Mastering the TOK Exhibition: A Guide to Finding Your 3 Perfect Objects
The Theory of Knowledge (TOK) Exhibition can feel like one of the most abstract parts of the IB. It's worth one-third of your final TOK grade, and it all comes down to one task: connecting three real-world objects to one of the 35 prescribed IA prompts in a 950-word commentary.
But how do you find "perfect" objects? And what does a high-scoring commentary actually look like? This guide will walk you through the entire process, from choosing a prompt to structuring your analysis like a top-tier student.
By the end of this guide, you will be able to:
- Understand the three core components of the Exhibition.
- Distinguish between a generic, low-scoring object and a specific, high-scoring one.
- See concrete examples of how to link objects to different IA prompts.
- Use our "Assessor's Checklist" to avoid common mistakes and refine your work.
Part 1: The Three Pillars of Your Exhibition
Before we dive into strategy, let's get the fundamentals right. Your entire project is built on these three elements.
1. The IA Prompt
You must choose one of the 35 prescribed IA Prompts provided by the IB for your assessment year. You cannot alter the wording in any way. The key is to pick a prompt that genuinely sparks your curiosity, as you'll be exploring it in depth.
2. The Three Objects
These are the heart of your exhibition. They must be tangible things that exist in a specific time and place. They can be physical (like a book) or digital (like a tweet), but they cannot be hypothetical or generic. Each object must offer a unique perspective on your chosen prompt.
3. The 950-Word Commentary
This is the only part that is formally assessed. Forget long introductions or conclusions. Your 950 words must be dedicated to analyzing your three objects, explaining their real-world context, and justifying how each one illuminates your central IA prompt.
Part 2: What Makes a "Killer" Object?
The single biggest mistake students make is choosing vague or generic objects. This makes deep analysis impossible. Your goal is to be hyper-specific. Specificity is what allows for a rich discussion of knowledge.
| Avoid This (Generic & Vague) | Do This (Specific & Contextualized) |
|---|
| A map | The 1569 Mercator projection world map |
| A smartphone | My personal iPhone's screen-time report from last week |
| A religious book | My family's copy of the Qur'an, annotated by my grandmother |
| A tweet | A specific tweet from a political figure on January 6th, 2021 |
The Lanterna Tip: A great test for an object is asking: "Could I write 300+ words of rich TOK analysis about this, or will I run out of steam after describing it?" If it's the latter, find a new object. The object isn't the star of the show; your analysis of it is.
Part 3: Walkthrough – From Prompt to Analysis
Let's see this in action. Here are two examples of how you can pair a prompt with three distinct, specific objects to create a compelling argument.
IA Prompt Example 1: "What counts as knowledge?"
Object 1: A coded note from your childhood
Context: A note written in a secret language that only you and your best friend understood.
Analysis Angle: This explores how knowledge can be contextual and communal. For the "knowers" (you and your friend), the note is rich with information. For anyone else, it's meaningless scribbles. This shows that what "counts" as knowledge depends on shared understanding within a specific group.
Object 2: An MRI scan of a brain
Context: A specific medical image produced by a radiologist using standardized scientific methods.
Analysis Angle: This represents knowledge produced via the scientific method. It "counts" as knowledge because it's objective, reliable, and produced through a rigorous, universally understood process. It's designed to be knowledge for a global community of experts, not just a small group.
Object 3: A ticket stub from a concert
Context: A physical ticket from a concert that had a significant emotional impact on you.
Analysis Angle: This allows you to explore personal, experiential knowledge. The emotions and memories associated with this object are a form of knowledge for you, influencing your perspective. It's subjective and hard to validate externally, yet it powerfully shapes your worldview. This challenges the idea that only objective facts can "count" as knowledge.
IA Prompt Example 2: "How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion?"
Object 1: A university-level physics textbook
Context: A specific edition, e.g., "Halliday, Resnick, and Walker's 'Fundamentals of Physics', 10th Edition".
Analysis Angle: This object exemplifies knowledge as "justified true belief". Its claims are supported by empirical evidence, peer review, and rigorous methodology. This process of justification is what separates the scientific knowledge within it from mere opinion.
Object 2: A family's religious heirloom
Context: A specific artifact, like a crucifix passed down through three generations of your family.
Analysis Angle: This object represents belief. Its value and meaning are not based on empirical proof but on faith, tradition, and personal conviction. It helps explore how belief systems provide a framework for understanding the world that is deeply held but distinct from scientific knowledge, as it relies on different forms of justification.
Object 3: A viral, controversial social media post
Context: A screenshot of a specific, widely shared tweet containing a strong, unsubstantiated claim about a current event.
Analysis Angle: This object is perfect for discussing opinion. It's a personal judgment presented as fact but lacking evidence or rigorous justification. You can analyze how the digital age blurs the lines between knowledge, belief, and opinion, and the role of "echo chambers" in reinforcing opinions until they feel like knowledge.
Part 4: The High-Scorer's Final Checklist
Before you submit, review your commentary against the same criteria an examiner would. Ask yourself these questions:
- Is each object truly specific? Have I clearly stated its precise real-world context?
- Is my commentary analytical, not just descriptive? Am I explaining what the object *shows* about knowledge, not just what the object *is*?
- Have I explicitly linked each object back to the IA prompt? Is the connection crystal clear in every section?
- Does each object offer a unique perspective? Or am I just saying the same thing three times with three different objects? Each one must make a distinct argumentative contribution.
- Am I using TOK terminology purposefully? Are concepts like "justification", "perspective", "evidence", and "AOKs" integrated naturally to strengthen my analysis?
- Is every single word focused on the analysis? Have I avoided a lengthy introduction and conclusion to maximize my 950-word count on what matters most?
.png)
