*This article is part of the TOK Roadmap — a visual, all-in-one guide I created to help you ace Theory of Knowledge. [View the full roadmap here.]
In this article, I show you
- An overview of the recommended TOK essay structure
- A step-by-step breakdown of the structure with example
1,600 words is daunting… but don’t worry—this guide breaks down the entire TOK essay into clean, logical pieces you can follow with example arguments.
If you just want to know how to write a good paragraph, jump to this post.
TOK Essay Structure
A good TOK essay structure looks like this…
I recommend you use all 1,600 words. The word count doesn’t include
- acknowledgements
- references (footnotes, endnotes, or in-text) and works cited section
- any maps, charts, diagrams, annotated illustrations or tables
Source: IBO
Breakdown of the TOK Essay structure
I’ll use May 2023 title #1 “Is replicability necessary in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge” as an example.
Introduction (100~150 words)
—Here’s the question I’m exploring, why it’s important, and how I’m going to answer it.
Step 1) Explore important keywords or key phrases in the title.
—There’s no one correct way to approach the intro, but let me tell you the easiest method if you’re stuck: try exploring what each keyword or key phrase is and what it isn’t as it relates to what you want to argue. Replicability generally refers to the ability to reproduce an outcome, which differs from the act of replication. While its significance varies across Areas of Knowledge, the term centers on whether achieving the same outcome is consistently ‘possible,’ not whether it has been replicated. The title asks whether this ability is necessary when producing knowledge, implying some creation of new knowledge. By doing this, I have set the boundaries of each keyword.
—You can check dictionary definitions, but don’t simply list them, because declaring a narrow definition can limit your essay.
—Show examiners that you understood the prompt correctly. You will continue to explore keywords throughout the essay, so you don’t need to define everything in the intro.
—Some titles may ask you to consider specific TOK terms, like ‘methods’ and ‘scope.’ In that case, check related TOK-specific resources and consider what they mean.
Step 2) You can also enrich the intro by addressing why answering this question is important in the real world.
—What’s the real-life relevance of this title in our world? Why do we actually have to answer this question? The global replicability crisis, especially in the sciences, forces us to review whether replicability is really a prerequisite for producing reliable knowledge, as we decide on what to trust, and what to discard.
Step 3) Finally, introduce your Areas of Knowledge (AoKs), along with a note on how you are going to answer the title.
—It can be a thesis if you have one overall argument, or you can simply mention how you will approach this essay in each AoK. e.g., Through Natural Sciences and Human Sciences, I explore…/In Natural Sciences, it is… while in Human Sciences…
Discussion of AOK 1 (600~650 words total)
—Here’s one way to answer the title, with an example. After that, I present opposing and different perspectives that give us other ways to answer it.
#1 First Body Paragraph (1st main argument)
Step 1) State your main argument
—Preferably, make an argument about a specific area of study within your AoK (if your AoK is natural sciences, maybe it’s physics.. or chemistry). This ensures that you don’t just talk about the Natural Sciences as a whole, for example.
—One argument per paragraph. In the natural sciences, particularly in classical physics, replicability is necessary for the production of any new law of nature. This is because, under the same conditions, such laws must yield the same outcome universally and consistently…
Step 2) Find a specific example and explain how it supports your argument.
—The example should be real and relevant to your argument (i.e. no hypothetical thought experiments or a list of complicated philosophy concepts). I would need to choose a specific physics law to talk about here.
—Always connect back to your title. “This shows that without replicability, … production of a new law of physics can face severe restrictions…”
Step 3) When possible, consider the implications of your argument.
—Once you’ve explained your example, take a step further: evaluate your argument, connect your point back to your AoK, your title, and maybe even explore what it reveals about knowledge more broadly. This is where you can go beyond ‘explanations’ and show real depth.
—There’s a lot to say about implications, so check out this guide for a detailed breakdown and example.
#2 Second Body Paragraph (opposing/different perspective)
—Same structure as Paragraph #1 (Steps 1 to 3), but with either an opposing perspective or a different perspective. Although replicability is often considered a must-have in classical physics, some valuable knowledge in physics have been produced through singular, unrepeatable events…
—You can find evidence that directly challenges your previous argument (opposing perspective), or find an example in a different area of study that offers a different kind of argument (different perspective).
#3 (optional) Third Body Paragraph (opposing/different perspective)
—If you decide to write ~200 words for the first two paragraphs, you may consider adding a third opposing/different perspective in the same discipline or a different one (maybe chemistry or biology!) In biology, replicability works in a slightly different way, as it deals with complex biological systems that have thousands of unpredictable variables…
—In fact, I think it’s a good idea to have one to show that you really considered different perspectives. If you aren’t careful, the first and second paragraph can sound like “here’s my argument” and… “here’s why my argument is terrible.” This is not recommended.
Discussion of AOK 2 (600~650 words total)
—EXACTLY same structure as AoK 1 (1st, 2nd, and optional 3rd paragraph) with your second AoK, different disciplines, and different approaches to the title. Example argument: In the human sciences, achieving replicability is often more difficult. Consider cultural anthropology, where fieldwork conducted in specific communities cannot be exactly replicated, yet the knowledge it produces still holds great value.
—Add one or two more paragraphs…
Conclusion (150-200 words)
—Now that I’ve presented all my arguments, here’s my overall claim again, and what I learned about knowledge itself.
Step 1) Briefly synthesize your arguments into one final observation. What’s your overall argument? Don’t simply rewrite your thesis. While replicability is a defining feature of production of knowledge in the natural sciences, especially in disciplines like classical physics, its role in the human sciences is more complex. Whether replicability is absolutely necessary may depend on both the context in which knowledge is produced, as well as its practical applications.
Step 2) Discuss the implications of arguments you made.
—What do these arguments say about AoKs or knowledge in general? How and why are they important in the real-world (for us, for people, for the world)? Sometimes, there is a trade-off between ensuring replicability and recognizing the practical usefulness of knowledge produced, making us question how much flexibility we can or should tolerate in real-world situations...
Works Cited (not included in word count)
- Here, cite any sources you used as evidence
To note, this is not the only possible TOK Essay structure. For example, instead of separating your essay by Areas of Knowledge, you might choose to organize it around your main arguments and integrate the AoKs throughout. That’s totally viable — but it comes with a risk: it’s easier to accidentally focus too much on one AoK (like 800 words) and neglect the other (400 words).
Structuring your essay by AoKs guarantees that you use ~600 words for each AoK. If you choose to mix them, go for it, but just be careful to keep things balanced.
Leave a Reply