TOK exhibition checklist: how to check your commentary against the IB criteria
Like the TOK essay, the exhibition is marked holistically: one instrument, out of 10, with no separate criteria. It is internally assessed, so your teacher marks it and the IB moderates a sample. The instrument asks a single question: does the exhibition successfully show how TOK manifests in the world around us? Your commentary either demonstrates that through three well-chosen objects, or it does not. This checklist turns the instrument into concrete checks you can run before submitting.
How the exhibition is marked
Your commentary is placed in one of five levels: Excellent (9-10), Good (7-8), Satisfactory (5-6), Basic (3-4), Rudimentary (1-2). At the top, the descriptors reward three objects with specific real-world contexts, links to your selected IA prompt that are clearly made and well explained, a strong justification of each object's contribution, and points well supported by evidence and explicit references to the prompt. Two rules sit on top of the levels: with only two objects the maximum is 6 marks, and with only one it is 3. The limit is 950 words.
The checklist
The prompt
- All three objects respond to one of the 35 IA prompts, used exactly as given. The guide says the prompt must not be altered, and an exhibition that is not based on one of the prompts scores zero.
- Every object's section refers back to the prompt explicitly, by its words, not by vague gesture.
The objects
- Each object has a specific real-world context: this photograph from this event, this document from this archive, not a generic image that could illustrate anything. Objects can be digital, and can be something you made, but they must already exist rather than be created for the exhibition.
- The three objects do different work: each contributes something to the exhibition that the other two do not.
- Optional, but encouraged by the guide: objects of personal interest, from your studies or your life outside the classroom, often make the exhibition more concrete.
The commentary
- For each object you justify its inclusion: why this object, for this prompt, not just what the object is.
- Claims about what the object shows are supported by evidence about the object and its context.
- The TOK point is explicit: a reader can see what each object reveals about how knowledge works, not just what it depicts.
What holds a commentary in the 5-6 level
- Some justification rather than a strong one: the commentary explains what each object is, but only partly argues why it belongs in an exhibition on this prompt.
- Vague contexts: at 5-6 the contexts "may be vaguely or imprecisely stated"; "a textbook" or "a painting" with no specific context sits there or below.
- Prompt drift: the discussion wanders to a theme the student prefers rather than the prompt as worded.
Check your commentary with IBLens
With your teacher's agreement, IBLens applies the holistic instrument to your exhibition commentary: paste all three object sections, and the band it currently sits in and the opening of the comment explaining why are free, before any payment. The full report costs $9.99, with no subscription, and IBLens also counts the words against the 950-word limit.
Check your TOK exhibition commentary →
Frequently asked questions
Is the TOK exhibition marked with criteria like the EE?
No. It is marked holistically out of 10 against a single instrument, guided by the question "does the exhibition successfully show how TOK manifests in the world around us?" Your teacher places it in one of five levels rather than scoring separate criteria, and the IB moderates the marking.
Can my three objects use different IA prompts?
No. The exhibition responds to one IA prompt, and all three objects must connect to that same prompt. Clear, explicit links to the selected prompt are exactly what the top band descriptors reward.
Do the objects have to be physical?
No. The guide allows digital objects, such as a particular tweet or a photograph of a document you cannot exhibit, as long as each has a specific real-world context. What matters for the marking is the specificity of the context and the justification of the object's contribution, not whether it is physical.