Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Sample ToK essay grade
Post the grade you gave the essay we read at the end of last class with an explanation that cites at least one example to justify your grade. Try to use the language of the rubric in your answer. We are going to read one more essay on Friday on a different prescribed title, then we will move on to focus on dissecting the presentation rubric.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I gave the essay a 18 because it effectively links many different areas of knowledge with the topic, and it considers a wide variety of perspectives. For example, the writer uses math to explore the different types of truth that exist, citing Orwell's 1984 and Godet's incompleteness theory.
ReplyDeleteI gave the essay a 16 because it used real-life situations from different areas of knowledge to answer the knowledge quesiton and the claim that "there is no such thing as absolute truth." For example, the author cites the Iraq war and the standpoint from USA and Iraq to show truth varies with perspective. Knowledge question was answered and argument was supported by detailed real-life situation.
ReplyDeleteI gave the essay a 14 because it used some academic examples, such as essay writing or the table. IB requires the examples to be more academic based, and this essay does that, but in very limited number. The analysis is a lot more sophisticated and better organized than the other essay on the same prompt. The introduction came out stronger than the first, but it answered the knowledge question more directly.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 16 because of its use of different areas of knowledge, and ways of knowledge. It also explores counterclaims, uses real life situations, and the writer also uses examples to support their argument. For example, the use of TED Talks by Richard Dawkins, and the Armenian genocide were used to further the writers claim that Atwood is correct.
ReplyDeleteI would give this essay a 12. Even though there are numerous examples included, some are confusing or irrelevant (particularly the one about sitting and writing an essay). Additionally, I think that the examples could be a little more focused or explained more thoroughly. The example about the Armenian genocide also seems rather extreme past the parameters of solely context. Maybe more discussion about TOK stuff and what context and truth are could have been included.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 13 since the writer never bothered to define truth and clarify. Furthermore, the essay was focused, although it's analysis was not well developed. Rather than focusing on a couple of AOKs and WOKs to create an in-depth analysis, the writer spread out their approach creating a weaker analysis. For example, the mentioning of Godel's incompleteness theory was very brief. I feel like it would have been better to go more in depth with the theory as I did not fully understand the concept.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 14 because the writer did put the focus on the knowledge question with a variety of legitimate real-life examples with some analysis. The examples ranged from Gödel's incompleteness theory (Line 20-26) with its connection to AOK Math to a contemporary example of the Iraq War with connections to WOK Emotion (Line 56-75). However the example about the Iraq War was the only one that was accompanied with significant depth and analysis. Most of the examples were provided with some development like how the moral truth of "Thou shalt not kill" (Line 48-55) was being contradicted with capital punishment but the analysis did not go deeper than two or three sentences.
ReplyDeleteThe writer put too much focus on providing examples that support the argument and not enough focus on explaining why it does support it. The Incompleteness Theory had potential to provide depth to the writer's creative thought as it would of showed that the author was not focusing on generalizations but rather goes beyond that. Instead there was only one sentence of analysis on it in the last sentence of the third paragraph.
Additionally there was brief notice of counter claims. The only counter claims were a-priori truths in Lines 9-18, Lines 38-41, and Lines 76-78. It was not developed enough to earn a higher score.
I gave this essay a 14. The essay begins with a discussion of truth, specifically its definition and the contrast between absolute and relative truth. The assertion is then made that all truth is relative; this seems to support Atwood's assertion that "context is all". This essay displayed genuine understanding and thought regarding the issue, and the paper as a whole was coherent and organized. The examples are varied and appropriate, but could be explored and integrated a bit more, such as the Richard Dawkins example, which would benefit from a shortened explanation and a longer analysis. The student made connections between AOKs and WOKs in their argument, but these connections were a bit superficial and could be expanded upon to improve the essay's cohesion and depth. Overall, language and grammar are appropriate for an essay of this level, and the essay transitions fairly smoothly.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 15. The author used a vast array of real life situations to help explain his argument. They are all relevant and contribute to his answering of the prompt. The rubric asks for counterclaims to be explored in the essay, which is done when the author discusses the perspective of the insurgency in Iraq. One problem that I saw with his essay was that as far as I can tell, he only used one way of knowing to back up his argument, which was sense perception. He also used a very clichéd example when he discussed the truth in 2+2=4 and it's paradox, 2+2=5. However, I did not feel like this detracted from the essay and I still thought it was very interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 13. Although the writer introduced many insightful arguments, they were not fully developed. For example, when the writer introduces the "three tests for truth," there is no further elaboration and the writer fails to connect the example back to the knowledge question. Our group also noted that the writer used "a priori truth" incorrectly (credit goes to Alan for noticing), which we had studied in IB Philosophy. The writer mentions that "the table I am sitting at to write this essay appears to be hard - another a-priori truth. I know this by using my senses and I can deduce empirically that the table is suitable to be rested upon" (lines 76-78). A-priori truth is a conclusion made without prior experience or observation. To know a table is hard, you have to observe it.
ReplyDeleteRegarding structure and organization, the paper has many effective transitions that help it to flow better for the reader, although a few paragraphs stand out because the introducing sentence brings in another topic without linking to the previous paragraph.
I gave this essay a 13. It is very focused, and never deviates from the prescribed topic. However, there are few knowledge questions and those that are used are not used as effectively as they should. For example, I liked how the author recognized that it is impossible to effectively define truth. However, I think there should be more analysis related to this knowledge question. As Dr. Renfroe would put it, "The author spent too little time in ToK World." There is ample evidence from various AoKs (Math, Art, History, Ethics, Religion, even Politics) and there is the connection to the WoK of Perception. The writer did a good job of providing Gödel, George Orwell, and the Iraq War as evidence but the author should have went more in depth explaining these references and connecting them to the central knowledge question. For example, the sentence "This context was, however, built up using emotive language, colourful displays of patriotism and many fallacies" is too general and requires elaboration.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if the topic sentence of the paragraph that starts on line 76 can be considered a counterclaim. If it is, then there is an error in the author's argument. The author means "a-posteriori" because he is basing his perception on personal experience. Even so, this error hinders the author's argument minimally and the essay is still very logical and well written.
I gave this essay a 14. The essay is focused, and acknowledges different perspectives through a multitude of real life examples. On the other hand there seems to be a lack of development in the evaluation and depth of the argument. Their point of view is clear within the examples presented, but the analysis is limited. In the example involving the Iraq war, the essay goes into great detail about the context of the event and viewpoints of both sides, but offers very little in terms of analysis of what that means in relation to the argument of the essay.
ReplyDeleteI gave the essay a 14. The essay is focused on the knowledge question holistically. WOKs and AOKs were used to support the essay including perception, history, and religious knowledge systems. TOK language was also used, for example when the word a-priori (line 14) was mentioned. On the other hand, a couple real life examples were forced, such as the mentioning of the table the essay was written on. Overall the essay stays on track and answers the prescribed title using real life examples to support the argument.
ReplyDeleteI gave the essay a 15 (8 in understanding and 7 in analysis) because I thought there response was very well thought out and easy to understand. Furthermore, their examples were relevant and highlighted their claims and counterclaims. For example, my favorite example was the "table I am sitting at" example because it's so unique yet relevant. However, although they had good examples, they should have explained it a little more to be more clear.
ReplyDeleteI felt like this essay deserved a 13 due to a lack of counterclaim support and an error in "a priori arguments". I liked how the writer clarified the question as to "whether there is such a thing as universal truth". The writer does well in providing great examples that are WoK and AoK relevant, such as his explanation that context is important with the Gamalan musicians; western listeners would not like the sounds of this eastern music. The historical viewpoint of views on the Armenian genocide was also a great example.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the rest of the essay, however, I felt that the counterclaim for "context is all" was not addressed strongly enough. In addition, I found a slight error in terms of "a priori" vs. "a posteriori" starting at line 76, where the writer states that the table "appears to be hard - another a priori truth". This would in fact be an "a posteriori" truth due to its empirical observation; using senses will require some form of external contact with the object, thus confirming its existence quite apparently. "A priori" truth is more of an inference that followed his claim when he stated the table is "mainly empty space...there are molecules held in the lattice" because he is applying his knowledge that everything is composed of molecules. "Therefore, since I was taught that items are made of molecules, I can infer that the table is made of molecules". For this error in argument and only a mere identification of counterclaims, I gave the essay a 6 in quality of analysis for its typical nature to support his main claim. I believed that the writer deserved a 7 for understanding of the knowledge question since he was able to tie in AoKs and WoKs to support this main claim, as they thoroughly provided support for the statement that "Context is all" in several situations.
I gave this essay a 13. An 7 for understanding, and a 6 for quality of analysis. The writer was focused on knowledge questions and rarely strayed off topic. The writer also acknowledged different perspectives when talking about the war in Iraq (lines 70-75). AoK's and WoK's (religion, history, art, math) were also linked to the prescribed title and the knowledge questions. The quality of analysis was a bit lacking because there was a lack of counterclaims. The counterclaims were also not explored, thus dropping it down to a 6. The arguments were clear and supported by examples, but did not reach a depth of analysis that is needed to get to the next level. Overall it was a satisfactory response to the prescribed title and knowledge question.
ReplyDeleteA* 7
DeleteI would give this essay a 13. The paper does address how truth is relative in several areas of knowing; however, he or she was somewhat brief on explaining in each situation. I felt the paper was too broad in that many of his arguments are somewhat unclear and weak. An example of this would be in his discussion of relative truth in history. I feel that this argument is particularly weak and that it could include a strong counterclaim in response. So while the paper does include a great variety of examples and connection of AoKs in response to the knowledge issue, I believe that the essay was hurt by taking a far too broad approach in analyzing it. The writer would have been better served to focus on a few AoKs and analyze truth within each in a deeper, more focused level.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 10. All of the real life situations were great esoteric examples from many diverse AOKs, and they do answer the prompt. However, they could have been linked together to form a more cohesive argument, especially in the conclusion. The writer should have explored more WOKs and gone more in depth. He mentioned a lot about sense perception and a little about rationalism. The argument seems pretty clear "I agree that it depends on context", but this could have been stated with more "why" in the conclusion. The strong bias is fine about politics (Iraq) and religion, though somewhat irrelevant, but I did not see counterclaims anywhere seriously considered.
ReplyDeleteUnlike my classmates as I'm now seeing, I wasn't that impressed with this essay. I would give it a 9 total, split into a 5 for understanding knowledge questions and a 4 for quality of analysis. The writer struggles to maintain a clear focus on the topic, failing to adequately connect each of his body paragraphs to the core question. In fact, the lack of a good definition for "context" makes it hard to figure out what each of his main points even has to do with "context"- how does the fact that a table is solid but empty really connect to context? Moving on to the second category, the author's argumentation skills are rendered weak by his lack of focus and poor example choices. Not only are many of his examples cheesy, they often contradict or refute the paper's own arguments- for example, the Japanese bombing and Armenian Genocide seemed to both show the same thing, except the author used them in contrast on the mere basis that Turkey denied the genocide ever happening. This essay can definitely be improved quite a lot.
ReplyDeleteI would give this essay a 12 because while it does provide many examples throughout the paper, the arguments and reasoning behind them seem to pull the essay away from answering what the question is actually asking and causes it to go off on a tangent. In the part concerning music and perception, the writer seems to lose focus on the truth -aspect of the question and begins to answer a question concerning sense perception and subjectivity (lines 27-34). Also most of the examples used in this essay appeared "generic" and lacked in originality because the examples of the Iraq War, the WWII nuclear bombings, and religious doctrines are often overused. The 'Context is all' aspect of the prescribed title also doesn't make much of an appearance in the essay until the very end, which the writer could have at least addressed or explained during their response to the question.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 14, while there is a focus and the writer stays not only on topic but provides relevant examples and multiple areas and ways of knowing which are relevant to the points addressed. However due to having so many topics the analysis is broad and as a result the depth needed to make this essay insightful enough to get a 9 or 10 in the understanding category isn't present. While the author made counterclaims, there was not much depth to make it appear to be a relevant counterclaim it seemed to be more like highly under developed idea and as a result I gave him or her a 6 in the Quality of analysis portion of the rubric. Had the writer used fewer subjects and instead further focused their ideas I feel the essay would have better conveyed a deep understanding.
ReplyDeleteI gave this essay a 13 because although it was focused throughout and gave many relevant examples, it attempted to cover too many different topics instead of going more in depth, and it resulted in brief and having only somewhat developed arguments. At some points in the essay it felt like he was simply mentioning a WoK, throwing in a relevant example, and writing one sentence relating it back to the original prompt. For example, the paragraph about death penalty in Texas was applicable, but only connects it to the essay by stating that the death penalty contradicts the "so-called 'moral truth' put forward by religion" (55). It was a solid essay, but could have cut down on the examples and instead focused on going more in depth.
ReplyDelete