Thank you for your kind comment. I really appreciate the positive feedback. I will make a video on Prompt 15, but I'm afraid that it'll be a couple of weeks before I publish it. I'm a bit busy for the rest of this week. Thanks & keep watching !
@@toktoday7978 no worries! i just wanted to get a new perspective on that prompt since i’m writing my commentary based on it and was hoping to consider a new approach to widen the scope of my interpretations 😅
@@toktoday7978 it’s alright, my first draft is actually due today and i’m currently trying to figure out the third object. by the time you make the video i’m sure it would be a helpful source to improve my second draft!
Hello! Your video is amazing and really helpful; however, I do have an issue. I'm having a hard time breaking down the prompt but I see that you unpacked it well and that's really helpful so thank you so much!? For example, what is "on what grounds", is it the evidence, or on what basis? Thank you!
Thanks for the comment, and the kind words. You are correct that the "grounds" are the key to the prompt. The grounds could be the claimant (eg their intention, their context etc), the methodology by which the claim is made, pre-existing knowledge relating to the claim, the claim itself, competing claims, the context of the recipient of the claim, the knowledge community from which the claim arises, or the knowledge community within which the claim is received etc etc. There are so many ways to answer this prompt. My commentary is just one of many different ways in which to answer the prompt. Best of luck with your Exhibition !
@@toktoday7978 Thank you so much, I believe all my confusion is put to rest. I do have another issue, are the stances of the object to the prompt important, I was told each object should have a stance (support, neutral, against) on the claim. Also, you just earned yourself a new subscriber! Keep making these videos!
Glad to hear that the video has helped. There's also a fuller explanation on ToKToday.com. Having a stance certainly can work for many of the prompts. I wouldn't quite term it like that. If you can give reasons for the inclusion of each object that are specific for that particular object you will get a higher score (see this video: ruclips.net/video/xFf9Cuxq6Dk/видео.html). This is why I recommend developing 3 knowledge claims, 1 for each object, and then tie the object to the knowledge claim. This will help the commentary to be specific for each object, and for each object to have a specific perspective on the prompt. Thanks for the Subscribe - that's very MUCH appreciated !
@@toktoday7978 Hello, sir! Sorry for being a bother! I took your advice, and my teacher sees improvement yet he stressed that the justification were repeated and that the object of new production of knowledge was an invalid claim since normally things are tested. He graded me and gave me this according to the criteria. Please if you have any advice please do give me some, and thank you for helping me with my TOK journey! Here is the criteria he gave me: -The exhibition identifies three objects, although the real-world contexts of these objects may be vaguely or imprecisely stated. -There is some explanation of the links between the three objects and the selected IA prompt. -There is a superficial justification for the inclusion of each object in the exhibition. Reasons for the inclusion of the objects are offered, but these are not supported by appropriate evidence and/or lack relevance to the selected IA prompt.
your videos are incredibly helpful! could you please make a video for prompt 15?
Thank you for your kind comment. I really appreciate the positive feedback. I will make a video on Prompt 15, but I'm afraid that it'll be a couple of weeks before I publish it. I'm a bit busy for the rest of this week. Thanks & keep watching !
@@toktoday7978 no worries! i just wanted to get a new perspective on that prompt since i’m writing my commentary based on it and was hoping to consider a new approach to widen the scope of my interpretations 😅
I think I'll be able to get the vid for Prompt 15 on Mon 8th May. I hope that's not too late for you.
@@toktoday7978 it’s alright, my first draft is actually due today and i’m currently trying to figure out the third object. by the time you make the video i’m sure it would be a helpful source to improve my second draft!
Hello! Your video is amazing and really helpful; however, I do have an issue. I'm having a hard time breaking down the prompt but I see that you unpacked it well and that's really helpful so thank you so much!? For example, what is "on what grounds", is it the evidence, or on what basis? Thank you!
Thanks for the comment, and the kind words. You are correct that the "grounds" are the key to the prompt. The grounds could be the claimant (eg their intention, their context etc), the methodology by which the claim is made, pre-existing knowledge relating to the claim, the claim itself, competing claims, the context of the recipient of the claim, the knowledge community from which the claim arises, or the knowledge community within which the claim is received etc etc. There are so many ways to answer this prompt. My commentary is just one of many different ways in which to answer the prompt. Best of luck with your Exhibition !
@@toktoday7978 Thank you so much, I believe all my confusion is put to rest. I do have another issue, are the stances of the object to the prompt important, I was told each object should have a stance (support, neutral, against) on the claim. Also, you just earned yourself a new subscriber! Keep making these videos!
Glad to hear that the video has helped. There's also a fuller explanation on ToKToday.com.
Having a stance certainly can work for many of the prompts. I wouldn't quite term it like that. If you can give reasons for the inclusion of each object that are specific for that particular object you will get a higher score (see this video: ruclips.net/video/xFf9Cuxq6Dk/видео.html). This is why I recommend developing 3 knowledge claims, 1 for each object, and then tie the object to the knowledge claim. This will help the commentary to be specific for each object, and for each object to have a specific perspective on the prompt. Thanks for the Subscribe - that's very MUCH appreciated !
@@toktoday7978 Hello, sir! Sorry for being a bother! I took your advice, and my teacher sees improvement yet he stressed that the justification were repeated and that the object of new production of knowledge was an invalid claim since normally things are tested. He graded me and gave me this according to the criteria. Please if you have any advice please do give me some, and thank you for helping me with my TOK journey! Here is the criteria he gave me:
-The exhibition identifies three objects, although the real-world
contexts of these objects may be vaguely or imprecisely stated.
-There is some explanation of the links between the three objects and the selected IA prompt.
-There is a superficial justification for the inclusion of each object in the exhibition. Reasons for the inclusion of the objects are offered, but these are not supported by appropriate evidence and/or lack relevance to the selected IA prompt.
the link to the full commentary is not working.
Whoops ! another one, as ever thank you, I've fixed it now. Thanks.