Get a free response within 2 hours
Writing Your TOK Exhibition Commentary
How to write ~300 words per object that demonstrate deep TOK thinking — concise, analytical, and precisely linked to your IA prompt.
~300 Words Per Object
With ~950 words total across three commentaries, each object gets approximately 300–320 words. Not one word should describe the object — every word should analyse it.
Explicit Prompt Link
Every commentary must explicitly connect the object to your IA prompt — not just to TOK in general. Examiners are checking this connection in every sentence.
TOK Concepts Required
Each commentary must use TOK language meaningfully — knowledge claims, knowledge questions, AOKs, ways of knowing — not just mention them.
The Commentary Structure
Each object commentary should do three things within its ~300-word limit:
- Identify the object — one sentence, specific and precise. No description beyond what is needed to locate it.
- Make the connection to the IA prompt — explain, in TOK terms, why this object raises the knowledge question implicit in your prompt. This should take 200–230 words.
- State an implication or question — end with a sentence that pushes the thinking further: what does this object reveal about the nature of knowledge, and why does that matter?
💡 The golden rule: Never spend more than one sentence describing what the object is. Every other sentence should explain what the object does epistemically — what it tells us about how we know. If you find yourself writing “This is a photograph of…” for more than one sentence, you are describing, not analysing.
What Good TOK Language Looks Like in a Commentary
Strong commentaries integrate TOK vocabulary naturally — not as decoration. The difference:
| Weak (labelling) | Strong (integrating) |
|---|---|
| “This object relates to the AOK of Natural Sciences and uses reason as a way of knowing.” | “The peer-review process embedded in this retraction notice reveals that scientific knowledge is not simply discovered but socially validated — a claim’s status as knowledge depends on its survival of institutional scrutiny.” |
| “This shows that knowledge can be biased.” | “The editorial choices visible in this 1930s propaganda poster demonstrate how knowledge claims about national identity were constructed through selective visual emphasis — raising the question of whether knowledge produced in service of ideology can count as knowledge at all.” |
A Sample Commentary Structure (Per Object)
Sentence 1 (25–30 words): Identify the object precisely — what it is, who created it, when, and in what context.
Sentences 2–4 (80–100 words): Explain the knowledge question this object raises, using specific details from the object itself.
Sentences 5–7 (100–120 words): Connect the knowledge question explicitly to your IA prompt. Use at least one TOK concept (an AOK, a way of knowing, or a concept like justification, certainty, or perspective) and explain how this object illuminates the prompt specifically.
Sentence 8–9 (50–70 words): State an implication or a further question this object raises for the prompt. What does this object reveal that the other two do not?
Connecting All Three Commentaries
While each commentary stands alone, the three should collectively build a more complete and nuanced exploration of the IA prompt than any single object could. This means the three objects should not all conclude the same thing. The most impressive exhibitions use the three objects to represent three different positions or three different dimensions of the knowledge question — and then implicitly or explicitly show how these positions are in productive tension.
You do not need a separate “overall conclusion” section — the IB does not require one. However, if your teacher asks for one, a brief paragraph (50–80 words) that acknowledges the tensions between your three objects’ conclusions adds sophistication.
Writing three commentaries that all reach the same conclusion. If Object 1 argues that knowledge is uncertain, Object 2 argues that knowledge is uncertain, and Object 3 also argues that knowledge is uncertain — you have illustrated one point three times. This scores at Grade C at best. Each object should reveal something that the others do not, together building a richer answer to the prompt than any single object provides.
- Each commentary is approximately 300 words (total ~950)
- I identify each object precisely in one sentence — no more
- Every subsequent sentence analyses, not describes
- I explicitly connect each object to the wording of my IA prompt
- I use at least one TOK concept (AOK, WOK, or epistemic concept) per commentary
- My three commentaries reach different conclusions or explore different dimensions
- My final sentence per object states an implication or further knowledge question