# data[].attributes.headline
Do we underestimate the challenge of taking knowledge out of its original concept and transferring it to another context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do we underestimate the challenge of taking knowledge out of its original concept and transferring it to another context?

# data[].attributes.body
When reviewing my philosophical dialogue, I found the most common feedback from myself and others was that it was strong in verbiage, yet weak in specific examples. Though there are ways my dialogue could improve, the practice of getting back into Theory of Knowledge based thinking will be immensely helpful to the writing of our extended essay. I know now through the process of writing and reviewing my dialogue that I need to work on my cohesion of TOK verbiage with conversational verbiage after the review of my PQPs. This outside opinion helps me better obtain a realistic view of what an IB grader might also be thinking. While my peer’s interpretations are not at the same professionality as an IB grader, I can apply both their feedback and the expectations found in the IB rubric to gain a broader understanding of my interpretation of my knowledge question. From the IB rubric, I gave myself a 6 due to my many knowledge questions and applications embedded into my dialogue, along with the greater understanding of the Theory of Knowledge course goals and vocabulary I incorporated into my writing.

# data[].attributes.body
When receiving the feedback from my peers about my philosophical dialogue I felt like I had more things to improve not. Some strengths I got was using a real conflict/situation and introducing a parent as a “custodian of knowledge”. But some flaws I got throughout my feedback was not being loud enough, taking a long time to get to the question, being repetitive, and not putting more depth into my story such as context or knowledge questions. This feedback has helped me learn what I need to do better on my next assignment. I will do better next time by taking my time and using my resources. I will also think deeper and ask more questions so I can give more answers and even think of more questions. Overall, I would give myself a 5/10 because it wasn’t the best, but it wasn’t the worst. I have a lot to improve on and fix for next time. My philosophical dialogue included the question and some depth, but it needs to be more expanded.

# data[].attributes.body
When reviewing my philosophical dialogue most feedback said the conversion between the characters sounded natural and wasn’t awkward, but it was weak when it came to the placement of the knowledge question and referencing back to it. I know that I need to remember to bring up the knowledge question more, use more TOK in the essay, and give more context to my examples. Having good examples that you can back up and speak about is more important than having multiple of them. I need to for sure work on using more TOK verbiage and bringing up the knowledge question more so the reader doesn’t forget it and bring it up sooner. I would give myself a 5 out of 10. I bring up the arguments and have examples to back them up, the topic stays the same but looks at other points of view regarding the main topic.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

# data[].attributes.body
Upon rereading and reviewing the critiques of my dialogue, I believe that my greatest weakness was the superficiality of my arguments. I believe that while I had created arguments for both sides and used supporting evidence, the discussion was quite surface level and did not have many talking points that went beyond basic comprehension. However, because of this process, I have become a better writer, especially within the context of Theory of Knowledge. Through this dialogue, I have better learned how to create and answer knowledge questions, find evidence to support them, and how to examine an argument through multiple lenses. I believe the part of the assessment tool that sticks out most to me is the points on how the writing is supported and deepened by the correct usage of evidence. I will continue to work on my writing's clarity and ensure a deeper discussion about the knowledge question. After a review of the feedback and overall process of writing this reflection, I have decided to give myself a score of 6/10, as the dialogue has good foundation but ultimately lacks the substance to push it into the upper ranges of the rubric.

# data[].attributes.body
A strength of mine is my ability to create a dialogue that feels natural and engaging, with transitions between topics to maintain clarity. However, some of the examples/evidence I used was not quite specific enough. I learned that it is very easy to think you’re being specific about an example when you’re really just alluding to a phenomenon. This is not the same as explaining an actual instance of it. I also did not write this with a very robust outline to start out with, but I realized that those are sometimes necessary with writing like this. I would give myself a score of six or seven on the rubric. I think my dialogue did sustain focus on the prompt/topic, but I never actually incorporated the KQ into a line of dialogue. I could have made more explicit references back to the KQ. I also forgot to include narration at the beginning to provide context and introduce the characters. I do think I had clear arguments and examples, but one or two of my examples weren’t completely relevant to the KQ, making those points a little confusing. I did address and evaluate different points of view.

# data[].attributes.headline
To what extent is subjectivity condemned in history but celebrated in the arts?

# data[].attributes.subject
To what extent is subjectivity condemned in history but celebrated in the arts?

# data[].attributes.body
Within the context of the philosophical dialogue assignment, one huge strength that I liked pertaining to the context of the philosophical dialogue assignment would be the entertainment of both perspectives within the context of the question. I think that there was a lack of a strawman which benefited the overall scope of coverage in relation to the value of this particular dialogue. On the other hand, a glaring weakness that this dialogue suffers within the context of the assignment would be the lack of standardized tone which could make tracking each individual argument harder, especially with the contrast and similarities present throughout both sides.

The assignment largely encapsulates the value of critical thinking through a variation of debate through conversation. This style of dialogue writing created a space for me to consider both sides of an argument on a more even basis, helping me reduce the degree of cognitive bias: creating a central argument that genuinely challenged my beliefs, gaining knowledge along the way.

From the experience gained, a huge space for growth would be within the general organization of arguments. The comprehension of points could be more overt with the arguments being more in depth and interconnected rather than spread to tackle a variety of points. If I had to assign a value, I would give this assessment within the band of 6-7 as I feel that both sides of the arguments were tackled well and the discussion linked consistently to the title, but the coherence and support could be unclear at certain points, leading me to choose an in between value of 6-7.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

# data[].attributes.body
After reflecting on my philosophical dialogue, I found a few areas necessary for change and areas that aligned with my original intentions. A lot of feedback that I received regarded the examples, stating they weren’t completely integrated or utilized to their full potential. As someone who focuses on creativity and preserving the art of writing pieces, I hope to extend my skills to the more technical aspect of Theory of Knowledge, like the specific concepts and terms used in the handbook. As well as learning how to use evidence and examples to fully support my piece, as they are necessary when formulating argumentative writing. I did find a plethora of feedback praising the humor and creativity of my piece, as well as the arguments and topics I developed within my discussion. Criticism from my PQPs helps me to reflect on what I as a writer and a student of TOK can do to work on my weakest points and facilitate my strongest. The process as a whole helped me apply TOK to a broader spectrum and a greater global perspective, looking at knowledge through the sphere of all of history and art. Based on IB’s rubric, I’d give myself a 6 based on my clear examples and discussion, but also because of my inability to provide a sufficient amount of evidence for all the points of discussion I introduce.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history?

# data[].attributes.body
The most common feedback I received from others was that I needed to give more exposition to both my dialogue entirely as well as some of the terms that I discussed. I agree with this, especially when it comes to defining terms that I used within my dialogue. I used terms like history, arts, and subjectivity heavily, but did not spend much time defining the terms. In a similar, future essay I could make a point to define key terms, as well as giving more attention to introducing my characters and their dialogue.

My peers also noted, and I also believe, that I had a strong set of examples. I believe that especially my examples about Nazi records and Anne Frank's Diary added a lot to my point. My example about oral history, however, was too general.

Although not many of my peers told me this, I believe that my dialogue did not use enough TOK-specific language. Using these words well within my writing could make it a lot more attractive to an IB grader when reviewing both my TOK essay as well as IAs for other classes, especially Philosophy. I resolve to work on this.

I would give myself a 6-7 on the IB rubric. I believe that my characters' arguments were supported by solid examples, and the dialogue structure made sure that different points of view were addressed. I feel like it was very grounded in the history AoK, and moderately to the arts.

# data[].attributes.body
As I reflect on my philosophical dialogue, I noticed that my dialogue was written more to be read than to be spoken. From the feedback given to me by myself and others, I included well examples, connected the question to multiple areas of knowledge/ perspectives and strongly implemented the TOK verbiage, however at times my dialogue seemed one sided-- one character asking all the questions and the other learning. If I were to write this again I might be more specific with my examples, contain less repetition, and create balance between the two characters roles. Through this assignment I have been able to apply personal examples towards a broader question, which will be helpful as the essay will have the same approach and practice. From this assignment, I have learned more about the relationship between custodians of knowledge, myself, and others. I learned more of what a custodian is and the importance of custodians in the different areas of knowledge. I want to grow on my ability to apply and highlight one example without becoming redundant. As a result of my reflection, I give myself the score of 4-5 because my dialogue linked the two different areas of knowledge well and a majority of my examples supported my argument. However, at times I felt my argument was limited and did not have the extent of evaluating other points. As a result, I give myself a score of 4-5.

# data[].attributes.body
In my feedback, a common praise I received was that I addressed the prompt well by defining the specific phrase from my question “custodian of knowledge.” Some negative feedback that I received consistently was that some of the dialogue was somewhat repetitive and that I dragged out the topic of AI for a little too long. From this practice I learned that I should keep focus on one topic for only as long as I need to and to focus on moving forward with the discussion to further develop other topics within the dialogue. In the TOK assessment tool, I feel that through this assignment, the expressing multiple different points of view is highlighted as that is a major point of a conversation. I also believe it highlights the arguments being offered and supported by examples. To grow I will work on providing more detailed real-world examples within the dialogue and connecting the title and different areas of knowledge. On this assignment I would give myself a 5 or 6 because it does follow many parts of the rubric but not strongly or enough in depth to earn a higher score.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context?

# data[].attributes.body
In reviewing my philosophical dialogue, I realized that my strengths within the script included my examples and the extent to which I explained each one. A weakness I noticed was that some examples I provided had more extensive explorations into how they pertained to my arguments than others and connected deeper with multiple examples than others as well. When answering my KQ I realized what forms of contexts exist and how they compare to each other, such as newer vs. older context. This resonated with the essay assessment the most in the fact that in my own dialogue I tried to include a variety of areas of knowledge to pull my arguments from, which is what most titles will have the student do when writing the actual essay. In this dialogue my conclusion was a bit rushed, and my arguments were not as developed as I had hoped they would be. In my essay I will try to give both sides of my argument a fair fight yet ultimately end up with a concrete answer at the end which is supported and feels natural. I would give myself a 6 since I believe that I kept my focus on my title, I made clear arguments and supported them, and although I may have lacked in furthering my counter arguments, they were present in the dialogue nonetheless.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is the inevitably strongest?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is the inevitably strongest?

# data[].attributes.body
As I reflect on my philosophical dialogue, I notice that many of the reviews comment on how humorous my dialogue was, however some of the discussions went past the question in a way that didn’t allow for a strong connection to be made. Another comment was that my TOK verbiage needed to be stronger in the arguments, and I can account that to the fact that I did not do anything TOK related over the summer and lost my skills relating to the class; however, they also said that my verbiage use at the end of the dialogue was really good. On a positive note, many of the PQPs I received said that my examples were strong, I explained them well, and they formed strong connections from the areas of knowledge to the knowledge questions. As a result, I now know to think about how to wrap up a dialogue or essay without making a cliché statement or drifting too far from the topic at hand. I will try to grow my TOK vocabulary so that the verbiage is easier for me to incorporate into my writing. From looking at peer reviews and the IB rubric, I would say that my dialogue is a low 7. I feel that some of my examples could’ve been stronger, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t coherent or clear. I believe that I supported other ideas and opinions in my dialogue, especially in the end when I tried to make it take a broader perspective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nothings more exciting then fresh ideas! Why are some areas of knowledge so slow to adapt to them?

# data[].attributes.subject
Nothings more exciting then fresh ideas! Why are some areas of knowledge so slow to adapt to them?

# data[].attributes.body
Reviewing my efforts taken to write my philosophical dialogue, as well as peer reviews I fell that overall I did as expected. A few things that I did well include, integrating the question in my dialogue well, and using TOK verbiage throughout. I feel that I met the guidelines of the writing and put in my best efforts. I fell short when giving my examples, more in depth analysis was not given. The flow of my dialogue was structured well, but the sentences were a little choppy. My dialogue and arguments link back to the KQ, as well as supported by examples that were relevant. I include awareness of other point of views as well. Next time I will include deeper analysis and make sure to touch up on the flow of my sentences. For this, I give myself a 7 on the TOK Essay assessment rubric.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Subjectivity Overly Celebrated in the Arts but Unfairly Condemned in History?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Subjectivity Overly Celebrated in the Arts but Unfairly Condemned in History?

# data[].attributes.body
For the philosophical dialogue, my strengths are the development of the conversation and defining the words to match the context they are being used. I can still improve by not only being more specific with the explanation of my examples but I could also give more analysis to show my thinking. The biggest flaw in this is my unclear train of thought and I believe adding more analysis could help clarify everything. I would like to strengthen my weaknesses because I think that my score can improve a large amount by doing so. From this assignment, I have gained more insight into how others feel but also have learned new ways of thinking for myself. Based on the TOK assessment tool my dialogue is not only basic but underdeveloped. For those reasons, I will be giving myself between a 3 and a 4 on this assignment.

# data[].attributes.headline
If fresh new ideas are so exciting, why are areas of knowledge so slow to adopt them?

# data[].attributes.subject
If fresh new ideas are so exciting, why are areas of knowledge so slow to adopt them?

# data[].attributes.body
I think overall in my dialogue, I had a good understanding of the task at hand in creating a script easily accessible to understanding the main point of the TOK question. I had drawn out examples in a organized way that could easily be connected throughout the story. Although, the consequences of this is that some ideas in the main examples might not be as philosophically intriguing in a more deeper matter, maybe making each idea fall short of what I really wanted to write about. I think the TOK essay assessment really highlights the awareness of having a connection of your argument to your examples, it is the key factor in understand how to fully draw out your stance on a question and fully write about the concept. I want to work more towards furthering that idea given so that I can have a more drawn-out essay that incorporates the creativity shown in the script writing as well as the understanding of the question on a deeper level. I think overall my dialogue could stem from a five as I have tried to get the connection across as best as I could.

# data[].attributes.body
The dialogue, I thought, had a decent number of examples and those examples were supported by an okay amount of discussion. However, I agree with people who thought that I hadn’t explored the entirety of the ideas that I had introduced and had brushed off further discussion too quickly. While I was writing, I’d also move on too quickly to the next topic, out of fear of hitting word count. It’d probably be good to spend more time on fewer examples to fully explore those ideas. Then, I also thought the dialogue had a conversational feeling to it, although now my opinion is very different. While the dialogue had a more casual tone, it bordered on professional in a way that made it sound more awkward than it should’ve. Also, reading it again, the dialogue feels clunky; while some parts flowed well, others read like a list of bullet points. I’d say something thing to work on would be to explore the full scope of the ideas I bring up. For example, Chestnut mentioned how a museum could be a custodian of knowledge, which I had not thought of at all during the writing process. Because of this, I know I should think just a bit deeper on future TOK projects, and just put some more effort into really thinking about things. Then, the last thing would be to identify areas of knowledge, as opposed to implying a discussion about them. I think the sustained, focused discussion on one topic was an important part of this project, which I think I did decent on. Overall, I think the dialogue would be around a 4 to a 5 on the rubric.

# data[].attributes.body
Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge so slow to adopt them?

After reviewing my essay, I believe that my biggest strength is that I brought in a variety of examples from different times and places. This broadened the scope of my dialogue and allowed me to have more universal assumptions. However, this also worked against me because I did not elaborate on each one enough and connect it back to the original question and made my arguments weaker. As a result of this practice, I learned that I should sustain focus on the topic throughout the essay or dialogue. When I wrote my essay, I was primarily concerned with getting enough examples down and having some form of analysis for each one. Instead, I should keep in mind how what I am saying connects back to the knowledge question and how I will answer it. Additionally, I realized that I should incorporate more epistemological questions that guide the dialogue back to the topic. This weakness of mine is reflected in the TOK Essay Assessment rubric; the first criteria in all columns is how focused or connected the essay is to the title. The fact that my essay did not have a clear and coherent argument also would make the dialogue receive a lower score on the rubric. Overall, I would give myself a 5, due to the multiple viewpoints I discuss and the insight of my arguments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

# data[].attributes.body
After looking at my philosophical dialogue feedback I found that people thought my dialogue was funny with easy to follow examples, but they thought I didn’t explore my examples and question fully. Through writing and looking at feedback from my dialogue I agree with this. I think that I had good examples that had potential but my weakness was not pulling apart and examining each part of the example and connecting it to the question. Next time I write I will use more of the TOK vocabulary that we are learning in class and ask smaller questions that help me lead to the answer of my big question. I think this will help me fully understand the question and help my audience understand the question too. Looking at the IB rubric I think I earned a 4. While I connected my dialogue to the question, I think I had limited arguments that focused more on one side of the argument rather than fully examining both sides. I also feel that my dialogue was underdeveloped and could be improved by using the feedback I’ve been given.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nothing more exciting than fresh ideas. Why are some areas of knowledge so slow to adopt them.

# data[].attributes.subject
Nothing more exciting than fresh ideas. Why are some areas of knowledge so slow to adopt them.

# data[].attributes.body
When reviewing my philosophical dialogue, I saw that most of my feedback said I wrote the dialogue itself well making it seem like a real conversation, but one thing I could work on is adding more connections to the knowledge question itself. This practice has helped me increase my TOK vocabulary which I am sure will help me when it is time to start writing the essay later this year. For next time I will incorporate more points of view. I also want to grow by incorporating more specific examples into my writing. Also making that connection back to my knowledge question would help improve my writing. Using this mark band I would give myself a 5 out of 10 because I felt I was right in that middle range of meeting these expectations but with this practice I hope to do better on the actual essay.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are we too quick to assume that most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are we too quick to assume that most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

# data[].attributes.body
After reviewing my dialogue and the feedback, my strengths were that I was able to organize the dialogue coherently, incorporate areas of knowledge, and provide specific examples to support my points. However, some weaknesses included the need to break down my points and add more examples for clarity. The feedback and questions were helpful points for improving future writings. This practice helped me enhance my writing skills, learn how to use evidence, and gain more context in Theory of Knowledge. On the TOK assessment elements, I aim to focus on making clear arguments and supporting them effectively with specific examples from different perspectives. I will continue practicing to improve the quality of my writing and better align with the criteria. I would give myself a score of 5/10 as while I had arguments and examples with connection to the areas of knowledge, the analysis was not in depth, clear, or well defined for the audience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

# data[].attributes.subject
Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

# data[].attributes.body
To start with the positives, the dialogue does not beat about the bush regarding the question proposed—it dives in after only brief context, which left sufficient room to propose multiple viewpoints (of which the dialogue effectively demonstrates an awareness of). There were numerous, specific examples referenced by both characters, with an adequate amount of depth in the analysis of the larger examples. These examples also seemed to be easy for the audience to understand and connect to. However, the language of the dialogue, as well as its structure and a few of its references, were convoluted, and lacked explanation in definition and source. The delivery of this language, being light-hearted and comedic, also reduced the effectiveness of delivery, lessening the impacts of the points made. The discussion covered a wide range of knowledge areas, which meant some analysis was surface level. Finally, a development and progression from one idea to the other was not fully present, as characters presented fully formed arguments back-and-forth to one another, without development of the ideas. From this process, I think I have gained a new understanding of trying to find evidence of TOK in the real world and using it to support my claims (even if some cherry-picking—no one said TOK has to be impartial). Within the essay assessment tool, the only thing that stands out from the 7-8 category is the higher marking regarding different points of view (though this is balanced by some less-than-adequate support for arguments). At this point, what needs to be worked on is delving more into specific examples—looking at one thing from multiple angles, rather than only using it once to support one argument (also the convolution of the writing). Ultimately, the marking I would give to myself is a 6.5-7.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

# data[].attributes.body
After reviewing my dialogue, I realized that a strength I had was staying focused to the question and providing specific examples. However, a weakness I had was not exploring deeply enough into my examples. I could have brought in more examples from a different area of knowledge to balance my argument. I learned that focusing on a few examples is more effective than quickly analyzing several, and I could have weaved the examples into my dialogue in a more concise manner. By writing a dialogue, I have begun to explore how to present arguments in other ways outside of an essay such as a daily conversation. I also need to reword my dialogue to make flow more naturally and bring in more clarity for the audience to understand. I believe the most relevant part of the TOK essay assessment tool in this dialogue are being able to incorporate different points of view and supporting an argument with clear and coherent examples. I will improve by including less examples and more in-depth analysis. Trying to focus on making the conversation sound natural made me disregard any structure, but following a outline will guide me to stay focused on the question and provide a balance of examples and sufficient analysis. I give myself a 7/10 because I believe that I display a clear awareness of different perspectives and focus on the knowledge question, but my arguments lack convincing supportive evidence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do we need custodians of knowledge? - Olivia Corpus

# data[].attributes.subject
Do we need custodians of knowledge? - Olivia Corpus

# data[].attributes.body
I think overall, I have an issue with going in circles or being repetitive both in my dialogue and in writing in general. Often, I find myself repeating the same claim repeatedly in order to try to justify my claim, and even when reading it over I sometimes miss it – such as in this dialogue. I do, however, think I structured my argument well and put examples in places in the text that made logical sense in order for my argument to progress. The justification itself wasn’t incredible, but the actual structure of the paper was beneficial and will be helpful in drafting my essay, hopefully. I think my focus on the title was well-sustained, as my examples remained relevant to one another, but could have been significantly stronger with maybe one or two other examples. For this assignment in particular, I believe that I could grow in the scope of my exploration of the question; I answered it, but not sufficiently to every part of the question. There were ways to further my exploration, such as discussing other areas of knowledge and subject areas. I give myself a 5 overall, as I was able to support my argument and focus on the question at hand, but there was only a small amount of awareness of other viewpoints. Additionally, I had examples, but largely lacked nuance.