How to Choose a TOK Exhibition Object That Doesn’t Look Generic

Last updated: May 2026

Every year, I mark TOK exhibitions. Every year, at least 40% of them use extremely generic objects like a map, a clock, their math notebook.

These aren’t bad objects. The problem is that everyone else also chose them, and most of those commentaries say roughly the same thing about them.

If your object could’ve been chosen by anyone — and your commentary could’ve been written by anyone who Googled the prompt for 10 minutes — you’re not scoring well. Here’s how to fix that.

Why generic objects tank your grade

The TOK Exhibition isn’t testing whether you can find an object that technically connects to your IA prompt. It’s testing whether you can think about knowledge questions in a way that shows you understand what the prompt is actually asking.

A generic object basically says that you didn’t think very hard. You picked the first thing that came to your mind, wrote the obvious thing about it, and moved on.

That doesn’t mean the object itself is the problem. Your make-up mirror can be a strong object. But if your commentary about the mirror is more or less the same thing that 200 other students wrote — “mirrors reflect reality but also distort it” — you’re not adding anything.

You’re not demonstrating understanding here.

What makes an object not-generic

Two things:

1.Specificity

The object is specific to you, your life, your context, or your thinking. It’s not something every student in every school could’ve chosen.

Examples:

- Not generic: “The broken piano key in my grandmother’s apartment that she refused to fix”
- Generic: “A piano”
- Not generic: “The Turkish ID card my mother was issued in 1995 that lists her religion”
- Generic: “An ID card”
- Not generic: “The recipe my dad rewrote from memory after losing the original”
- Generic: “A recipe”

The non generic version forces you to explain why that exact object matters to you . The generic version lets you write something Wikipedia could’ve told you.

2.A non-obvious connection to the prompt

If the link between your object and your prompt is the first thing anyone would think of, your commentary will be predictable. Predictable commentaries don’t score well.

Example with Prompt 4: “What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge?”

- Obvious connection: “A photograph, because photographs capture personal experiences and help us remember them.”
- Non-obvious connection: “The scar on my knee from when I was six. I have no memory of getting it, but my parents insist it happened. The scar is evidence of an experience I didn’t retain as knowledge.”

The second one makes the examiner pause. The first one is icky!

How to actually choose objects

Start with the prompt, not the object.

Most students do this backwards. They think “what objects do I have lying around?” and then try to match them to a prompt. That’s how you end up with your pencilcase.

Instead:

Step 1: Pick your IA prompt and figure out what it’s actually asking.

Don’t just read the prompt and think “okay, I get it.” Spend 20 minutes breaking it down. What’s the knowledge question underneath it? What’s the tension or problem it’s pointing to? Discuss with your peers or your teacher.

Example: Prompt 17: “Does our knowledge depend on our interactions with other knowers?”

Surface meaning: “This is about how we learn from other people. Shared knowledge”

Deeper maning: “This is asking whether knowledge is individual or social. Can I know something entirely on my own, or is all knowledge dependent on language, culture, and exchange with others? What happens to knowledge in isolation?”

If you only dwell on the surface you’ll end up writing something like “a textbook, because textbooks are written by other knowers and we learn from them.”

If you do the deeper reading, you’ll pick something like “the invented language my brother and I used as kids that no one else understood. Did that language contain knowledge, or does knowledge require a shared system?”

Step 2: Think about your own life, not the internet.

What experiences have you had that relate to the question? What objects from your life — not “objects that exist in the world” — connect to the tension in the prompt?

If you’re asking ChatGPT “objects for Prompt 17,” you’ve already lost. Use AI efficiently if you are stuck.

Step 3: Test the object with this question: “Would my commentary work if I swapped this object for a different one?"

If the answer is yes, your object isn’t specific enough.

Example:

- Object: “An old concert ticket stub”
- Test: Would this commentary work if I used a different ticket stub? Yes.
- Conclusion: Not specific enough. What’s specific about this ticket stub?

Better version: “Madonna’s 1993 Istanbul concert ticket stub that my Mom keeps, even though she said she didn’t believe in holding onto the past.”

Now the commentary has to explain the tension between the object (keeping the ticket) and the stated belief (not holding onto the past). You can’t swap that for a different ticket and have the same commentary.

The 35 IA prompts aren’t equal

Some prompts are easier to write generically about. Some force you to be specific.

Easier to write generic commentaries:

Prompts about bias, perspective, and certainty (Prompts 7, 11, 12, 20, 22)
Most students pick maps, mirrors, photographs, optical illusions
Commentaries all say versions of “this shows that knowledge is subjective”

Harder to write generic commentaries:

Prompts about creation, absence, and rejection of knowledge (Prompts 8, 13, 23, 28, 33)
These force you to think about what knowledge isn’t, which is harder.

If you’re trying to avoid generic objects, pick a prompt that doesn’t have 500 YouTube explainer videos already.

Common traps

Trap 1: Picking objects because they “look smart”

The periodic table. A page from Newton’s Principia. DNA models.

These objects signal “I want this to look academic.” The problem is that you probably don’t know enough about these to say anything an examiner hasn’t already read many times.

Pick objects you actually understand, not objects that sound impressive.

Trap 2: Picking objects that need too much explanation

If you have to spend half your commentary explaining what the object is, you don’t have space left to explain why it connects to the prompt. Period!

Your object should be simple enough that you can describe it in two sentences and move on.

Trap 3: Picking three objects that all make the same point

Each of your three objects should explore a different angle of the prompt. If all three objects lead to the same conclusion, you’re not demonstrating range of thinking.

Example for Prompt 24: “How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion?”

Weak set: Three objects that all show “belief isn’t the same as knowledge because belief can be wrong”

Strong set: Object 1 shows the overlap between belief and knowledge, Object 2 shows where opinion splits off from both, Object 3 shows a case where you can’t tell them apart

Quick checklist before you commit to an object

☐ Is this object specific to my life/experience, or could any student have chosen it?

☐ Would my commentary still work if I swapped this object for a similar one?

☐ Am I saying something about this object that isn’t the first thing everyone thinks of?

☐ Can I describe this object in two sentences, or do I need half the commentary just to explain what it is?

☐ Does this object make a different point than my other two objects?

If you answered “no” to any of these, reconsider the object.

The TOK Exhibition is 35 marks. Most students treat it like a formality. That’s a mistake. The difference between a generic set of objects and a thoughtful one is often the difference between a C and an A in TOK overall.

Pick objects that make the examiner stop and think. That’s the whole point.

Need feedback on your EE under the new criteria? ElevateYourIB offers per-submission EE feedback from an experienced IB examiner. Contact me for details and pricing.