Regular readers know that I teach many different classes, including an International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge class, and share many TOK resources here.
IB has made many changes this year to the Theory of Knowledge course and, along with writing my own thoughts on them, I’ve invited others to write guest posts, too.
Here are some of them:
The Best Commentaries On The New IB Theory Of Knowledge Teaching Guide
The Best Posts On Teaching TOK “Knowledge Questions”
“The Times They Are a-Changin’”…For IB Theory Of Knowledge Oral Presentations
Here Is The Simple Outline I’m Having My TOK Students Use For Their Oral Presentation
Recently, I’ve invited guests to write about the changes to the TOK Oral Presentation. Prof. Crow is writing on behalf of TOK Tutor. He’s a retired teacher specialising in TOK writing & presentation skills:
New TOK Curriculum – First exam 2015
The TOK Presentation
The presentation has always been a highlight of the TOK calendar, allowing students to show off the ideas that inspire them and about which they feel passionate. The new Guide doesn’t change any of that; it just highlights the key phases that students must consciously adopt in preparing and presenting those ideas.
Here they are:
- ‘Extraction’ of the KQ from a real life situation
- ‘Progression’ of the exploration that is made
- ‘Application’ of the analysis to other real life situations
What does all this mean?
As for extracting your KI, see previous posts on Larry’s blog about the new ‘Knowledge Questions’.
‘Progression’ implies addressing your KQ through a series of arguments and counter arguments. Students often turn a presentation into a for/against debate. This is NOT the meaning of ‘progression’. While you must employ this argument structure in the presentation, you must do so by a) incorporating TOK terminology to build your arguments and c) ground your arguments from a variety of perspectives (eg. individual vs shared perspectives within specific AOKs).
Here’s a snapshot of an example (the underlined expressions highlight specific vocabulary that links to your KQ):
Presentation Title: ‘Miracles’
RLS: The weeping and bleeding Statue of Christ in Bolivia – during Holy Week of 1995
KQ: To what extent is the evidence presented to justify miracles reliable?
Perspective: H Science (Psychology)
Argument: Up to 30,000 people at Traberhof outside Rosenheim near Munich in September 1949, where many mass and distant healings occurred through influence of Bruno Groening.
The frequency of reported spiritual healings by non-believers or atheists suggests that at least some of them MUST be real.
Counter claim: Mysterious disappearances around the ‘Bermuda Triangle’.
Given what we know about human beings and their tendency to experience weird and wacky things, we should expect such miracle healing experiences anyway, so the fact people do have them doesn’t give us much grounds for supposing there is a miracle happening.
You should now be able to see how ‘application’ works: as part of building arguments you can also integrate other real examples, even other KQs that emerge as you analyse them.
Always remember: the presentation must advance your arguments from the first real life situation that inspired you personally to the wider world through the guiding frame of your KQ.
My students are working on their presentations now and are struggling with the extracting a KQ from a real-life situation. A cause for much gnashing and procrastinating and worrying.