or ways of knowing?  Have you unwittingly written two short unrelated essays about a knowledge issue in two areas of knowledge or ways of knowing? 
• Have you identified the implications or assumptions of your argument?  In other words, do you clearly see where your argument comes from and where it is going?
• Have you cited the sources for specific information?  Are the sources in correct format (as used in the Extended Essay)?  Do you also have a bibliography in correct format? (Nota Bene: not all essays need sources)
• Is your language clear?  Are you consistently using TOK terms (claim, issue, belief, knowledge, et al.)?
• Have you signposted for the reader?  Have you explicitly made clear the elements of your argument and your consideration of counterarguments?

 Conclusion

• Have you properly summarized your findings?
• Have you explained what your argument has established?

Final Considerations

• Have you met the word limit (1200-1600 words)?
• Do you have 12 point font?
• Have you double-spaced the text?
• Have you put the prescribed title at the top of the first page?

A Last Word on Authenticity

The TOK Essay must be entirely your own work.  Teachers, tutors, or family members are not permitted to revise or edit the essay.  The course guide for the Theory of Knowledge stipulates:

If a preliminary draft is produced, the teacher may read and comment on it, but is not permitted to edit it for the student. Only one draft may be presented to the teacher before the final essay is submitted. In general, teachers’ comments should be about the essay as a whole, although it is acceptable to question or comment upon a particular paragraph. Where a student is writing in a second or third language, more flexibility may be appropriate: for example, the teacher may indicate that a particular sentence or word usage is difficult for the reader. However, here as elsewhere, it is the student’s responsibility to correct mistakes and make improvements.

Authenticity

Teachers must ensure that essays are the student’s own work. If there is doubt, authenticity should be checked by a discussion with the student about the content of the essay submitted and a scrutiny of one or more of the following:

• the student’s initial proposal and outline
• the first draft of the essay
• the student’s references and bibliography for the essay, where appropriate
• the style of the writing, which may reveal obvious discrepancies.

It should be made clear to students that they will be required to sign a written declaration when submitting the essay, to confirm that it is their own work. In addition, students must be made aware that their teachers will also be required to verify the claim made in the declaration.

Helpful Reading for TOK: Suggestions

If one wanted to deepen one's understanding of Theory of Knowledge, where would one look?  I have a couple of suggestions.

First, while one can stumble upon small online islands of information in surfing the internet, one more substantial site is theoryofknowledge.net.  It covers all the different aspects of the course and goes into sufficient detail, being neither too superficial nor too erudite that one is left behind coughing in a cloud of library dust. 

Next, I very highly recommend Nigel Warburton's Philosophy: The Basics.  A senior lecturer at the Open University in the UK, Warburton writes with admirable clarity and has the natural teacher's gift of making complicated ideas understandable.

Another great resource is Stephen Law's The Philosophy Gym, a book presenting a series of playful and imaginative dialogues on philosophical problems and issues.  Law is on the faculty of Heythrop College, originally a Jesuit school and since 1970 a part of the University of London.  Like Warburton, he writes lucidly about philosophical problems and makes them understandable and accessible. 

Julian Baggini has written many books, but Making Sense:  Philosophy behind the Headlines seems expressly written for TOK.  He explores philosophical issues raised by news stories.  As the publishing blurb states, "The discussions interweave philosophy and current affairs to create a compelling narrative that challenges how we make sense both of the world around us and of our own beliefs."

Baggini, Law, and Warburton have written other accessible books on philosophy, and also have websites and blogs.  Inevitably perhaps, but also very fortunately, they are more and more present on Youtube through recorded lectures and debates.  Civil, insightful, and always clear, they are very enjoyable to listen to, even if one may disagree with what is said. 

This extra reading is not mandatory, BUT if one wanted to pursue many of the topics and issues further, one could dip into these books and continue a journey in philosophical thought.

Show More

Show Less

Alone Together

Recently in class we watched a TED talk by psychologist and sociologist Sherry Turkle, who is a professor at MIT.  She studies the interaction of human beings with technology, and uses hundreds of interviews to gather data for analysis and interpretation.  Her most recent book is Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2011).  Her TED Talk reviews some of the findings of this recent book, raises some interesting questions, and makes some challenges.

Please write a reflection on the talk below.  Some questions for consideration (you need not answer any of them, these are just to stimulate thought!):

• Do you agree with what she says?  If not, would you say that her sampling of people was too limited (how does it break down, for example, by age group?  Should she have interviewed more teenagers?)?  Did she fail to take into account alternative points of view?
• When did you get your first cell phone?  Do you think that it has generally enriched or impoverished your daily life?  Does it distract you from your life or connect you to it?
• What challenges does she make at the end of the talk?
• In relating her research, Dr. Turkle is very emotional.  Clearly this work means a great deal to her.  How do you think empathy is present in her research and interpretation of her findings?
• Does her "pre-technological" value system (her values having been formed before the advent of personal computing and mobile devices) precondition her to view the more intense use of technology in a negative manner? How have values guided her interpretation of the data?
• Do the human sciences put more emphasis on emotion, empathy, and values?

Human Science 1

Introduction

Let's try to answer three questions:

1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? 
................. cents

2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
 ................. minutes

3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch  doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
................. days

These three very short questions have sent smoke reeling through the ears of many people, as if mental gears were colliding, and in fact mental gears are colliding.  This test, along with other experiments, have persuaded many psychologists that human beings have two systems of thinking.  The first is quick, intuitive, emotional, and given to generalizing.  The second is slow, deliberate, logical, and given to making distinctions.

Many stumble on the three questions because System 1 leads them quickly and directly to the obvious and incorrect answer.  Those few who get them correct have resolved the problems with System 2.  These two systems of thinking have recently been explained in an engaging book entitled Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 (I suggest reading his short autobiography at the Nobel site!).

Have you learned something about human beings? 

Welcome to the world of Human Science!

What are the human sciences?

The area of human sciences encompasses a large number of disciplines that includes  anthropology, archaeology, economics, education, game theory, law, linguistics, political science, sociology, and psychology.  These disciplines seek to apply the scientific method to understand how and why human beings think and feel, behave and interact, as they do.

But unfortunately the scientific method, which already gives rise to issues when applied to natural phenomena, has even more issues when applied to the study of human beings.  The Austrian philosopher Karl Popper argued very well that a scientific theory should be falsifiable and if it were not, then that theory was pseudoscience.  Therefore, psychoanlysis was pseudoscience:  Dr. Freud was always right and could not be proven wrong.  Would this be true for many human sciences?  Are theories in the human sciences like theories in the natural sciences?  And while one can speak of natural laws, such as the four Laws of Thermodynamics (elegantly explained in a brief book by Peter Atkins), are there any laws of human nature? 

Early pioneers of the human sciences, such as Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim, believed the scientific method could be applied to the study of the behavior of human beings.  But when we begin to think about it, every step of the scientific method will have issues in this new application.     

The human sciences present much food for thought in a TOK class.

What methods can be used?

In the Natural Sciences the scientific method (Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation) can lead to results and insights that can be explained with a scientific theory.  One proceeds inductively from observations to generalizations.  Unvarying regularities in nature are known as physical laws.  A scientific theory (i.e., a scientific explanation) is based on evidence and a chain of reasoning, it is falsifiable and has predictive powers.  As Galileo first discovered in his study of mechanics, mathematics is a very helpful tool for precise measurement and analysis of data.  Theories that fail to explain adequately natural phenomena are discarded and one can witness a complete paradigm shift.  Any currently accepted theory is tentatively accepted as the best explanation at this moment.

Methods in the human sciences, on the other hand, can be divided into two categories:  quantitative methods and qualitative methods.

• Quantitative Methods
• These include experiments, surveys, questionnaires, and tests that provide numerical data that can be analyzed for frequencies and trends.  Mathematics is used as a tool of analysis, but statistics that are produced need interpretation. 
• Qualitative Methods
• These include interviews and case studies.  These studies can provide more textured and nuanced data, but it is not precisely measured. 

Experts will often use both quantitative and qualitative methods.  In the next classes we will explore these methods more closely to understand their purposes and their issues.  Already one can see that linguistic interpretation is integral.

What is TOK? Why is it challenging?

Theory of Knowledge, at first, can be difficult to frame as a course because few students have followed a similar class in the past.  While you have had language and literature, math, science, history, and art classes, you have never had a class on the Theory of Knowledge.  It is new and at times abstract, and these qualities combine to make the experience challenging. 

So, at the beginning of a new academic year, we should review the aims and objectives of the Theory of Knowledge course.  Each student and parent should clearly understand its purpose and basic content.   The course guide outlines five aims: 

1)      develop a fascination with the richness of knowledge as a human endeavour, and an understanding of the empowerment that follows from reflecting upon it

2)      develop an awareness of how knowledge is constructed, critically examined, evaluated and renewed, by communities and individuals

3)      encourage students to reflect on their experiences as learners, in everyday life and in the Diploma Programme, and to make connections between academic disciplines and between thoughts, feelings and actions

4)      encourage an interest in the diversity of ways of thinking and ways of living of individuals and communities, and an awareness of personal and ideological assumptions, including participants’ own

5)      encourage consideration of the responsibilities originating from the relationship between knowledge, the community and the individual as citizen of the world.

The course guide further specifies six outcomes.  That is, after taking the course, the student should be able to:

1)      analyse critically knowledge claims, their underlying assumptions and their implications

2)      generate questions, explanations, conjectures, hypotheses, alternative ideas and possible solutions in response to knowledge issues concerning areas of knowledge, ways of knowing and students’ own experience as learners

3)      demonstrate an understanding of different perspectives on knowledge issues

4)      draw links and make effective comparisons between different approaches to knowledge issues that derive from areas of knowledge, ways of knowing, theoretical positions and cultural values

5)      demonstrate an ability to give a personal, self-aware response to a knowledge issue

6)      formulate and communicate ideas clearly with due regard for accuracy and academic honesty.

In class we will put these aims and outcomes into our own language.  But one can see that TOK is an ambitious course.  In simplest terms, it is a course on thinking critically about our experience as learners and knowers.   We gain an awareness of how we learn and know as human beings in different academic classes and in different cultures.   TOK's fundamental question is, How do I know?   

The TOK Diagram clarifies the scope of the class.  In the center we see the Knower, then the Four Ways of Knowing (Sensory Perception, Emotion, Language, Reason),  then the subjects of Natural Sciences, Mathematics, Art, Human Sciences, History, and Ethics.  Taking the fundamental question of TOK, we examine in class how we know through each of these interacting ways of knowing and subjects. 

 

In short, we take a comparative overview of how knowledge is created.  Each subject creates knowledge in a different manner:

• The Natural Sciences (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics) use the Scientific Method (Observation, Hypothesis, Test) to create knowledge.  Each step of the method can raise knowledge issues.  Key concepts include hypothesis, theory, and law (which is most important?).  Many other questions can be raised, but to take one:  how do sensory perception, emotion, language and reason condition the creation of scientific knowledge?
• Mathematics is a body of knowledge, a system of ideas, and a tool.  It constructs knowledge through axioms and theorems (what are these?).  It uses proofs to demonstrate the validity of the theorems.  How does math become creative?  Is mathematics value-free?
• The Arts use a variety of media for a variety of purposes.  What is the purpose of art?   Is it to create beauty?  Is it meant to teach society?   What should it teach?  Is it for self-expression?  Is there truth in art?  Can we test it?  Is there an ethical dimension to art?  Can art harm an individual or society?
• The Human Sciences (e.g., Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Economics, Education) use the Scientific Method in order to understand human beings and their behavior.  How well can this be done?  Observation and description are central activities, but testing can be difficult or impossible.  If a theory in human science cannot be tested, is it a scientific theory?  Or if a theory has little consistent predictive value (as can happen in economics), why consider it scientific? 
• History is the study of the past.  Why can we not consider this a human science?  Are all perspectives on history equally valid?  Is there a best method in writing history?   Is there an ethical dimension to the writing of history?
• Ethics is the study of how right and wrong are determined.  Are right and wrong purely cultural constructs?  Can there be a universal understanding of right and wrong?  What are the most common moral philosophies?  Does Ethics impact the other areas of knowledge?

Many more knowledge issues can be raised.  There is a sense in which every subject teacher is a TOK teacher because the subject teacher can make you more aware of the subject-defining concepts and methods, as well as the common knowledge issues of that particular way of creating knowledge. 

Last year in the first semester of TOK, you examined the Knower and the Four Ways of Knowing.  In the second semester you investigated Natural Sciences, Math, and Art.   What remains this year are the Human Sciences, History, and Ethics.  Finally, we must complete the course assessment, which is based on an internally assessed presentation and an externally assessed essay.

Why is TOK Challenging?

The IBO describes  the Theory of Knowledge class as its flagship course.  But why do students find it so challenging?  In part, it is challenging because you must take an aerial view of learning and knowing while at the same time peering into yourself for your own convictions and assumptions.   You must compare and contrast how one learns and knows in different areas, noting the advantages and disadvantages of each.  You examine very profound and complex questions.  And this is why  TOK is especially challenging:  it often focuses on open questions that do not have one correct answer. Much of elementary and secondary school education, often for quite proper motives, is focused on obtaining the single correct answer.  TOK is not like this.  There can be many correct answers, or many answers with different degrees of correctness, and one must make a well-reasoned argument, taking into account the counterarguments, in support of one's own conclusion. 

In ltalian licei there is an excellent three year course in the history of philosophy and students have the opportunity to survey the great philosophical thinkers of the past.   The IBO's course in TOK is applied philosophy.  One will find the names of great thinkers and their concepts judiciously present in the course, but the emphasis is consistently on learning to think critically about learning and knowing.  The roots of the IBO's TOK class stretch into the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking movements, but more than a general course in critical thinking, which is required and popular in many American universities, TOK is focused through the IBO's mission statement.  The aim is to develop critical and compassionate members of the global community.