TOK+Presentation+Rubric

Back to Home>Back to Perception and Language

The assessment model in theory of knowledge (TOK) has two components, both of which should be completed within the 100 hours designated for the course. Both the essay and the presentation are assessed using global impression marking. The essay contributes **67%** of the final mark and the presentation contributes **33%** of the final mark. While you are familiar with the Global Impression Rubric for writing in TOK, this is the first opportunity for you to become familiar with the internally assessed component of the Theory of Knowledge course. Below is the guidance provided to TOK teachers on how to assess the presentation in the new curriculum.

Below is the assessment criteria for presentations in TOK. In order to ensure you achieve the highest score possible, please review the rubric carefully and ask clarifying questions of your teacher. We will have a few practice presentations before we have our formal presentations in the beginning of Year 13. Excellent 9–10 || Level 4 Very good 7–8 || Level 3 Satisfactory 5–6 || Level 2 Basic 3–4 || Level 1 Elementary 1–2 || Irrelevant 0 || Discerning Insightful Compelling Lucid || Credible Analytical Organized Pertinent Coherent || Relevant Adequate Acceptable Predictable || Underdeveloped Basic Unbalanced Superficial Derivative Rudimentary || Ineffective Unconnected Incoherent Formless ||  ||
 * ~ Do(es) the presenter(s) succeed in showing how TOK concepts can have practical application? ||
 * Level 5
 * The presentation is focused on a //well-formulated// **knowledge question** that is //clearly connected// to a //specified// **real-life situation**. The knowledge question is //effectively explored// in the context of the real-life situation, using //convincing// **arguments**, with //investigation// of //different// **perspectives**. The **outcomes of the analysis** are shown to be //significant to the chosen real-life situation and to others//. || The presentation is focused on a **knowledge question** that is //connected// to a //specified// **real-life situation**. The knowledge question is //explored// in the context of the real-life situation, using //clear// **arguments**, with //acknowledgment// of //different// **perspectives**. The **outcomes of the analysis** are shown to be //significant to the real-life situation//. || The presentation identifies a **knowledge question** that has //some connection// to a specified **real-life situation**. The knowledge question is //explored// in the context of the real-life situation, using //some adequate// **arguments**. There is //some awareness of the significance// of the **outcomes of the analysis**. || The presentation identifies a **knowledge question** and a **real-life situation**, although the //connection between them may not be convincing//. There is //some attempt// to explore the knowledge question. There is //limited awareness of the significance// of the **outcomes of the analysis**. || The presentation describes a **real-life situation without reference to any knowledge question**, or treats an abstract knowledge question **without connecting it to any specific real-life situation**. || The presentation does not reach the standard described by levels 1–5. ||
 * ~ Some possible characteristics ||
 * Sophisticated