TOK essay assignment - March 2009

Dear Students,

Here is the title for the next TOK written assignment:

If distinctions can be made between the natural sciences and human sciences as different areas of knowledge, could one be described as better than the other?

The word limit for this assignment is 800 words.

You must use this title exactly as given - do not alter it in any way. This assignment is intended to be a stepping stone from the 400-word assignment from last semester towards the full length essays that you will soon produce. The criteria for assessing this assignment are given below.

Your response is to be submitted to your class teacher at the start of the lesson on TUESDAY 24th MARCH - ie in two weeks.

A: Knowledge Issues (maximum = 5)
Skill objective: to produce a piece of work that recognizes knowledge issues that are related to the title and shows understanding of them through actively illustrating them with reference to different aspects of the TOK course
Marking Guidelines: Reward the work if knowledge issues relevant to the title are explicitly recognized, and if Ways of Knowing and/or Areas of Knowledge have been linked and compared in the service of understanding these knowledge issues. A low score is appropriate if the knowledge issues are not relevant or only implicit and/or left unconnected to Ways of Knowing or Areas of Knowledge, thus showing a poor understanding of them.

B: Independent Thinking (maximum = 5)
Skill objective: to produce a piece of work that explores the title imaginatively through both the student’s own perspective and that of others, using real and understood examples from the student’s own knowledge
Marking Guidelines: Reward creative, imaginative responses to the title which show an awareness of different perspectives on knowledge (including an awareness of the student’s own), supported by examples drawn from academic and personal experience. A low score is appropriate for dogmatic, unreflective responses, or for the over-use of hypothetical or commonplace examples.

C: Analysis (maximum = 5)
Skill objective: to produce a piece of work in which logical rigour is evident, including an awareness and analysis of things often taken for granted.
Marking Guidelines: Reward responses to the title in which the main points are justified and arguments are coherent, and in which counter-claims, implications and assumptions are recognized and explored. A low grade is appropriate for sloppy reasoning as evidenced by a failure to achieve some or all of the attributes listed above.

D: Organization (maximum = 5)
Skill objective: to produce a piece of work that shows respect for knowledge by setting it out with attention to format and factual accuracy, and acknowledges where appropriate the achievements of others who have helped to discover or create it
Marking Guidelines: Reward well-structured work that is clear to read and understand, in which factual claims are correct, and sources have been properly referenced so that they can be traced. A low score is appropriate for careless formatting, language that needlessly interferes with understanding, factual inaccuracy or missing/inadequate references.

PENALTIES
· No double-spacing of text: 2 points subtracted
· Missing name: 1 point subtracted
· Revision of (or failure to write) the prescribed title: 1 or 2 points subtracted
· Missing references that should have been included: 1 or 2 points subtracted
· Incorrectly formatted references: 1 point subtracted
· Failing to quote an accurate word-count at the end: 1 point subtracted.
· Exceeding the maximum permitted word limit: 3 points subtracted (and the assessor will not read beyond the permitted word-count)