Writing for the Marking Criteria (DP IB Theory of Knowledge): Revision Note

Excellent (9–10)

The essay gives an insightful, convincing, and lucid exploration of the prescribed title, with sustained focus, effective AOK linkage, clear and coherent arguments supported by specific examples, consideration of implications, and clear evaluation of different points of view.

Good (7–8)

The essay offers a pertinent, relevant, and analytical response that stays focused on the title, links AOKs effectively, presents clear and coherent arguments supported by examples, and shows some evaluation of different points of view in an organised way.

Satisfactory (5–6)

The essay is an acceptable and competent discussion that stays focused on the prescribed title, develops arguments that are supported by examples, and shows some awareness of different points of view.  Some links are made to areas of knowledge, and the overall discussion is conventional and adequate, rather than analytical or insightful.

Basic (3–4)

The essay is an underdeveloped and limited response that connects to the title but makes weak or superficial links to AOKs, relies mainly on description, and offers unclear or weakly supported arguments with ineffective examples.

Rudimentary (1–2)

The essay is ineffective, with a weak connection to the prescribed title. Any links to areas of knowledge are descriptive, and the writing is often incoherent or formless with many unsupported assertions.

0

The essay does not reach the standard described by the other levels or does not respond to one of the prescribed titles for the correct examination session.

1. Framing the problem

• Restate the prescribed title in your own words

• Define key terms or concepts in the title

• Identify any assumptions or ambiguities

• Signal which areas of knowledge (AOKs) will be used and the overall direction of the argument

• Avoid giving a final, absolute answer at this stage

2. Developing an initial knowledge claim

• Introduce a clear claim related to the title

• Ground the claim in ToK concepts and/orthe knowledge framework, e.g. methods & tools, certainty, reliability, ethics

• Apply the claim to both AoKs

• Set up what will later be tested using examples

3. Apply the claim comparatively across two areas of knowledge

• Apply the claim comparatively across two AoKs, so the same idea is tested in both contexts rather than discussed in two separate blocks

• Use one strong real-world example with clear links to both AoKs, or two different relevant examples where that makes comparison clearer

• Explain how the evidence supports, challenges or justifies the claim in each AoK

• Focus on what changes between AoKs, e.g. methods, standards of evidence or how disagreement is handled

• Link back to the prescribed title by stating what the comparison suggests about the title’s key concept and how it affects your judgment

4. Evaluating the initial claim

• Step back from examples

• Consider the strengths of the claim

• Identify limitations or conditions

• Introduce alternative perspectives

• Signal that the issue is not straightforward

5. Introducing a counterclaim

• Present a challenge to the original claim

• Explain why the claim may not always hold

• Use ToK concepts to justify the counterclaim

• Keep the discussion clearly tied to the title

6. Applying the counterclaim across areas of knowledge

• Use examples to show where the counterclaim applies

• Explain why disagreement persists in these cases

• Highlight interpretation, uncertainty and methodological limits

• Maintain balance between the AoKs

7. Weighing claims and counterclaims

• Bring together both sides of the argument

• Avoid absolute conclusions

• Explain under what conditions each position is stronger

• Demonstrate judgement rather than opinion

8. Concluding with implications

• Directly answer the prescribed title

• Summarise the final, balanced position

• Draw implications for the pursuit of knowledge, the value of disagreement and how knowledge is produced or evaluated

• Avoid repeating earlier points without development

The exact title is used: wording is not accidentally changed

The final essay is within the 1600-word limit

A clear structure is used, so the argument is easy to follow

Academic language is used throughout

The writing stays focused on the prescribed title

Areas of knowledge references are meaningful rather than token

Examples are specific and real-world, and are used as evidence for analysis, not as narrative

The conclusion gives a clear final judgement rather than only a summary

Any specific sources used are acknowledged, so it is clear what is original and what is taken from elsewhere

Names of people, schools or other identifying details are not included