This article is offered as a humble reflection based on my perspective as a psychologist and TOK educator, focusing on the psychological impact of our current approach in teaching TOK on both students and teachers. I am not seeking to critique the system itself, but rather to explore the psychological implications it generates on students and teachers. Please note that these insights are drawn from my personal knowledge and understanding and may not necessarily represent absolute truth.

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, the International Baccalaureate (IB) program stands as a beacon of holistic learning, aiming not just to impart subject-specific knowledge but also to foster critical thinking skills essential for navigating the complexities of the world. At the heart of this endeavor lies Theory of Knowledge (TOK), a subject that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries and encourages students to explore the nature of knowledge itself.

TOK, as a core component of the IB Diploma Programme (DP), is designed to seamlessly integrate across subjects, providing students with the opportunity to question the creation, acceptance, interpretation, and dissemination of knowledge within each respective Area of Knowledge (AOK). Ideally, TOK serves as a critical thinking tool, equipping students with a framework and skills to evaluate the distinct scope, methods, lenses, perspectives, and ethical considerations inherent to each AOK. Moreover, it facilitates an understanding of how knowledge creation occurs amidst various variables such as power dynamics, technological advancements, religious beliefs, and intrinsic human ways of knowing.

However, despite its lofty ideals, I am writing this article to propose an alternative approach to the way TOK is currently taught, assessed and structured in DP.

The objective of this article is to propose a reframing of the teaching and assessment of Theory of Knowledge (TOK) as a core component of the IB Diploma Programme. The aim is to render TOK more inclusive, seamless, accessible, skill-oriented, and enjoyable for both students and teachers alike.

The Need to Define the Scope of TOK : Is it 'Theory' of Knowledge or a Framework for Second Order 'Critical Thinking'?

The Theory of Knowledge (ToK) , in its true sense, is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge. It's also known as epistemology, which comes from the Greek words epistēmē (knowledge) and logos (reason).

The issue with the nomenclature "Theory of Knowledge" (ToK) lies in its current framing within the IB Diploma Programme (IBDP) Core. Presently, it neither formally qualifies as an independent subject like Epistemology, nor is it entirely focused on applied critical thinking skills. Yet it wants to assess students with TOK Exclusive Assessments like The essay and Exhibition which vaguely are rooted in the 'Theory' of knowledge, without formally being taught the 'Theories' of knowledge.

The intention behind the newer curriculum is to make ToK more practical and accessible, moving away from its traditional association with philosophy. However, if we adhere strictly to its name, "Theory of Knowledge," then it necessitates formal instruction in concepts such as kinds of knowledge, A priori and a posteriori knowledge, The regress problem, and Foundationalism, propositional knowledge, justification, and skepticism. These concepts are typically within the realm of philosophy and require educators with expertise in this field.

However, the IB TOK Subject Guide makes it clear, as it states :

"Throughout the TOK course, there should be ongoing conversations about the nature, scope and limits of knowledge. However, a detailed technical philosophical investigation into the nature of knowledge is not appropriate in a TOK course" (TOK Subject Guide, 2022, p.6)

The challenge arises from our intention not to delve into detailed technical philosophical inquiry while still encouraging and assessing students ability explore underlying knowledge issues present in prompts such as "why do we seek knowledge?" and "Are some things unknowable?" We aim to assess students to investigate second-order knowledge issues surrounding "unknowability" without relying on a formal theoretical framework of Epistemology. To the extent, we have even omitted 'ways of knowing' out of the syllabus.

If our intention is to "The Theory of Knowledge" as an independent subject, specialized assessments rooted in this theory are essential. This requires educators proficient in Epistemology and Philosophy to guide students in mastering assessments that engage with TOK-specific concepts, terminology, and discourse.

However, if our aim is to transform TOK into a subject that is more practical, engaging, enjoyable, and approachable—not just for 17-year-old teens but also for educators lacking backgrounds in Language or Philosophy—a comprehensive review of the current approach to TOK is undoubtedly warranted.

In my humble view, we need to reframe TOK as Critical Thinking Skill Lab which gives tools and framework to all teachers across all subjects to teach and apply critical thinking in their respective areas of knowledge, without language heavy TOK Exclusive Assessments like TOK Essay and TOK Exhibition which are such nuanced instruments in itself, that it takes atleast 2 years for Non-TOK teacher to get a hang of what is expected from such assessments.

TOK Exclusive Assessments Create 'Non-TOK' Teachers - Psychological implications of the Current Approach

With the introduction of TOK Exclusive Assessment Instruments, inevitably emerges the TOK Department, along with the creation of idea of 'Non-TOK Teachers'. However, this approach carries psychological implications that may hinder the goal of making TOK a seamlessly integrated component of the DP Core. While the IB Philosophy encourages every teacher to integrate TOK principles, this approach can ironically hinder the very essence of the original idea.

The fact that it can take a teacher who is new to formally teaching TOK at least two years to understand how to effectively teach, supervise, and assess a TOK instrument speaks volumes about the exclusivity of TOK. This contradicts the very notion of making TOK seamlessly integrated across all IB subjects.

It's quite intriguing how TOK assessments manage to create a rift between non-TOK teachers and the enigmatic realm of TOK. As the responsibility of handling and mastering assessment instruments for TOK falls on the TOK Department, non-TOK teachers may feel disconnected from the essence of TOK. This sense of disconnect is reinforced by the implied notion that TOK won't be assessed within their subject areas anyway.

Moreover, the specific rubrics, jargon, and examiner notes associated with TOK exclusive assessments can erect a systematic barrier, making it challenging for teachers to approach the subject. This barrier may lead to a disassociation from the fundamental essence of critical thinking and TOK as a subject, which was originally intended to seamlessly integrate across subjects.

By predominantly focusing on the essay and exhibition assessments, TOK becomes synonymous with the domain of TOK teachers. As a result, the school may develop a false sense of satisfaction regarding the application of TOK, based solely on good scores in these assessments.

'TOK Exclusive' Phenomenon: Inducing a sense of Psychological Disassociation in Teachers and the Perceived Ownership of TOK Education

This approach creates a psychological dissociation among non-TOK teachers in the staffroom, who may perceive TOK as a separate and isolated subject led exclusively by TOK teachers. This perception undermines the true integration and application of TOK principles within subject areas, leaving the core essence of TOK unassessed and underutilized in the broader educational context.

This also creates a bias suggests that non-Theory of Knowledge (TOK) teachers are often criticized for their apparent reluctance to fully adopt TOK, supposedly stemming from either complacency or a deficiency in critical thinking. However, the issue lies not in their ability, but rather in the impact of the specialized assessment tools unique to TOK, which inadvertently create an aura (halo effect) of exclusivity, rendering TOK less approachable and more isolated.

Its important we start enquiring into following questions :

1. On average, how long did it take for non-TOK teachers to feel confident in supervising TOK essays and exhibitions?
2. How many teachers in the staffroom are interested in teaching TOK as a formal subject?
3. What is the first thought that comes to non-TOK teachers' minds when they hear the word "TOK"?

Integrated Subject Assessment: Evaluating TOK Proficiency at AO5 Level Without Elaborate Assessments

Rather than relying on complex assessments that require specialized TOK training over two years, having an AO5 in each subject area, seamlessly integrates and assesses critical thinking skills within each subject area. This eliminates the need for extensive training and allows for a more practical and inclusive approach to TOK education.

This method allows teachers to avoid investing excessive time in exclusive assessments like the TOK exhibition and TOK essay, which can make the subject feel burdensome and inaccessible for those without similar backgrounds in language or philosophy. Currently, many teachers in the staffroom may be hesitant to formally teach TOK, largely because assessments are exclusive and not seamlessly integrated into their subjects.

The irony lies in our desire for TOK to be inclusive and integrated across all subjects while simultaneously implementing assessments that are distinctly TOK-centric. With unique TOK rubrics, language, and approach, it begs the question: How does this promote the applied, seamless, and accessible nature we aim for?

An example of AO5 in the DP Psychology course could be:

AO3 - Discuss any one model of memory (ERQ).

AO4 - Conduct research to test any one model of memory (Internal Assessment).

We can simply add the element of Ao5 into Ao3 and Ao4

AO5 - To what extent does a Model accurately represent the functioning of memory in reality?

Answer : Memory, being a multifaceted and abstract process, presents challenges for researchers to grasp its workings. Models serve as tangible and structured frameworks for researchers to conceptualize this intricate process. Researchers diligently gather evidence to validate these models. Thus, based on the evidence provided by Multi Storage Model, we can deduce that these models partially capture the functioning of memory. However, alternative models like Levels of Processing Model offer differing perspectives on memory function. This suggests that researchers behind Multi Storage Model have conceptualized memory from a distinct framework, supported by their gathered evidence. Consequently, the coexistence of these first and second models underscores their unique approaches to understanding the intangible and vast nature of memory. This suggests that models may align more with practicality than with an absolute correspondence to reality.

In this scenario, students aren't tasked with creating a knowledge issue; rather, it's provided, and they're required to apply critical thinking skills to justify both sides of the argument. With such questions integrated into assessments, students and teachers can focus on teaching critical thinking seamlessly as part of the coursework, without needing to invest time in mastering TOK-specific assessments with nuanced rubrics. Answering such questions do not require the teacher to have any special background in Language/Philosophy. It just needs the teacher to be trained in applying TOK to their subject knowledge area.

Answering the AO5 question doesn't demand mastery of complex essay writing skills or special knowledge issues ; instead, students simply need to demonstrate their understanding of critical thinking by explaining why a model serves as a working representation of an abstract process.

The Assessment Objective 5 (AO5) could be smoothly integrated within Internal Assessments (IAs) or responses as components of other examination papers, without additional assessment or a paper.

The current TOK Exclusive Assessment phenomenon

I will now highlight what current approach to TOK demands out of students.

For example, within the current the knowledge prompt for the exhibition - 'Are some things unknowable?' demands a child to think of an object, underlying knowledge issue and master the art of writing the commentary.

For eg. If the object for this prompt I have chosen is book named "Buddhist Psychotherapy" written Pusan, Hyunsoo Jeon who is a psychiatrist and a psychotherapy specialist - Psychological Scientist.

A Simple TOK Link between this object and the prompt "Are somethings unknowable?" is :

- Psychologists and scientists exploring Buddhism for mental well-being encounter challenges.

- Buddhism's wisdom, grounded in experiences like Nirvana, may remain unknowable to them.

- Psychology focuses on rational, sensory-based explanations, excluding metaphysical concepts like Nirvana.

- Therefore, true understanding of Buddhist teachings on ending suffering may remain unknowable to scientists.

Any subject teacher can indeed offer, teach, and supervise this level of critical thinking without requiring special training in Language and/or Philosophy. However, it is acknowledged that this alone may not suffice to meet the full requirements or expectations of TOK assessments.

According to the current TOK assessment exhibition rubrics, this submission may not score more than a 2-3 out of 10. Additional requirements include mastering the art of writing the commentary, employing language that is somewhat rooted in TOK with minimal jargon from epistemology, and exploring the underlying knowledge issue that the object connects with the prompt. However, meeting these additional criteria would demand extensive revisions of drafts over a period of two-three months, potentially diverting attention from around 100 opportunities to learn and apply critical thinking across all subject areas.

Transforming TOK: Need for a Critical Thinking Lab Approach

I propose a simple solution: let's rename TOK Block to "Critical Thinking Lab" This rebranding aims to help students perceive the subject as a practical skill, empowering them to critically evaluate any piece of knowledge and assert themselves as knowers.

This approach shifts the focus away from lengthy commentaries and essays and emphasizes the practical application of critical thinking skills, in a fun, practical and an engaging way.

This could entail conducting live experiments that engage various ways of knowing such as the senses, memory, and reason. It could also involve activities like reading newspapers or analyzing podcasts and interviews using practical tools of critical thinking provided by the teacher. Additionally, it might incorporate human labs or introspection worksheets to generate real-time experiential insights, empowering students as active perceivers of the world and enabling them to recognize the limitations inherent in human ways of knowing.

Each teacher would receive a framework or systematic tool to apply critical thinking to their specific subjects in an engaging and practical manner. We still retain the essence of questioning process of knowledge acquisition, production, dissemination, and interpretation, yet it happens formally as a part of Critical Thinking Lab, as a separate block as well across all the subjects by each subject teacher.

The crucial aspect here is that assessment occurs seamlessly as AO5 within each subject area, rather than being confined solely to exhibitions or essays. This approach ensures that all teachers are compelled to teach, apply, and evaluate these critical thinking skills within their respective subject areas.

Assessing TOK within each subject using AO5 offers the advantage of freeing TOK from dependence on a teacher's prior expertise in language/philosophy to prepare students for TOK Exclusive Assessments. This approach makes TOK truly applicable in each subject area, seamlessly integrating it without the added complexity of mastering TOK-specific assessments that vaguely demand arguments, language, and an approach rooted in Epistemology or the "theory" of knowledge.

AO5, which focuses on second-order critical thinking skills, presents a unique opportunity to bridge the gap between TOK and other disciplines. Rather than viewing TOK as a standalone subject, educators can integrate its principles seamlessly into their respective areas of expertise, enriching subject-specific learning experiences and empowering students to approach knowledge from multiple perspectives.

Moreover, AO5 encourages educators to rethink the traditional dichotomy between content knowledge and critical thinking skills. Instead of viewing TOK as an additional burden, teachers can leverage AO5 to enhance existing curricula, embedding TOK principles organically into subject-specific lessons and assignments.

Crucially, AO5 has the potential to democratize TOK education by empowering all educators to become TOK teachers in their own right. By providing training and support to integrate TOK seamlessly into their teaching practices, schools can ensure that every student benefits from the transformative power of critical thinking.

We can persist in imparting canonical knowledge of "Theory of Knowledge" within these critical thinking laboratories, focusing on concepts such as knowing, knowledge, shared knowledge, scope, theories of truth, and checks.

However, it may be premature to evaluate their proficiency in deploying this terminology through verbose assessments. Introducing and assessing their capability to articulate TOK issues, conform to rubrics, and utilize canonical language (second-order thinking language) devoid of any established structure might be premature at this stage.

Are 17-Year-Olds Prepared for Exclusive TOK Assessments?

By the end of DP1, are students truly prepared to undertake the daunting task of writing an exhibition? Consider the challenges they face: they haven't even completed the entire curriculum. Yet, here we are, expecting them to engage in multiple battles simultaneously.

Expecting students to navigate these complexities within such a short timeframe presents a significant challenge. They must grapple with TOK-level thinking while simultaneously developing strong writing skills and meeting the criteria outlined in nuanced rubrics for each assessment instrument. Spending months refining their work, drafting and redrafting lengthy essays further adds to the pressure. Additionally, they must understand how TOK manifests in the real world, all within a mere 6-7 months of being exposed to the subject for the first time. Selecting appropriate objects for analysis, formulating connections with the prompt at a second-order level, ensuring their arguments are framed effectively, and mastering the art of persuasive, argumentative writing only compound the complexity of the task at hand. After all these efforts, only one round of feedback is allowed for the exhibition.

If TOK were simply assessed as an Ao5, it would alleviate students and teachers from the added complexity of mastering an additional assessment task. This approach would free up cognitive space, allowing them to seamlessly apply the critical thinking skills they've learned within their respective subject areas.

Is it fair to expect a student, who is new to the subject and only 17 years old, to master assessments that typically take an average non-TOK teacher 2-3 years to fully understand? With the advancement of AI technology, why wouldn't a teenager simply opt to delegate the tedious writing tasks to AI? With tools like ChatGPT, traditional essays and exhibitions increasingly seem like redundant methods of assessing critical thinking skills.

In theory, we'd love nothing more than to see our students wield TOK's canonical language with finesse, crafting elegant essays and commentaries that showcase a profound understanding of the subject. But let's take a step back: are we forgetting that our students are just 17 years old?

It's high time we reconsidered the practicality of maintaining these burdensome TOK assessments, especially when even seasoned teachers take a good 2-3 years to wrap their heads around them. Isn't it about time we put pragmatism ahead of tradition?

Fundamental Issue with the examining the TOK Assessments

The current structure of TOK assessments presents several limitations, particularly regarding the examination process. Consider a TOK examiner tasked with evaluating an essay discussing examples of knowledge from history, math, or psychology. As a psychology teacher, assessing the effectiveness of second-order critical thinking built upon a solid foundation of first-order knowledge in various subject areas poses a significant challenge. Additionally, since a single TOK teacher cannot possibly cover all Areas of Knowledge (AOKs), we rely on subject teachers to contribute their expertise. However, it seems inconsistent to then expect the same TOK teacher to assess examples from all AOKs. Ultimately, the evaluation often boils down to a subjective judgment of whether the argument "sounds logical," highlighting the inherent limitations of the current examination approach.

Am I buying into the notion that our students believe? No, that's not the case.

As a psychologist, my role extends beyond crafting excellent learning outcomes and curriculum. I also examine how these educational materials actually play out in the day-to-day psychological experiences of both students and teachers.

Sure, we might have top-notch subject guides in place, seasoned educators who relish teaching canonical TOK (Theory of Knowledge), and few students who excel in crafting TOK assessments with sophisticated jargon. Yet, my focus as a psychologist is on understanding how these assessments shape students' perceptions of TOK. Do they foster enthusiasm or aversion towards the subject? Do they instill fear in non-TOK teachers or create a sense of disconnection? Moreover, I'm interested in exploring the extent to which TOK is embraced by each and every teacher.

We require more educational psychologists to ensure that these meticulously designed curricula translate effectively into the lived experiences of both teachers and students. It's crucial to assess the impact of these materials on students' thoughts and emotions, as well as their accessibility for neurologically diverse students who may not excel in traditional essay writing but possess alternative methods of expressing their critical thinking skills.

If, at the end of two years, students worldwide perceive TOK as an isolated subject, it's essential to introspect rather than defaulting to explanations like "students don't understand its value" or "students are lazy." Such attributions miss the mark. Instead, we must examine how we, are systematically contributing to this prevailing narrative.

Teaching TOK isn't solely about us reveling in the exclusivity of having mastered it ourselves. It's about critically evaluating how our teaching methods and curriculum design impact the learning experiences of students. If students feel that TOK is disconnected from their broader educational journey, it's incumbent upon us to reassess our approach. This entails ensuring that TOK is integrated meaningfully into the curriculum and that its relevance is clearly demonstrated to students. Ultimately, the goal is to enrich students' educational experiences rather than perpetuate perceptions of TOK as a standalone and inaccessible subject.

Conclusion

I love of the concept of having TOK-exclusive assessments such as exhibitions and essays. However, the psychological implications of this approach include the risk of creating a division between TOK and other subjects in students' minds, potentially leading to the emergence of "non-TOK teachers." Moreover, such assessments often demand expertise in language and philosophy to formulate compelling arguments, which may require extensive drafting and the guidance of teachers with specialized skills in essay-based responses, language, and philosophy.

Considering that students aged 16-17 are just being introduced to the concept of Theory of Knowledge, and teachers may not necessarily be exclusively trained in philosophy and language, the question arises whether the considerable investment of time and effort required for such assessments is justified. Additionally, students are already grappling with a plethora of academic commitments, including Internal Assessments (IAs), the Extended Essay (EE), CAS (Creativity, Activity, Service), PD (Personal Development) coursework, ongoing formative and summative assessments, group 4 projects, and early admissions processes.

Balancing these demands alongside the introduction of complex TOK-exclusive assessments may risk overwhelming students and teachers alike, raising doubts about the practicality and effectiveness of such an approach. Therefore, careful consideration should be given to the implementation of TOK assessments to ensure they align with the developmental stage of students and the resources available within the educational system.

Way forward - Lets research and test above assumptions

Research conducted by educational psychologists in IB schools could provide valuable insights into the following research questions:

1. How do non-TOK teachers perceive TOK? What are their attitudes and feelings towards the subject?

2. To what extent do non-TOK teachers experience hesitation or reluctance to formally teach TOK? What are the underlying factors contributing to this hesitation?

3. How do TOK-exclusive assessments influence students' perceptions and attitudes towards TOK? What impact do these assessments have on students' thoughts and feelings about the subject?

4. To what extent do our current methods of assessing TOK accommodate students who excel in critical thinking but struggle with language skills? Are these assessments inclusive of diverse student abilities and needs?

5. How does the mastering of TOK assessment instruments create power dynamics in the staffroom among TOK and non-TOK teachers? What implications does this have for collaboration and professional relationships?

6. To what extent does subjectivity exist in TOK examiners while examining TOK assessments? How do individual biases and interpretations influence assessment outcomes?

7. How can we design questions within each subject area under AO5, which students can seamlessly showcase their application of critical thinking skills they learn in Critical Thinking Lab (TOK) classes?

By addressing these research questions, educational psychologists can offer valuable insights that may inform improvements to the teaching, learning, and assessment of TOK within IB schools.

References

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2020). Diploma Programme Theory of Knowledge guide. Geneva, Switzerland: International Baccalaureate Organization. https://www.ibo.org

Jeon, H. (2021). Buddhist Psychotherapy: Wisdom from Early Buddhist Teaching (1st ed.). Springer Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63098-0