What is Theory Of Knowledge? So divisive among IB students, it eludes description, as everyone gives me their twopence: TOK learning guides tell me that “[I’m] invited to go on a journey in which [I] critically evaluate [myself] as a 'knower' and ‘thinker’ within [my] community of ‘knowers’", teachers tell me “it’s something you’ll really enjoy” and upperclassmen exclaim “it’s total bullsh*t” or “honestly just write a good essay”. Even the official IB site hardly elaborates: “it’s an opportunity to reflect on the nature of knowledge”. First impressions haven’t been much more edifying. With little to no structure, avoidance of depth, and an unspecialized teacher, it’s been difficult to understand its purpose and learn. So what is it that makes TOK so confusing?
TOK has a problem with structure. In theory, the syllabus is based on questions which exist at the intersections of elements (perspective, scope, methods and tools, and ethics) and areas of knowledge (human sciences, natural sciences, arts, history, and math). This structure may sound nice at first, but is riddled with problems. The first to notice as a student is its excessive breadth. Jumping from the question of ‘who owns knowledge?’ to ‘the ethics of cannibalism’ in one slide deck is not a good idea. Not only does it not afford us enough time to explore each topic, but it confuses students as to the relationship between each of them. Because the IB is so obsessed with TOK being their own unique subject, they shy away from tried and tested curricular structures that specific academic fields such as philosophy, logic, or psychology have painstakingly constructed. Though trendy at the moment, interdisciplinary studies are very difficult to do well because there needs to be a reasonable understanding of all subjects being covered as well as the relationship between each of them. Thus, the IB organization clearly does not.
The second problem with TOK is its use of words as a means to confuse rather than enlighten. While talking about TOK makes you sound smart and educated, the actual learning that occurs for most students is questionable at best. The sentence: “We must use the systems thinking toolkit to holistically view the interconnectivity of a problem and arrive at a balanced judgement which drives the consumption of knowledge” would not be found out of place in a TOK class. If the true purpose of TOK was to clarify, it would read: “You gotta look at the big picture to figure stuff out”. Instead, TOK insists on throwing vague terminology at students to create a language of its own. Especially in a community which suffers from the overuse of buzzwords and flowery language (of which I am a guilty member), this does not clarify our view of the world, but clouds it. This verbosity not only limits our understanding of topics covered in TOK, it creates a false sense of security in class. Once we are given a set of buzzwords to play around with, it becomes difficult to break away from them. This discourages genuine questions which students have not quite found the vocabulary to express yet, as vapid words are stuffed into our mouths.
Another curricular problem that plagues the subject is its lack of foundation. The questions asked are often, when not obfuscated by buzzwords, thought-provoking and useful. After all, these are often discussed at length by specialists whatever field they may be in. However, even when we don’t skim across such questions as we usually do (the discussion on cannibalism for one, ended on the highly profound note of “I, personally, just think...like...some things are just morally wrong no matter what…”), I don’t find myself equipped with enough background knowledge to make a meaningful contribution. In discussions I often find myself wanting to clarify the simple logical facts of the matter, but being unable to for our inability to articulate basic laws of logic (cue the “I don’t really know how to put this in words...actually never mind. Can you come back to me later?”).
What do I propose as an alternative? I believe that important questions are being asked TOK as it exists now which would be fulfilling to discuss, as a way to exercise a rarely used part of most students’ brains. Most of the subjects being offered do not engage the most abstract, theoretical parts of our brains, or require us to seriously defend our beliefs. However, TOK is not actually original. Various lessons taught in TOK are taught in formal and informal logic, semantics, ethics, epistemology, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and more. While the IB would love to boast some flagship discipline of their own invention, all they seem to be able to do is mix some scholarly and important-sounding questions together in a pot and have it served by teachers who aren’t even trained in these fields. As hinted above, I believe that some mandatory classes in formal logic would help a great deal. When getting into complex flowcharts of reasoning (systems thinking as they would call it), logic would cut down the conversation by half at least, getting rid of all the tangential, illogical, and meaningless verbiage (or ‘streamlining’ if you like). In addition, elective classes in sociology, philosophy of language, ethics, or psychology (some of which are already offered) could be offered to complement the foundation established in logic.
TOK is a poor attempt at the laudable goal of making students think more in general, but especially in theoretical and logical ways. It fails, however, as it falls into the irresistible orbit of buzzwords and disorganization that makes it enjoyable as self-affirming background noise, but does little to prepare IB students for their lives ahead.
Sources cited:
Comments