Monday, April 13, 2009
TOK marking criteria??
what exactly is knower's perspective?? I feel I don't fully understand what it is because with the sample essay we got in class the essay got a 9 for this criterion but I didn't see why
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments
11 comments:
Ramicoot,
That's a very apposite question. It's not the easiest one in the world but it deserves the best answer I can give it.
The concept of the “knower’s perspective” is a rather complex one. At the simplest and most basic level, the purpose of this criterion is to reward work that shows evidence that the student is actively thinking about the knowledge issues and shaping his/her response in an independent manner.
What form might such evidence take? One type of evidence for independent thinking is the use of examples – fresh examples that the student has mastered; not the over-used clichéd examples that suggest that the student can’t really think of anything. So try to come up with something more mathematically interesting than 1+1=2. More historically fresh than Hitler and the Jews. A painting that isn’t the Mona Lisa. A graph from economics that isn’t price and demand. You get the idea. Now look at the exemplar essay from class – look at the examples and you will see that they are not these commonplace types.
The “knower’s perspective” includes the word “perspective”. This implies a recognition that people think about knowledge issues in different ways (indeed remember that we characterized knowledge issues as being, amongst other things, controversial and open to different possible responses). You as a knower have to show that you are aware that there are different approaches to your topic – often adopted by different people, coming from different backgrounds. This does not mean that all perspectives are necessarily equally valid; it does not need to mean that “it all depends” or “truth is relative”, but you should consider the variety of standpoints that people might take.
One such person, of course, is YOU. The “knower’s perspective” is also there to encourage you to include your own measured position on the knowledge issues, and to show that you are aware of what it might be about yourself (background, age, culture, gender, preferences, experiences, etc.) that has led you to think in this way. So we have an awareness of different perspectives and an awareness of one’s own perspective. This last part can be done without turning your essay into a series of “I”, “I”, “I” statements – this would make your work too personal and self-absorbed; it is a matter of balance. You will note that the writer of that exemplar essay does not constantly refer to him/herself, but nevertheless does succeed (in our opinion) in demonstrating the existence of a restless and intelligent mind doing the shaping of the work.
I know this all sounds rather complicated, but I hope it is of some help.
thanks for your help.. i now kinda understand
Perhaps I should qualify my remark about the student's own perspective. I may have given the impression that you shouldn't talk directly and freely about what YOU think in your essay. You should, and it's perfectly OK to phrase this using the pronoun "I".
What I am guarding against is the kind of essay that persists in offering a series of personal examples without the necessary academic examples as well. TOK is an academic course - about real things that are known for which countless individuals have given their life's work. This knowledge is part of our heritage as human beings and as knowers and we diminish ourselves if we abandon it and simply retreat into our "personal knowledge".
So by all means try to include an example of a personal nature, but don't forget to draw on your academic experiences (which are of course also part of your personal experience).
This is all about balance and we learn to balance by learning. Enjoy the journey!
Okay this is unrelated, but does anyone know where i can find some information on Fibernache?? I can't seem to find anything, even with good 'ol wikipedia...HELP!!
Could be your spelling, old chap!
FIBONACCI?
Riiiight....I thought as much, no wonder i kept getting bogus results... thanks....
Hi all,
How I appreciate the exchange that is going on here. Ramicoot, yours is an important question, and one, as pointed out by Mr. Kitching, that is hard to answer. But he has done a great job and I only have two pesewas to add. One of the biggest problems we have encountered with the essays is what I will call the ‘investigative journalism syndrome’. Students go out there and sample opinions and ‘facts’ from the inter-web or books and display them on the paper. No personal engagement with the ‘truths’, just a mere regurgitation. That’s a big No No! Some times the problem goes even further. In your essays you are squeamish about making a judgment on the question and expressing what your take on the issue is. So you ‘regress toward a phony mean’ (not my words). He says this, but that person says that! End of story! Convince yourself that you know what is at stake. As a knower, you I interact with the realities posed by the question in your academic pursuits. Produce a piece of work that demonstrates this, and you are halfway there. Ramicoot, it is not easy, but we will get there.
If anyone has further questions about the essay assessment criteria, don't hesitate to ask. I am happy to try to clarify.
i'm back again. i've looked around, but i can't quite find an MLA format for referencing embedded videos on web sites, the link below is what i found (it's somewhere near the bottom of the page labeled Online Video Clip)
http://www.sdst.org/shs/library/mla.html
If anyone has any other links or has the actual format, please let me know.
How do u also validate the credibility of your source, say for instance you want to reference something from a forum or blogspot? Thanks...in advance i guess
Prez,
That looks like a useful link - maybe you should publicize it further up on the blog. Under referencing...?
I just had a look at the online video clip format there and it looks to me like that one would do the trick. Take out the "providing library" bit and you've got:
"Description or Title of Video Clip." Date of clip. Online video clip. Title of Larger Site.
Date of download. http://address.website.org. (the blog forces me to take out the angle brackets surrounding the URL or else I can't publish - no idea why!)
I think all of that information is doable, isn't it?
As for forums and blogspots, I don't think there is any consistent way of validating what people have written, so I'd beware of laying much emphasis on them as reliable sources.
Well that's a relief....but for the "in text" referencing, would it be the title of the video that's put in bracket, or the site? I'll try and post up the link too. thanks.
Post a Comment