Skip to content

Evidence Evaluation Workflow

Run the Evidence Evaluation Workflow MicroSim Fullscreen
Edit in the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive MicroSim helps students explore the concept. It supports the learning objectives in Chapter: Evidence and Justification.

How to Use

Use the interactive controls below the drawing area to explore the visualization. Hover over elements for additional information and click to see detailed descriptions.

Iframe Embed Code

You can add this MicroSim to any web page by adding this to your HTML:

1
2
3
4
<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/theory-of-knowledge/sims/evidence-evaluation-workflow/main.html"
        height="450px"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Grade Level

9-12 (High School / IB TOK)

Duration

15-20 minutes

Prerequisites

  • Basic understanding of different types of evidence (e.g., anecdotal, statistical, expert testimony, peer-reviewed research)
  • Familiarity with the concepts of reliability, credibility, and relevance as applied to sources
  • Awareness that different Areas of Knowledge may have different standards of evidence

Learning Objectives

  • Apply a systematic evidence evaluation workflow to assess the strength, reliability, and relevance of different types of evidence for supporting knowledge claims

Activities

  1. Exploration (5 min): Select a type of evidence from the menu (e.g., anecdotal report, peer-reviewed study, expert opinion) and trace its path through the evaluation flowchart. At each decision node, observe the criteria being applied: Is the source credible? Is the evidence reproducible? Is it relevant to the claim? Follow at least three different evidence types through the workflow and note where their paths diverge.
  2. Guided Practice (10 min): In pairs, choose a current real-world knowledge claim (e.g., "Vaccines are safe and effective" or "Social media harms teen mental health"). Identify three pieces of evidence that could support or challenge this claim -- ideally of different types. Trace each piece of evidence through the workflow together. Compare: Which evidence survives the full evaluation? Which gets filtered out, and at which step? Discuss whether the workflow would produce different results in different AOKs (e.g., would anecdotal evidence fare better in history than in chemistry?).
  3. Assessment (5 min): You are given a claim and a piece of evidence. Without using the simulation, walk through the evaluation steps from memory: identify the evidence type, assess source credibility, check for reproducibility, evaluate relevance, and assign an overall strength rating. Write your evaluation in a structured 4-6 sentence paragraph.

Assessment

  • Correct identification of evidence types and their typical strengths and weaknesses
  • Accurate application of evaluation criteria at each stage of the workflow
  • Recognition that evidence standards vary across Areas of Knowledge and that context matters in evaluation

Quiz

Test your understanding with this review question.

1. A student is writing a TOK essay and wants to support the claim that "artistic knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge." They cite a personal anecdote about how a painting changed their understanding of grief. At which step of the evidence evaluation workflow is this evidence most likely to be flagged as weak?

  1. Source credibility, because the student is not an expert on grief
  2. Reproducibility, because another person viewing the same painting may not have the same experience
  3. Relevance, because personal experience cannot relate to knowledge claims
  4. Evidence type, because anecdotes are never acceptable in any context
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. Anecdotal evidence is inherently difficult to reproduce -- another person may respond entirely differently to the same painting. This does not make the evidence worthless (especially in the Arts as an AOK, where subjective experience is central), but the evaluation workflow would flag reproducibility as a limitation. Option C is incorrect because personal experience can be relevant; option D is too absolute, as anecdotal evidence has legitimate roles in certain AOKs. The key insight is that evidence evaluation is context-dependent.

Concept Tested: Evidence Evaluation Criteria and Reproducibility

References

  1. Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What Is This Thing Called Science? (4th ed.). University of Queensland Press.
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life. Teachers College Press.
  3. International Baccalaureate Organization. (2022). Theory of Knowledge Guide. IBO.