Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Week of June 2nd 2014

  • Self-Evaluation of Pleasing Design Essay  
    • Old Rubric (criterion A-D)
    • New Rubric (May 2015 Assessments)
    • Effort & Time Spent on the process
    • Getting Support from teacher or classmates 

  • Self-Evaluation of 1st Semester (Friday)
    • TOK Aims
    • TOK Objectives
    • TOK and Learner Profile
    • TOK & Other Classes


  1. Fitsume
    Based on the old rubric I think I would receive
    Understanding Knowledge question: 5-6
    Quality of analysis of knowledge questions: 3-4
    On the new rubric I would receive:
    Understanding Knowledge Issues: 5-6
    Knowers Perspective: 5-6
    Quality of analysis of Knowledge issues: 3-4
    Organization of ideas: 5-6
    I think I would receive these grades because I spent too much time pushing off the assignments. I should have spent more time developing my ideas into a thoughtful piece of academic work. This project would have also been better if I had scheduled a meeting with Ms. Swift instead of thinking I could do it on my own. I didn’t spend that much time on the essay, I spent about two non-consecutive days working on it, but it would have benefited me if I had. I didn’t put as much effort as I hoped for but I found that tendency in all of my writing and it is a habit I need to grow out of. As for support, it was there but I chose not to take it. The one support I did use was Ms. Swift’s comments on my outline and draft paper. I felt that that would have been enough but I was wrong. In all I put together a horrible essay that still needs a lot of work and I feel that if I had put more effort it would have become a well-developed essay. I also fell as if I could have used better examples from other sources.

  2. Nnedi
    Based off of the old rubric, I think I would earn a 7-8 for Criteria A. I did not move away from my knowledge issues and my examples were consistent when it came to demonstrating my links to the prescribed title. For Criteria B, it would be a 5-6 because I showed my own perspective on the knowledge issues but I did not really go in depth. I felt like it would have exceeded the word count if I went too in depth. For Criteria C, I think I deserve a 7-8 for the quality of analysis of knowledge issues. The examples I used were coherent and the counterclaims were explored. However, I do not think I justified all of my points. For Criteria D, I would say a 7-8 because my essay is well structured and the factual information was credible. I met the word limit and I cited all of my sources using the MLA format.

    Based off of the new rubric, I think I deserve a 4 on this essay. I maintained focus on the knowledge questions and there were various connections to the prescribed title through my examples. I inserted my own perspective on the knowledge issue and I linked an area of knowing with a way of knowing. Overall, I think I did well for this essay. I would have to admit that it could have had more of my perspective and less focus on the examples.

    I spent a lot of time working on this essay. I broke it down step by step so that I would not get lost as I do it. It took a lot of effort to search through various examples and pick the one that best exemplifies the prescribed title. This was not done last minute because I started on time.

    During this process, I sought help from my teacher as well as my fellow classmates. I was willing to let other people read my essay and they gave me constructive criticism. The criticism only made my essay better than it was before. Many things they pointed out to me did not really catch my attention when I did first draft. I made all of the corrections and I added more to my essay. Overall, this process was hard, but I went through it more efficient than I initially expected.

  3. Asia

    According to the rubric, counterclaims are needed for the examples that are given. In other words, you need pros and cons to support the knowledge question in the essay. I feel as though I spent most of my time finding personal examples as well as the counterclaims for these examples. I used my theory of knowledge teacher in order to go over my draft to see what needs to be done. I changed both of my knowledge questions as a result, and I feel as though I was able to come up with better examples to support both the quote and the knowledge questions. I could have improved on the depth of my essay. The rubric also states that depth and breadth is needed in order to demonstrate understanding of the essay. I focused less on depth, and I focused more on other criterions of the essay since those areas needed the most improvement. The essay needs one area of knowledge and at least one of the ways of knowing since WOK supports AOK. I feel as though my essay demonstrates some sort of understanding with the knowledge issue, but more time spent asking questions about the knowledge questions and the essay could have given me the chance to demonstrate better understanding of my essay.
    I do believe that I did better than my draft since I put more time and effort into it. Since I went to ask questions in certain areas of my draft, this helped me to improve my essay as well. For example, my introduction needed plenty of work since I did not do it correctly. As a result, I created an entirely new introduction. Since I had also created different knowledge questions, it changed most of my essay as well. I did not ask any of my classmates for support since I do not think that it would be beneficial.

  4. Jazmine 3A
    Old Rubric: For Criteria A, I would give myself a 3-4, because in my essay I included two knowledge questions that were relevant to the prescribed title, and I stayed on topic about how they connected back to the title, but I failed to show more elaborate understanding of the two questions and how the areas of knowing were linked to the ways of knowing. I could have been a little better by explaining more in detail on this part. For Criteria B, I would give myself a 5-6, because although I did demonstrate some evidence of my independent thinking and perspective by including personal examples, I did not give enough variety in my sources and I did not elaborate enough on the different perspectives that exist surrounding my knowledge questions. For Criteria C, I would give myself a 5-6, because I did explore my knowledge questions, but I failed to justify all my points, and explore and evaluate my counterclaims in great detail. For Criteria D, I would give myself a 5-6, because the structure and organization of my essay is adequate and my sources are correctly cited. Most of my explanations are clear.

  5. Jocelyn N.

    When I began working on the Pleasing Design essay, I did not really have a draft to begin with. Because of my absence, I did not do a draft on the IB exam paper given. Therefore, I merely wrote down the thoughts that other people had towards the Pleasing Design essay. I did not turn in an outline and that affected me harshly, as I did not really have anything to fall back on when I completed my first draft. Before I received my first draft back, I got familiar with terms that would be used in my essay, such as terms relating to ethics and history. This was a weakness in my first draft, where I did not include any theories. I merely placed examples without really explaining why the examples were chosen. When I did not know how exactly to describe my Knowledge Issues, I reviewed the papers that were listed in the Dropbox as well as other samples online, which made it easier for me to understand what the examiner is looking for.
    If I were to be graded on the Old Rubric, I believe I would receive a 7-8 on Criterion A and B while receiving a 5-6 on Criterion C and D. For Criterion A, I really feel that I made a good argument as towards connecting history and perception along with ethics and language. I attempted to discuss matters that may be commonly stated, but attempted to try to place a new point of view, such as issues towards Nazi Germany as well as personal experiences. I would not receive a perfect score because I feel that my ethics section was weaker than my history section. While I gave a variety of examples, I have a tendency to repeat words or drift off topic, which I could see in my History section of my essay. I would receive a 7-8 on Criterion B based upon my personal connections used in the essay. I not only stated the connections, but attempted to connect them with the original argument to make sure I did not use surface level information. For Criterion C and D, I do not believe I went in depth with implications as I should have, which was also due to the fact that my paper was not as organized as it should have been.
    From the new rubric, I believe I would receive a Level 4. I had issues with knowing whether or not my examples made it clear on what route I was going with my Knowledge Issues. Along with my counter claims, I placed examples to try to make sure that the counter claim I used not overshadow the original argument.. As stated in my previous paragraph, I aimed towards using examples, but adding a new point of view towards them, such as the depiction of Nazi Germany. I also used a variety of personal experiences and some of the work used in our Theory of Knowledge class in an attempt to use as many resources as possible.
    Overall, I really feel that my essay was satisfactory work, but I know now that I have to get better organized as well as search for examples that are not just surface level or limited. I received the most help from comments given on my first draft in order to determine what changes needed to be completed.

  6. Tunji 3A
    Based off the old rubric, I would give myself a 9-10 in category A which is Understanding the Knowledge Issue, a 7-8 in category B which is Knower's perspective, a 7-8 in category C which is the analysis of the knowledge issue, and a 9-10 in category D which is the organization of ideas. I gave myself a 9-10 in category A because I stay focused to the knowledge question and I kept what I am writing relevant to the prescribed title by using words such as knowledge, scarps and fragments, and design. I gave myself a 7-8 in category B because I believe that I explored examples to a great extent, but not as effectively as they could have been. I gave myself a 7-8 in category C because I analyzed my examples effectively, but I do not believe that I explored my rebuttals enough to make them just as powerful as my examples. I gave myself a 9-10 in category D because my essay is well planned out and organized, it is easy to understand, and I cited my examples when they needed to be cited.
    Based off the new rubric, I give myself a 4 in the Understanding the Knowledge Questions category and a 4 in the Quality of the Knowledge Questions category. I gave myself a 4 in the first category because I believe that I connected my knowledge questions to the prescribed title and developed a perspective that is understanding to the reader so that they can know how it is linked to the areas of knowledge and ways of knowing I used, but I think I could have made the links more effective. I should have added more details to make my arguments stronger and more appealing. I gave myself a 4 in the second category because I used real examples and supported them thoroughly, but I do not believe that my counterclaims are the strongest. I should have explored my counterclaims to a deeper extent.
    I spent a great amount of effort and time on my essay. To do the outline of the essay took me about 4 hours of research. I had to make sure what I was doing related to the prescribed title. Writing the essay itself the first time took me almost 2 hours per paragraph. I want to make sure my essay was as detailed as possible. Revising the essay took a 5 to 6 hour process. I put a lot of work into my essay. I do not believe it is the best essay ever, but it is powerful and it can easily grab a reader’s attention. I got support from my teacher for this essay by reading the comments left on the draft of my essay. That really helped my essay become stronger, but not the strongest it could have been. My teacher comments were really important to me because it helped in the completion of my essay. This is the best essay I think I have written to this day.

  7. Obichi 3A

    Old Rubric
    Based on the Old Rubric, I would give myself a 7-8 on criterion A. I feel as though my knowledge questions are very relevant to the prescribed title. My knowledge issues directly reflect specific parts of the prescribed title. I would not give myself a 9-10 because I know my explorations are far from perfect. I feel as though there is something beyond my scope of knowledge that I am missing; this missing information could bring a deeper meaning to the prescribed title. For criterion B, I would give myself a 3-4 because of the insufficient exploration of the personal experiences. Actually there were no personal experiences, but rather personal connections. But I do make my perspective clear. For criterion C, I would give myself a 7-8 because I provided counterclaims, and an in-depth analysis of the knowledge issues, as well as how they relate to the prescribed title. In the conclusion, the implications of the information and viewpoint provided in the essay are identified. I would not give myself a 9-10 because I didn’t identify any assumptions, and some of my main points are not as persuasive as I would have wanted. For criterion D, I would give myself a 7-8 because the essay is very well organized. The different components are clear and the transitions are smooth.

    New Rubric
    Based on the new rubric, I would give myself a level 4 because the essay is far from perfect but the arguments are clear and the counter claims are not only identified, but explored as well. In addition, different perspectives are presented and the knowledge questions are clearly connected to the prescribed title.

    Effort & Time Spent, and Getting Support
    When I first wrote my draft, I had relevance but not that much depth. I did not entirely understand the way a TOK essay should be approached. But, in the final draft, I did not procrastinate so I designated enough time to focus on each paragraph of the essay. For each of my knowledge issues, I considered several examples and how well each example would connect to the knowledge issue and the prescribed title. Initially, I thought we could just pick a random knowledge issue but as I gained a deeper understanding of the essay and title, I realized that my knowledge issues were not sufficient. After this, I started thinking more about the ideas and concepts in the essay. I analyzed almost every word in the prescribed title, and noticed little things that I skipped before. I did more research, asked more people to review, and made sure to get rid of all distractions. My classmates and teacher were very helpful in this process. When I thought I was done, I would present it to them and they would point out huge flaw-especially my teacher. Some of my classmates would read it and say it was good, just because it sounded good. But, my teacher pointed out things that I didn’t really consider before. Without the help and support of my teacher and classmates, my essay would be very flawed and horrible.

  8. Jennifer, 3A

    Old rubric:
    A: Understanding knowledge issues: 5-6 there was understanding of the knowledge issues, but the arguments were not strong enough and the links made between the areas of knowledge and ways of knowing were not strong enough.
    B: Knower’s perspective: 5-6 there was personal engagement in the essay, but thee were some different perspectives that were not deeply explored.
    C: Quality of analysis of knowledge issues: 5-6 the knowledge issues are explored, but the counterclaims are not strong enough.
    D: Organization of ideas: 5-6 the essay is well structured; however, the essay lacks constant precision. I had a lot of trouble when it came to putting the essay together and making it precise.

    New rubric: 3 the knowledge questions are explored in the essay, but there are some weak arguments incorporated as well. Arguments are not strong enough. Counterclaims may be weak and not deeply explored.

    Effort and time spent on the essay:
    From the start of the essay, there has been a decent amount of time spent. However, I did not manage my time adequately, which may have caused some errors in my performance in terms of the essay. At first, I encountered a lot of issues with my first draft because I was not familiar with what the TOK essay had to include. The second draft was more challenging for me due to the corrections that had to be made. I had a lot of trouble finding my counterclaims and determining whether they were a rebuttal or a concession. Therefore, there was more time spent on the second draft than on the first draft. I also encountered some problems when it came to putting the whole essay together and making it fluent.

    Getting support from teachers and classmates:
    When I composed my first draft, I did not receive any help. However, I did receive plenty of help from my classmates and from my IB coordinator for the final draft. There were still some things I did not completely understand, so I received help from one of my classmates. This helped me in terms of the content of the essay, but there were still some things that needed to be clarified such as how to put everything together in order to make the essay successful.

  9. Jocelyn M 3A
    Old Rubric -
    A. Understanding Knowledge Issues: 7-8
    B. Knower’s Perspective: 7-8
    C. Quality of analysis of Knowledge Issues: 5-6
    D. Organization of ideas: 5-6

    New Rubric: 4

    According to the old rubric I believe that I actually demonstrated that I was focused on the knowledge issues throughout the essay. However, on my draft I was bit a confused on how to deliver a proper message without getting off topic and using irrelevant examples. I personally believe that I did show comparisons between both areas of knowledge and how they connect to the prescribed title on my final essay. I displayed an array of perspectives in my essay which included talking about how others may view abortions and what their view means to society. I also listed an example of how our ethics can be modified due to a discovery of a new piece of information. I discussed my personal preferences and somewhat biasness in my essay as well. So I was of course not close-minded to what the other point of views may compose of in society. In each body paragraph in both my draft and final I discussed counter arguments and how in each case one’s views may be changed due to a discover of language and or ethics. In my draft, I can honestly say that my examples were not as compelling because they did not jive with my knowledge issues but with guidance I was able to correct that in my final. I believe that my assumptions are also high lighted in my first body paragraph when I talk about how human sciences and language may cause there to be an alteration in views. In my final, I personally felt like I had good organization in my ideas because I connected the examples with one another however, I felt like I could have been a bit more personal and looked for examples that were more suited for the essay.

    Effort and Time spent on Process/ Getting support from teachers and classmates: I can honestly say I spent a good amount of time on my essay. I first when doing my outline, I instead wrote an actual essay about the prescribed title because I feel like I better organized my thoughts this way. I always start my essay process by first digesting the meaning of the question then looking for prongs; however for my first tok essay it was challenging because I was just overthinking everything. I think the most difficult part of the process for me was making sure that my examples actually matched my knowledge issues because if this was not emplace then my whole essay would not really be addressing the prescribed title. When doing my final essay, I spent one day for each paragraph and then one I finished with one paragraph I would ask for my brother’s feedback and then revise once again. Once I had finished my final, I had revised about literally twenty times. I also went back once I received an email from Ms.Swift and changed things in my first and second paragraph; however I chose to keep my abortion example because I felt like I could actually get it to support my knowledge issue. I spent time talking to Ms.Swift about how to tackle my first paragraph and how to make sure everything was fitting in properly. Aside from this I had looked at previous IB Juniors essays such as Mario and Blanca so I can get a sense of how to logically structure my essay. I also spent time emailing Ms. Swift regarding a new draft of my essay and receiving feedback which really helped me. It was then when I learned how to properly address my two questions and areas of knowledge. Aside from this, I helped other classmates such as Vaskia and Ashley in trying to formulate a well-structured knowledge issue. I honestly felt like helping classmates helped me address my essay even better.

  10. Constance



    Old rubric (A-D)

    For section A, my essay is a 7 because I keep the essay relevant to the prescribed title, but I did not elaborate on all of my examples.

    For section B, the essay is a 6 because I do not show personal exploration.

    For section C, the essay is a 6 because Counterclaims are really explored.

    For section D, my essay is a 3 because the sources are missing.


    New rubric (May 2015)

    My essay is level 3 because I do not investigate different perspectives, but I have a knowledge question and I show awareness of the significance of the outcomes of the analysis.


    Effort and time

    I made 2 drafts of the essay over the course of two months before finally turning in the final draft.


    Getting support from teachers and students

    My teacher read my drafts and gave feedback and I also have some of my classmates read it over.


  11. Alicia

    Old Rubric:
    [A] I would give myself a 5-6 on “Understanding Knowledge Issues”. For the most part, I did speak about knowledge questions that are relevant to the prescribed title, and I personally feel that effective links were drawn between the AOKs and the WOKs. But I do feel that I only partially understood the science section, while I genuinely understood the art section. So over all, I would give myself like a 5.5.

    [B] I would give myself a 7-8 for “Knower’s Perspective”. Independently, I would give myself a 9-10 for the art section, as I used my own real-life example of how the knowledge question was true. But I would give the science section a 5-6 or a 3-4 because any and everything I originally had that was personal, I cut it out because it was “incorrect” and to me “incorrect” means “irrelevant”, so I just did not include it what-so-ever. So to find a balance, I would give myself a 7 overall.

    [C] I would give myself a 3-4 for “Quality of Analysis of Knowledge Issues”. I feel that due to my lack of significant information/opinionated matter in the science section, I only could attempt an inquiry that mainly describes the knowledge issues, despite the main point justification of both knowledge questions.

    [D] I would give myself a 5-6 for “Organization of Ideas”. Honestly, if it were possible, I would give myself a 3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10, because I feel I scored significantly in all of these. I do feel that there are times in essay where it is difficult to understand what I am saying, but I do feel that my explained concepts are generally adequate, and my sources of information and ideas were acknowledged and ALL referencing permits tracing of sources.

  12. Alicia (cont.)

    New Rubric:
    Based on what I gave myself using the old rubric, I would give myself a Level 4 grading. I feel that despite my arguments being a little unclear, I used real-life examples and counterclaims were explored. The knowledge questions were directly connected to the prescribed title. I do indeed acknowledge different perspectives that are linked to both the AOKs and the WOKs. I do feel better with the new rubric since technically, I get a higher grade…just saying, I went from around a 5-6 overall to about a 7-8 overall.

    Effort & Time/Support from Teacher:
    Personally, I feel that I have gotten a lot of support from Ms. Swift more than anyone. Honestly, I more of complained to everyone about how hard it was that way I would have to do any housework. I spent a lot of time and effort on this essay. At one point in time I was doing 8-10 hours per week attempting to make my essay better in anyway. I will say though, that the JSTOR will still restrict your access on certain documents, i.e. the original Umbrellaology document.

  13. Akorede
    Period 3A
    A. Understanding knowledge issues- 6: I believed I earned a six because I mostly treated the knowledge question as it was relevant to the prescribed title and I demonstrated some understanding of them however I did not fully understand it and believed I only mostly understood it. I also believed I made some effective links with my prescribed title and my knowledge questions however to a certain extent and I tried to link my areas of knowing with my ways of knowing as well but I found it difficult and may have tangled myself during the essay. For my knowledge questions I know I tried to make them relevant to the prescribed title since they had to do with new pieces of information and obscuring ones pleasing design.
    B. Knower’s perspective-4: I believe I earned a four because I actually think I showed very little evidence of self thinking because I think did not make it personal enough to show some personal examples of my self and the prescribed title and knowledge questions or the ways of knowing or areas of knowing since I had external examples that were only a little bit connected to me since I learned most of the examples I sued in class for answering my knowledge questions. However I still think I showed some independent think however it was not great since I rarely showed personal examples.
    C. Quality of analysis of knowledge questions- 6: I believe I earned a six because I myself tried to explore my knowledge questions however it was not qualitative since I did not necessarily know all the pros and cons of some counterclaims that I stated since I found it hard to argue on the other side. I also think most part of my knowledge question was justified since I showed some historical and scientific justifications for them however like I said earlier it could have been a lot more quantitative or specific.
    D. Organization of ideas-5: I believe I deserved a five since I think I am in the border line of satisfactory and poorly since I organize my work differently in order to fit my thinking however I also try to convey my concepts clearly. In addition I used factual information and tried to support my arguments in the most correct way. Most sources I used are acknowledged as well and ideas are acknowledged and I have also met the word limit and I also showed enough evidence so one can trace back to the sources however some precision may be lacking.

  14. Akorede
    period 3A

    Understanding knowledge questions and Quality of analysis of knowledge questions
    New Rubric: level 3 for both-I believe I received a 5-6 because there is a focus on some knowledge questions and I did connect it to the prescribed title however with only some development and linking to areas of knowledge and ways of knowing. For my counterclaims however I only identified some of the counterclaims were addressed and not all since I found it hard to argue on the other side and some of my arguments were clear and supported by examples. However I feel as though my essay was typical and only acceptable and not the best since I could not find anything unique or felt as if I could not make anything unique since the prescribed title itched my thoughts and I could not come up with one mainstream idea however I eventually made it mainstream and it seemed as if it was not insightful enough to show much independent thinking. In addition I think I showed very limited self examples or concrete examples for the essay since I was so fixated on external examples I completely forgot about personal examples that would bolster my essay’s thesis thus my premise vitally consisted of external examples that were only linked through me a little since I learned what I used as my examples at school. In conclusion I felt my essay was lacking vital parts and I could not set my thoughts correctly since I may have confused myself during the process since I kept on changing my knowledge questions and premises from my rough draft all the way to my final and I feel as if my conclusion may have had a new thought that should have never been done and I wish I could have went over my whole essay or the accomplished one with someone and I wish I had more thoughts on my conclusion.
    Effort & Time spent on the process: I believe my effort and time spent on this process on a scale from one through ten was a four although I finished my rough draft and outline on time. I believe my effort and process was low since all I wanted to do was finish my rough drafts and outline in order to receive a grade however when I reached the main the core essay I found it difficult to actually accomplish it since I only legitimately spent about two days on my essay during the final draft and did not look at it before then and only looked at it during class or whenever we spoke of it in class. However during the final draft I continued to have new thoughts I wish I could have built on instead of using last minute old ideas. Furthermore my effort was low before the due date neared thus I spent little time before the due date since I was also scared of actually doing the essay because while I was doing my rough draft before it seemed as if I could not have a proper train of thoughts and it seemed as if everything was just fluff and not legitimate thinking and thus I felt as if I spent too much time on certain areas instead of focusing on everything overall.
    Getting support from teachers or classmates: My teacher supported me greatly on this essay however I did not take my own time to self report to her out of class to ask for help and wish I could have. However I did ask some of my classmates for help and asked of their thoughts when I should them my thesis and some of my premise. I feel as if I would have actually asked my teacher for help if I did not feel as if I had not done it last minuteish. I had a lot of help from classmates since I asked a lot of questions however I feel as if they could not answer my whole entire question properly.

  15. Ephraim 3A
    Based on the old rubric, I would give myself a level 6 on the Understanding Knowledge Issues. I feel like my knowledge questions were relevant to the prescribed title. However, I feel as if I was unable to develop the question to the best of its ability. Also, with the prescribed title, I still struggled with the depth of the quote. I feel as if I did not imply all of the key words in the prescribed title to my essay. I was able to draw distinctions within the ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge. Based on the Knower’s Perspective, I would give myself a level 4. I did not use any personal examples within my knowledge issues, but I used other real-life examples that were appropriate with both the knowledge questions and the prescribed title. I did not really explore the examples that I used enough to come up with some implications. However, I did use a variety of examples, including how social media can give us information about a storm, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and communications in World War II. For Quality of Analysis of Knowledge Issues, I would give myself a level 5. I felt that I mainly described my examples, but I did not really explore them. I did not do a good job of really arguing my points. However, I did talk about counterclaims. For the Organization of Ideas, I would give myself a level 6. I feel like I structured the majority of my essay to fit into the prescribed title. I feel like my factual information supported my arguments. I acknowledged all of the sources that I used. I met the limit that was required in the essay.

  16. Alyssa Part 1

    Old Rubric:
    Understanding knowledge issues (A): I would give myself a 5-6 for this because I think that they are relevant to the prescribed title and that they show some understanding. I didn’t give myself a higher score because I feel like did not show that I had a good understanding of my second knowledge questions. I could have worked on the examples and support a lot more.
    Knowers perspective (B): I put a 5-6 rating for this as well because I feel as though I clearly state my perspective in the essay, and while I mention other perspectives I feel like I could have better support or rebuttals for them or explored them a lot more
    Quality of analysis (C): I would also give myself a 5-6 for C because I think my some of my arguments were kind of weak and I could have talked more, or did more with the counterclaims.
    Organization (D): I think I would give myself a 3-4 because I think it was structured well and the explanations are adequate, but I still feel like I could have added more.

    New Rubric: I think I would give myself a 5-6 or 3 for the new rubric for both sections because I think its all there but it could have been developed better.

  17. Alyssa part 2

    Time/Effort: I don’t think I spent enough time because there was a lot to think about while writing this essay and I don’t know if I really thought about what I wanted to say, how I was going to say it, and how I was going to support it enough.
    Support: I think we got a lot of support. Time was made available for help if I had taken more advantage of that time I feel like I could have done a little better

  18. Kelly, 3A
    According to the old rubric, I think would receive a 5-6 in criterion A. I feel as if my knowledge questions were relevant to the prescribed title, but there was not clear effective links drawn between areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. My knowledge questions were probably a bit weak compared to others. I do not think I demonstrated a good understanding of the knowledge questions under consideration. For criterion B, I think I would receive a 5-6. My essay shows some evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge questions and shaped in a way that shows some personal engagement. I may have mention different perspectives, but there was little attempt in exploring them. Although the examples I chose were appropriate, I do not think I explained them in enough detail or made a well-developed connection back to the prescribed title. There was a little varierty in my sources. I think I would receive a 3-4 in criterion C. I partly explore my knowledge questions and examples, but largely describe them. I made justifications for my main points and some coherent argument. My counterclaims were implicitly identified. I would receive a 5-6 in criterion D. My essay was satifactorily structued with adequate overall organization. The concepts that I explained were generally adequate. I think my factual information used to support my arguments were acknowledged and I met the word limit.

    On the new rubric, I would give myself a 5-6 because my knowledge questions are somewhat connected to the prescribed title with some development and linkingto areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. Some of my arguments are clear and supported by examples and some counterclaims are identified. Although they are identified, they are not explored in detail.

    I think I spent an average amount of effort and time on the process. Although I procrasinated on the final draft. I honestly had a hard time meeting the word count. I did not know what else to add to strengthen my paragraphs. I struggled with finding examples and counterclaims that went with my knowledge questions and connected with the prescribed title. I got very frustrated and probably wrote some "fluff" to meet the minimum. I received some support from Ms. Swift. She helped cleared up her comments on my draft, but I did not obtain actual further help. I asked my classmates, but they were busy and exhausted with their own essays. I did not want to bother them, but I really needed help. I ended up finishing at 12:22am, but I need to learn how to outline and structure a good essay.

  19. Uchechi

    According to the old rubric (criterions A-D), I think I received a 6 on criterion A. Understanding knowledge issues. For the most part, my essay treats knowledge issues that are relevant to the prescribed title, and demonstrates some understanding of them. Some effective links are drawn between areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. For criterion B, Knower’s perspective, I think I received a 7 because I showed adequate evidence of independent thinking about the knowledge issues related to the prescribed title. In addition, I included my own thoughtful perspective as a knower, in terms of whether or not to make a concession or refutation. For criterion C. Quality and analysis of knowledge issues, I think I received a 7 because I explored with insight, in some depth and/or detail, knowledge issues. My main points and arguments were justified, followed by counterclaims, my own perspective, and implications. For criterion C. Organization of ideas, I think I received a 7 because my essay on the prescribed title is well structured, with clear organization. Concepts, as well as explanations were developed clearly. Factual information used to support arguments is pretty much correct. Sources of information and ideas are acknowledged. However, I exceeded the word limit.
    According to the new rubric (May 2015 assessments), I think I received a 6 on the Understanding knowledge questions criterion because there is a focus on some knowledge questions connected to the prescribed title–with some development and linking to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. On the criterion Quality of analysis of knowledge questions, I think I received a 7 because arguments are clear, supported by real-life examples and are evaluated; some counterclaims are identified and explored.
    I spent an adequate amount of time on the very complex essay process. I think I spent the most time making sure my knowledge question connected to the prescribed title, following a developed investigation of different perspectives and linking them effectively to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing. I spent less time making sure my arguments were clear, supported by evaluated real-life examples, explorative counterclaims, and drawn implications. Hopefully, the two criterions balance each other out. I received a lot of support from Ms. Swift. She tore my draft up. I did not realize how many times I lost myself in my own essay. Although I received help, to be honest, I found myself giving up on the essay several times.

  20. Lashawnda

    I believe my knowledge issues were relevant to the title and this is because it talked about change. The title described what role does change play in gaining knowledge and my questions were ‘How does perception help science evolve? What role does traumatic events play in the refinement of values?’ Both of which involve a change in how one previously thinks over a certain period of time. My links that are drawn between the areas and ways of knowing are effective; I believe I show understanding on both with my examples. My examples for the first question are the ‘flat earth theory’ and ‘geocentric theory’ and how the perception of those aspects influenced its outcome. As for the second questions my examples are from a personal stand point with discovering the battering of Rhinos and the sandy hook shooting and how the two played in shaping one’s values. All of which, are moments that change someone’s mind frame. I believe I got a 8. I believe I got a 8 because I think my questions were good in relating back to the title efficiently and appropriately.
    Yes, I do show awareness of my own perspective by not only using as my example to support my questions but to also support one of my counter claims. For my questions, I used my reaction towards the disrespect of rhinos and how my perception changed from not caring for a rhino’s well being to actually feeling sympathy towards what was going on in the situation and this is considering how recent it is, and how my ignorance plays towards encouraging it. As for my counterclaim, it went against the second question and I talked about how my friend had gotten into a car accident and her values nor did the way she felt about taking risks changed. In my perspective, I backed it up by explaining that sometimes people aren’t as moved by certain events because they have experienced it so much that already have a set vision about and don’t consider the possibilities. I believe I got a 6. I would give myself that because I didn’t relate each example back to me, except for a few, and I think if I would have shown that especially exploration, I would get a higher score.
    My knowledge issues are clear and coherent; I think my point about each question is justified. This is the fact that, I explained my examples clearly and showed how it links to my definition of the title. This is in my approach to how I worded what new fragments were found and how this completely changed the individual’s views. My counterclaims are considered and I also added how my perception affected the counterclaim. I justified how change plays a huge part in how one thinks of their ideas previously versus their perception of now. I believe I got a 7 on this portion. I believe I got this because I think I faulted in trying to explain my counterclaims in a certain way that would make sense, especially for the one that involved my friend, I don’t think it is concrete enough. I also think I didn’t explore my counterclaim enough.
    I properly cited my information and clearly structured my information according to what had to be justified by a source. I believe I clearly explained my terms, as for the beginning when I defined the key terms in the title and how I incorporated them within my essay to justify my point. I believe I got a 7 in this aspect. I think I got a 7 because, I cited all my examples accordingly and my essay itself is structured in a way whereing it flows with the title and the thesis I made in the first paragraph.

  21. Lashawnda Continued..

    New Rubric: I would give my essay between a 3 and 4 because although I captured the content with my knowledge issues and explored them with examples, I believe my counterclaims could be stronger, and explored better. However, my examples were good for the most part in all of my essay, because I related back to the title properly, and I explored different perspectives with one of my examples.
    Effort & Time/Support from Teacher:
    I worked really hard on this essay, if it wasn’t from sitting for three hours trying to get a good introduction or sitting there trying to get good examples, I don’t think my essay could have been better. I also spent a lot of time with Ms. Swift, from 2 to 4, twice afterschool and she really helped me out a lot, trying to get a good examples and explaining to me what this essay was truly about. I also got help from my peers when came time to explore my examples appropriately. I gained a lot from her, my classmates, and all in all myself. .

  22. Jesus 3A
    Old Rubric (Criterion A-D)
    Criterion A: I believe in this part, my essay would receive a 5-6 because my questions were not so in depth to talk about, you can understand what the questions are talking about but it did not make so many effective links as planned, it does relate back to the prescribed title but needed a bit more work.
    Criterion B: In this criterion, I would give myself a 5-6 because personally I used my knowledge to understand what I was talking about. I included thinking where I knew what I was talking about and to support my knowledge questions to an extent to give my opinions about real world examples used in my essay. But I did not include so many examples as there could have been more to fully explaining what my questions were about. More could have been included but to the best of my knowledge I decided to include only the ones I believe were more effective and noticeable.
    Criterion C: In this part, I would give myself a 3-4. My knowledge questions did not show much counterclaims as it was supposed to, based on my knowledge, science and art tie into the prescribed title where you can add up bits of information to produce more knowledge of what is around us and learn much more about different things we explore from our past experiences. As of this predicted score, it shows that I did not find many arguments to produce in my essay.
    Criterion D: I believe that my score for this part is a 5-6 because I organized my thoughts correctly in a place that will be understandable. I did not go over my word limit which was good as some tweaks were made to make it more effective and better. But overall, it still needs fixing where some information needs to be better explained but the information and knowledge are there to support the knowledge questions as well as the prescribed title.
    New Rubric: In this rubric, I believe I would score my essay as a 3 (5-6) where my essay could have been better if I worked on it more but overall I did a decent job to include what was needed in my essay. There were adjustments made to correct my essay but with what i have included in my essay was better examples, more of a thought argument, and connection to the prescribed title. The new rubric shows everything in one scale so that makes it show how it gives a score for everything and what to expect for that certain score.
    Effort & Time Spent on the process: I did not spend so much time on my essay which I was supposed to do but I spent some time, for example 30 minutes for some days when needed, I organized my thoughts a bit more to make them clearer. If I could have spent more time on this essay, my essay would have been more productive and effective to get better scores in some of the criterions.
    Getting support from teachers & classmates: With this, I produced a draft where my teacher corrected and made many changes on the draft, it helped a lot where I could focus on important points that I needed to include in my essay to make it more effective. My classmates also helped me to make my essay better by giving me some pointers to where I needed to show more knowledge as it could connect to my knowledge questions and the prescribed title. I used most of the help I got to produce a better essay.

  23. Jemuel

    Old Rubric
    Criterion A
    For criterion A, I would give myself a 6 primarily because I do not know if I consistently maintained my focus on the knowledge issues. I caught myself drifting off and talking about an experience that I’m having right now that had\s somewhat of a relation with the knowledge issue but it would be a stretch. I decided to take off that part but I do not know if I did it again. As for my knowledge issues, they were related to the prescribed title which is what 5-6 requires. I also had knowledge and understanding on the knowledge issues that I chose which leads me to conclude that I received a 5-6 on this criterion.
    Criterion B
    I believe that I received a 7-8 on this criterion because I showed plenty of independent thinking on my essay. I used many personal life experiences and I also said that my stubbornness could be getting in the way of me not seeing that Mona Lisa could be a self-portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci. I used my personal experience that I had moving to the states and also speaking to one of my classmates. I believe that the examples that I chose were also effective.
    Criterion C
    I think that I received a 7 for this criterion because I made sure that I explored and evaluated my counterclaim. It is also possible that I received a 5-6 because I am not sure if all my arguments were coherent and if I explored with insight, depth, or detail. I also do not think that my implications were that great so a 5-6 would be more realistic.
    Criterion D
    I believe that I received a 6 on this criterion because my essay had a structured organization and I explained my concepts but I am not sure if they were adequate enough. The arguments were mostly correct as many of them were from my personal life. 5-6 also requires that you have met the word limit which I did.

    New Rubric
    Based on the new rubric, I would give myself a 4 because I think that I gave more focus on knowledge questions than “some.” Level 3 says that I only gave some focus on knowledge questions which in my opinion, is incorrect. My knowledge questions connected with the prescribed title and I used real-life example and I evaluated my examples and my counterclaims. I am not sure if I evaluated them well enough which is why I am only giving myself 4.

    Effort and Time Spent on the process/Getting Support from teacher or classmates
    I think that I spent a good amount of time working on the essay but I think that if I had managed my time better, I would have been able to work on it more. Looking back, I definitely think that I could have done so many more things to make my essay better. I should have asked my classmates to read my essay and get their opinion on it. Also, I could have asked the IB senior class if they could help me improve my essay. Instead, I just looked at the examples on dropbox and did not get feedback from other students which I definitely regret. One thing that I did that helped me was talking to Ms. Swift afterschool. She gave me a better knowledge question that I can use for the mathematics and also helped me fix other errors in my essay.

  24. sunny

    When I first started my first draft I did not turn it in because I was not sure if it was correct or that I had done the correct steps in my essay. I did collect thought and ideas from what we went over and learned in class to use as resources and examples. I did complete a final essay to the best of my ability. Knowing that I am not a great writer and I have trouble giving off examples and my ideas my essay may not be at the best. Realizing I should’ve turned in the draft I had for help.
    For the old rubric
    Criterion A: I would give myself a 7. My essay I believe was directly focused on the prescribed title. My AOK and WOK all linked in together from articles, videos, class activities, and class discussions we had throughout the whole semester. My essay showed that I understood what the prescribed title meant and how explain the meaning. All articles I used from class and the videos were all effective links and helped compare the AOK and WOK.
    Criterion B: I would give myself a 6. My essay shows my own thinking about the knowledge issues I chose. I used personal engagement with the knowledge issues. I could have though used more details. The examples I used where connected with my WOK and AOK I chose for my essay. I could have used the examples clear to more go in depth.
    Criterion C: I would give myself a 6. I could have gone more in depth and used many examples with my two knowledge questions. My two Knowledge questions were both very detailed and had a good quality. I touched on each point in the essay but could have gone more in detail. I did also use a counterclaim for each knowledge question but only one example.
    Criterion D: I would give myself a 5. I feel as a whole I could’ve have went in more in depth with the examples I used and from the examples I used how I explained why.
    The new rubric: I give myself an 5. Because as a whole I feel as if I could of done way better on my essay. There were times I would lose myself in my own essay. I touched on each part of the article in some way.
    I think I could’ve put more time into actually writing the final essay, And on revision the essay. I did though spend a lot of time gathering information and ideas to put in the essay and how I would have my essay written out so I could just write it. We spent a lot of time in class on essay and gathering examples but I also spent a lot of time outside of class gathering how I want to write the essay. I got a lot of my help from my mom, with her rewording and fixing sentences telling me what I should add or what she think I should take out or expand more on.

  25. Using the old rubric I feel like I did relatively well. I followed through with what the rubric expected. However I did not do more than what was expected and explore aspects of the essay. I did well on understanding the knowledge issues and my essay maintained its focus on the knowledge issues which are relevant to the prescribed title. I showed a good understanding, but I don’t feel like I showed a sophisticated understanding. The essay had much evidence on independent thinking about the knowledge issue, but the essay was not very personal, and it didn’t have much self-awareness on my part. I explored the knowledge issue and all main points and arguments are justified to the best if my abilities. However, with my counterclaims I probably should have explored and went more in depth in order to support my argument. I did well on organizing my ideas—the essay was well structured, the world limit was adhered to and factual information that I cited was used.
    With the new rubric, I feel like I did very good or a level 4. I kept a clear focus on the knowledge issue and made sure they connected to the prescribed title. I stated different perspectives but I did not investigate and explore this different perspectives. I linked them well with the AOKs and Woks, but I probably should have went more in depth with the WOK of language. Arguments were clear, counterclaims were explored and I also had implications. I spent a lot of time and effort on this essay and I also got help and advice from teachers and peers. I took all the advice and made sure to change the essay to reach the expectations of the IB rubric.

  26. Stanley 3A
    Old rubric
    A. Understanding knowledge issue.
    - On this criterion I would give myself an 8. Throughout the essay my main focus was on answering the Knowledge Questions that I created discerning to the prescribed title. I also used examples in extended reading that I was given as well as ones that were obtained by myself, and used personal experiences to better answer and justify my answers to the knowledge questions. However there was one example that I used, which was “The Definition of Beauty; Socrates and Atreus”, that may have been the hardest to explain into my prescribed title, however after a few revisions I was a able to get it to a point in which, in my opinion, was very relevant.
    B. Knowers perspective.
    - In this criterion I would award myself a 9 because in each Knowledge Question was added with a personal experience that was very relevant. There was also an exploration of different perspectives in which reactions and real life other opinions came to play in answering knowledge questions.
    C. Quality of analysis of knowledge issues.
    - I would award myself an 8 for this criterion because I added multiple examples, all with counter claims and personal perspective into each Knowledge question. I also went into depth with explaining each argument that I created whilst still staying on topic about my Knowledge questions.
    D. Organization of ideas
    - For this area I would award myself an 8. This is because I feel as though I clearly organized my essay. I placed connectives and transition sentences between examples in order to make them intertwine with each other. Each example led way to the next example or rebuttal. I had 2 Knowledge questions, each had two examples and one rebuttal, and finally a conclusion.
    And finally I would, according to the new rubric, I would award myself a Level 4.

    Effort & Time Spent on the process Getting Support from teacher or classmates
    - I honestly feel as though I have spent an adequate amount of time and effort on the essay. My first draft submitted was one I spent much time on, in fact the one I submitted as my first draft was the 3rd revision on the essay. I spent a week trying to write and rewrite the essay, and after it was completed I sent if off to two students in the IB class to proof read. With their inclusions I made more changes to it, making it stronger yet again. After having the essay proofed again by Ms. Swift herself, I was forced to recreate the second part of my first paragraph after being informed of its weakness. After this I took a personal role and spent the final weekend revising and strengthening my final draft of the essay.

  27. Ashley, 3A

    A. Understanding Knowledge Issue.
    For this criterion I give myself a 6. For my first knowledge issue it was completely relevant to the prescribe title, and I was able to connect it very well with it. But I am not so confident in my second body paragraph. The knowledge issue is connected to the prescribe title, but the understanding of the knowledge issue is not as strong as it could have been. But other than that there were great effective links between the areas of knowledge and the ways of knowing were, especially in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph there was a good link between the two but it was not a concrete or concise as the first paragraph, but the reader is still bale to associate the two together.

    B. Knower’s Perspective
    For the knower’s perspective I give myself an 8. I had a lot of independent thinking, and my personal interpretations and opinions on the prescribe title. I explained how the examples were relevant to the prescribe and used terms and vocabulary in the prescribe title to make connections from the example to the prescribe title. I used a lot of personal reflective examples as well, that not only applies to me, but others can relate as well, so there could be possibly a connection with my perspective to the readers as well. I have serious consideration of the counterclaims that I used, I had more concessions than rebuttals, so the other side was explored in great detail, where people can actually look of proofs and evidence for the rebuttal, and could possibly change others perspective from the majority of the paragraph where I was supporting for the argument.

    C. Quality of analysis of knowledge issues
    For this criterion I give myself a 7. The inquiry does explore the knowledge issues in depth. Majority of the main points are justified, and the counterclaims are explored in consideration and in depth.

    D. Organization of ideas.
    For this criterion I give myself a 8. My prescribe title was organized and constructed well, as well as my follow through my the knowledge issues. I gave a brief description at the beginning of each knowledge issue to explain the idea of the knowledge issues, then I applied my examples to accommodate the knowledge issues. After that I had my counterclaim were it was a concession and I accepted it turning the idea into another direction while adhering to the knowledge issue and prescribe title. So there is a flow in the essay, where readers are able to read the essay easily and understand the transitions. I cited my sources very well by footnote as well as a bibliography. I explained how the example applied to prescribe title, and how it is important.

    Based off of the new TOK rubric I think I would have gotten a 4 because I feel as though my essay fits all the characteristics they give for this score. There is a focus on knowledge issue connected to the prescribe title, as well I explored other perspectives in dept and gave examples of the counterclaims, and acknowledged that they could possible be better than the initial example I agreed with. I did connect the way of knowing with the area of knowledge the cause and effect of the two together. The arguments are very clear, and my personal examples are included as well, as well as the countercalims are identified and explored in depth, and consideration.

  28. Ashley, Part 2

    Time and Effort/Support:
    I spent quite a bit of time on this essay perhaps 3-6 hours per day, I put in a lot of time and energy into this essay, as well as looking for all the details that would be relevant, and make a strong argument. I worked the most on the body paragraphs. I researched a lot of stuff, looked for supplementary articles to see whatever could possibly fit, I searched for my own articles. I looked for facts about a certain topic if I was not so sure about it. I constantly revised and kept re-reading my paragraphs, making corrections deleting sentences, adding new ones, I was constantly editing my essay. I wanted it to make sense without any additives. It was very difficult to form a question to go with the prescribed title, but I went to my teacher to ask for an opinion to see what needed to be change, and corrected. But I mostly received advice and help from my peers. They suggested appropriate counterclaims that would fit into the knowledge issue, as well as giving me advice on whether or not my knowledge issue where relevant and appropriate. My peers helped the most on this essay. They gave me strong advice and examples, as well as I in return. We all really relied on each other for opinions or reading sentences to see if it made sense.

  29. Vaskia

    Based on the old rubric for criterion A, I would rate myself on a 5-6 because I understood that the Areas Of Knowing and Ways Of Knowing had to be linked back to the prescribed title but It was hard for me to come up a second knowledge question that would follow the prescribed title. I tried my best to figure a way to include change throughout my essay, while breaking down the essay as Maurice Bishops quote. I also gave examples that were relevant to the knowledge question and prescribed title.
    For criterion B, I used personal examples and did independent thinking of what I wanted to include in my essay based on my own experiences. I then became aware of other perspectives such as; those who encountered a new fragment but had little or no change as a result. I then realized my role as a knower in the world and place I live in. I would then rate myself a 7-8 on this criterion.
    Criterion C, I was able to include some counterclaims in my essay with a few concessions. I tried to explore other perspective and gave then consideration (5-6).
    Criterion D, I include footnotes whenever I used another source as well. I tried my best to organize to my thoughts so that the reader may understand my work. I also included examples and tried to include factual information with support. I kind of exceeded a little bit the word limit that may have been due to long paragraphs that may or may not be redundant. (7-8).

    Based on the New Rubric I would rate myself a 7 for understanding of the knowledge question because some of my knowledge questions related back to the prescribe title for the most part and had support examples and some counterclaims. I would say that the argument in clear to the reader and is supported with life examples and implications are drawn in the conclusion rating myself a 8.

    I spent most of my time working on the TOK essay. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out new knowledge questions because I believed they were one of the most important parts of the essay. I tried my best to relate the knowledge question to the prescribed title. Then once I did so I tried to find claims and counterclaims.. I found it harder to find counterclaims that supporting examples. I meet with my teacher a fews time to consistently help to make sure that I was going on the right track and that I understood what the essay was about. I tried asking my classmates what they thought about different parts of my essay to also give feedback.


Thanks for posting!!