TOK Presentation Tips

TOK Presentation Tips Grading Scale A = 19 - 20 B = 16 - 18 C = 13 - 15 D = 9 - 12 E = 0 - 8 According to one TOK verifier: "The vast majority of presentations I viewed were simple recitations of two sides of a controversial issue, with no attention to how the contrasting beliefs had been formed as a result of a process of learning. Many of these would have been competent -- even excellent -- presentations in another course (politics, history, sociology), but they were not appropriate for TOK, and in some cases were almost entirely irrelevant." Criterion D: "Did the presentation give a balanced account of how the topic could be approached from different perspectives?" TOK Checklist Handout Criterion B: "Did the student critically evaluate the views of the different people/groups/organizations? The student should not just uncritically list the views." TOK Checklist Handout Criterion B: "Did the student go into sufficient detail when analyzing the knowledge issues? Is it clear why different people have different views? "The TOK presentation is... "Without a focus on Knowledge Issues presentations cannot deserve major credit on the assessment criteria." NOT a descriptive research project. NOT a social studies "report" on some subject of general interest." TOK Presentation in a nutshell: 6. Also, the application should extend beyond the original RLS to other areas. 5. The product of this reflection will then be applied back to the RLS. 4. While analyzing, other KI's will be identified and analyzed. 3. Analyze the Knowledge Issue (not the RLS) from your own perspective from other perspectives using ideas and concepts from TOK 2. Extract a Knowledge Issue (KI) from the RLS. 1. Take a real life situation (RLS). Typical TOK Presentation Pitfalls Example topic: If everyone in the world could kill one person, what would happen? "This is, happily, an entirely hypothetical question. It might be possible to develop knowledge issues in line with various ethical theories through an analysis of possible scenarios arising from the initial question. But crucially there is no real-life situation to ground the presentation, and no single clearly-expressed knowledge issue that would focus the treatment. The presentation is likely to appear quite detached from real life – it might constitute an intriguing thought experiment, but its application to how we go about our daily lives is likely to be tenuous at best. Such a presentation would tend to meander in the lower level of the presentation structure diagram." Problem: the presentation is not grounded in real people and real life Problem: the presentation is focused on a description of a real event or situation to the exclusion of analysis Example topic: Post-traumatic stress disorder in Rwanda after the 1994 genocide This might be a fascinating and important topic, but it is not immediately clear how it is related to TOK. In order to make the crucial connection, the presentation could focus on the process of diagnosis and the challenges psychiatrists face in gaining reliable knowledge about patients. But this may be not at all what the candidate really wants to talk about! If the candidate merely wants to describe the events of 1994 and their aftermath, especially if s/he has personal experiences related to them, this could be a captivating presentation, but it will be a very poor TOK presentation because it resides exclusively at the upper level of the presentation structure diagram. Problem: the presentation uses TOK concepts and vocabulary entirely superficially, or simply as “markers” for TOK Example topic: The logic behind the school’s security policy Such a topic would presumably have to examine the quality of reasoning provided in support or in criticism of the policy, and this analysis would have to be focused by a single knowledge issue. But if the candidate‟s main intention is just to recite the arguments for and against the status quo, then the nature of logic and its applications have not been addressed. This would be an example of a presentation that resides entirely at the upper level of the presentation structure diagram. One verifier wrote: “in many cases it seemed that the students did not have a grasp of their real-life situation and spent much time thrashing about in unclear and waffling exploration, with students seemingly pulling ways of knowing out of a hat and attempting to insert them into their presentations. It was as if they knew that they had to mention TOK terms but really had no idea of how to do so, having minimal grasp of their concepts”. Problem: the presentation concerns itself with an ethical topic introduced as a two-sided debate in which the presenter in the end abstains from judgment Example topic: Is the death penalty ethical? Topics of this kind may prompt candidates to lay out arguments for and against and then declare that in the end we are all entitled to our own individual opinions. Once again, the quality of support for various positions needs to be evaluated in order to promote a sense of progress in the presentation. There needs to be a focus on a particular event or situation – a sentence carried out or a law passed or repealed, or an impassioned speech made – in order to satisfy fully the requirement for a real-life situation. If this is not the case, the presentation will fail on two counts – no reference to the upper level of the diagram (no real-life situation) and no proper treatment of knowledge issues (lower level of the diagram). In the words one verifier: “having settled on a controversial issue, it is then perilously easy to fall into the trap of simply reiterating the reasons that proponents of either side offer in support of their point of view. This in turn creates a false sense of security because students talk about „reasons‟ and „ethics‟ and assume that the use of those terms constitutes the investigation of a knowledge issue. Listing reasons, however, does not constitute an investigation into how one came to believe in those reasons, and stating that the controversy is a matter of ethics does not constitute an investigation into how the ethical stance was developed and internalized”. Helpful Presentation Tips Have organized notes! This is a major assessment for TOK. Plan and practice this presentation so that it is seamless, smooth, and well-organized. Save the discussion for the Q & A time! Audience interaction is OK, but it should be well-planned and not take the place of your own analysis of your KI's. Take it easy with YouTube! Don't use videos as a substitute for your own thinking and analysis. Use the TOK Presentation Planner! Follow the progression of RLS, KI, Analysis, and Application in your presentation. Make sure your KI's are clear! Use TOK vocabulary and concepts. KI's should be explicitly about knowledge and open-ended. Use Diverse Viewpoints! Approach every KI from multiple viewpoints. Examine Yourself! Subject your own view to critical examination. Use Sources! You don't need to use in-text citations, but if you make a claim, you should tell your audience where the idea is from.