\n| Evaluation<\/td>\n | Counterclaims, limits, implications<\/td>\n | Demonstrates depth and reflection<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table><\/div>\nStep 1: Choose the right object<\/h3>\nNot every interesting object is a good TOK object. You want something that points to knowledge in a clear way and can be meaningfully discussed in about 150\u2013250 spoken words on your label or card. Consider these quick filters when picking an object:<\/p>\n \n- Relevance: Does the object naturally invite questions about knowing, evidence, or perspective?<\/li>\n
- Simplicity: Can you describe the object in one line so the viewer immediately understands what it is?<\/li>\n
- Connectability: Does it link easily to at least one clear knowledge question?<\/li>\n
- Evidence-friendly: Can you support claims about it with examples, data, or contrasting perspectives?<\/li>\n
- Accessibility: Is it easy to display and not prone to distraction (no flashing lights, overly large props)?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Examples of strong choices include a photograph, a common tool (like a thermometer), a map excerpt, a personal artifact with documented provenance, or even a poster with clear claims. Avoid objects that are purely sentimental without any clear pathway to a knowledge question.<\/p>\n Step 2: Craft a crisp claim<\/h3>\nA claim is not a summary of the object; it\u2019s a bridge between the object and an idea about knowledge. Keep it short \u2014 one or two sentences \u2014 and make sure it does three things: identify a knowledge-related feature of the object, assert how that feature matters for knowing, and give the reader a sense of direction for the KQ.<\/p>\n Good claim examples (brief):<\/p>\n \n- \u201cThis photograph shows how memory prioritizes emotion over detail.\u201d<\/li>\n
- \u201cA public health poster illustrates how images can shift what a community accepts as evidence.\u201dli>\n
- \u201cA navigation app\u2019s map highlights how algorithms shape our sense of place.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Bad claim: \u201cThis is a photo of my grandfather.\u201d That\u2019s descriptive, not analytical. Strong claims lead naturally to enquiry.<\/p>\n Step 3: Link the claim to a tight knowledge question<\/h3>\nKnowledge questions (KQs) should be open, general, and about knowledge itself \u2014 not about the object per se. They often start with \u201cTo what extent\u2026\u201d, \u201cHow do we know\u2026\u201d, or \u201cIn what ways\u2026\u201d. Write a KQ so it flows from your claim and keeps the focus on knowledge processes, not just content.<\/p>\n Transforming a claim into a KQ \u2014 quick recipe:<\/p>\n \n- Highlight the TOK term in your claim (e.g., memory, evidence, perspective, objectivity).<\/li>\n
- Ask a question about how that term operates or is valued.<\/li>\n
- Keep the scope narrow enough to answer within a short explanation but broad enough to be meaningful.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Example: Claim \u2014 \u201cThis photograph shows how memory prioritizes emotion over detail.\u201d KQ \u2014 \u201cTo what extent does emotion influence what we remember as factual?\u201d<\/p>\n Step 4: Build the justification \u2014 reasons, evidence, perspectives<\/h3>\nJustification is where you earn marks. It\u2019s not a place for opinion without support. Structure your justification like a miniature argument:<\/p>\n \n- Reason: State why the claim might be true.<\/li>\n
- Evidence: Point to the object itself, specific examples, or brief real-world data.<\/li>\n
- Perspective: Consider an alternative way of seeing the object.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Keep language concrete: refer to features of the object (colours, scale, wording, wear marks), cite how people interact with it, or name recognizable studies or common-sense observations without needing long academic citations on the label. If you need deeper reading, keep that in your notes \u2014 the exhibition card is a succinct argument.<\/p>\n Step 5: Anticipate counterclaims and limitations<\/h3>\nGood TOK work includes evaluation. Briefly acknowledge plausible counterclaims and limits to your claim. This shows intellectual honesty and depth. Typical limitations include cultural differences, sample bias, temporal context, or technological mediation.<\/p>\n \n- Counterclaim: \u201cSome might argue \u2026\u201d<\/li>\n
- Limitation: \u201cThis example is limited because \u2026\u201d<\/li>\n
- Implication: \u201cTherefore, we should be cautious about \u2026\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Worked examples: three ways the formula comes alive<\/h3>\nSeeing the formula applied helps make it sticky. Below are concise, adaptable examples you could model in your own words. Each follows the formula: Object \u2192 Claim \u2192 KQ \u2192 Justification \u2192 Counterclaim.<\/p>\n Example A: A torn newsprint headline<\/h3>\nObject: A torn headline from a widely circulated newspaper that uses emotive language.<\/p>\n Claim: \u201cThe wording and layout of this headline amplify emotional reactions and can change what readers count as reliable evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n KQ: \u201cIn what ways can language shape whether something counts as evidence?\u201d<\/p>\n Justification: Point to the headline\u2019s bold words, dramatic punctuation, and placement on the page; explain how cognitive shortcuts and confirmation bias make readers trust vivid, familiar narratives. Offer a concrete comparison: the same factual claim framed in neutral vs emotive language tends to elicit different levels of public acceptance. Mention a different perspective: some audiences prefer emotive frames because they increase salience and call people to action.<\/p>\n Counterclaim: The headline may reflect editorial choice rather than deception; readers can cross-check content. Conclude by noting the implication that language influences what societies accept as credible, but that cross-referencing remains a practical guard.<\/p>\n Example B: A traffic light<\/h3>\nObject: A traffic light with a persistent green-arrow signal at a complex junction.<\/p>\n Claim: \u201cThis traffic signal shapes collective expectations about responsibility and safety more than it records actual driver behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n KQ: \u201cTo what extent do social systems (like traffic rules) create knowledge about expected behaviour?\u201d<\/p>\n Justification: Describe how the signal signals norms \u2014 drivers learn what is expected, and their behaviour is guided by that expectation. Use the object\u2019s design (colour, position) as evidence that knowledge is encoded in shared artefacts. Consider perspective: in some cities informal practices override signals, revealing a tension between formal knowledge and lived practice.<\/p>\n Counterclaim: A camera or sensors might provide evidence that contradicts expectations; norms are not absolute. The implication is that systems communicate knowledge about behaviour but do not guarantee it.<\/p>\n Example C: A family photograph<\/h3>\nObject: A faded photograph showing a family event where people are posed and smiling.<\/p>\n Claim: \u201cThis image suggests that memory is constructed to maintain identity and social cohesion.\u201d<\/p>\n KQ: \u201cHow do social purposes influence what is remembered and how it is presented as evidence for the past?\u201d<\/p>\n Justification: Point to the careful posing, selective cropping, and the story families tell alongside images. Discuss how photographs can be edited or framed to include certain people or exclude inconvenient details, making the photograph both evidence and artefact of an intended narrative. Consider perspective: historians might use photographs as primary sources but treat them critically, aware of their constructed nature.<\/p>\n Counterclaim: Photographs can still provide useful factual detail (clothing, location), but their interpretation requires context. Conclude that images are powerful but interpretive evidence.<\/p>\n  <\/p>\n
Design and display: make your words work for viewers<\/h3>\nGood reasoning can be undermined by poor layout. Exhibition labels should be readable, concise, and visually balanced with the object. Keep labels short (one strong claim, one KQ, and two or three bullets of justification). Use font sizes that can be read at arm\u2019s length and avoid walls of text.<\/p>\n Label checklist:<\/p>\n \n- One-line claim up top in bold.<\/li>\n
- Clear KQ beneath the claim.<\/li>\n
- Two short bullets of justification, one sentence each.<\/li>\n
- A one-sentence counterclaim or limitation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
|
<\/p>\n