The Curriculum Journal

Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2010, 299–312

Politics and pedagogy: discursive constructions in the IB Theory of

knowledge – Guide
Nigel V. Smith* and Mandy Morgan

School of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

The International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum is increasingly

popular in both national and international secondary education
settings. The Theory of knowledge (TOK) course is cast as the prime
example of the international globalised values the IB Diploma
represents. This article argues that such a positioning is contested
within the TOK curriculum document, leading to confusion and
tension in the positioning of teachers, students and learning. Two
constructions of TOK are identified through discourse analysis, each
of which positions teachers, students and learning differently. One
construction serves primarily political goals, while the other serves
pedagogical purposes. The tension between these positions may cause
confusion for teachers and students, although techniques of tension
reduction are identified. Further, this article argues that, in practice,
both the pedagogical and political purposes of TOK may be achieved
despite the tension in the curriculum document, if the personal
pedagogical ideology of the teacher coincides with the political
positioning of TOK.
Keywords: discourse; education; globalisation; pedagogy; politics

Introduction
Discursive conflict within curricular documents
Discourse analysis has been used to identify conflict within curricular
documents in a range of settings. Rhedding-Jones (2002) explores the way
in which ethnic minority identities and learner positions are contested in
Norwegian early childhood education curricula. She identifies that
inclusive official discourses clash with exclusive traditional discourses.
The impact of these conflicting discourses is that the minority child is left
in a kind of limbo, where his or her expectations and aspirations as to
how he or she will be treated do not match with practice. Similarly, the
expectations of teachers in relation to these issues are not clear. For both
teachers and students, Rhedding-Jones finds that identity, roles and

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0958-5176 print/ISSN 1469-3704 online
Ó 2010 British Curriculum Foundation
DOI: 10.1080/09585176.2010.504576
http://www.informaworld.com
300 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

relationships are confounded by the clash between explicit and implicit

discursive frameworks.
The present study explores whether teacher and student positions
might be similarly confounded in the IB TOK course due to conflicting
discursive frameworks within the curriculum.
In addition to identifying confounds in teacher/student positioning,
previous discursive studies have also identified the specific discourses that
are dominant, marginalised or excluded within particular curricula.
Connell (2005) and Farrelly et al. (2007) focus on sexuality education
curricula. Both studies draw on the established discursive framework
described by Fine (1988), who identifies four major discourses in sexuality
education literature. Fine argues that sexuality as violence, sexuality as
victimisation and sexuality as individual morality dominate, to varying
degrees, most school-based sexuality programmes. A fourth discourse,
sexuality as desire, is absent, and Fine advocates its inclusion, not least
because it would enable exploration of positive aspects of sexuality.
Connell (2005) finds that the discourses of victimisation and individual
morality dominate the relevant Ontario (Canada) curriculum documents.
Further, she illustrates how gender roles are reproduced by discourses
used. The message is reinforced that ‘boys are active agents and ‘‘studs’’
with an insatiable appetite for sex, while girls are uninterested in sex and
only submit to it under pressure’ (Connell 2005, 260). Connell goes on to
explore the silences in the texts, noting that options for unintended
pregnancy, sexual orientation and sexual behaviour itself are absent or
extremely limited in the curriculum. Connell then argues for the use of all
four of Fine’s discourses in structuring sexuality education.
Farrelly et al. (2007) compare several sexuality education curricular
documents in Victoria (Australia), tracing developments over a 15-year
period. Also drawing on Fine (1988), they identify three major discourses
present in the curricular documents. The cultural preservation discourse
emphasises that the child needs knowledge to procreate, but must be
protected from knowledge that might corrupt. The risk minimisation
discourse emphasises public health issues and assumes that children can
manage their sexual health given the right information. The emancipatory
discourse critiques the other two and is employed in efforts to recognise
adolescent sexual diversity as positive.
In their comparison between older and more recent documents, the
authors found that the learner had been positioned differently. They
argue that recent documents ignore the limitations of adolescent decision-
making, instead assuming that adolescents are ‘rational, non-gendered
adult[s]’ (Farrelly et al. 2007, 75). This change is attributed to the pressure
on curriculum developers to conform to the trend towards measurable
outcomes, which requires a more quantifiable conceptualisation of the
adolescent than that required by the older emphasis on skill acquisition.
 The Curriculum Journal 301

Deconstructing masculinist hegemony is identified as a requirement for

developing a balanced approach to sexuality education.
These studies of curricular documents identify a variety of construc-
tions of students. The present study outlines the positions of students and
teachers with regard to the TOK curriculum. In a similar way, these
constructions give rise to conflict or tension for both students and
teachers.
Hanley (1994) refers to Miller and Seller’s (1985) tripartite model of
curriculum orientation in an analysis of the constructions of learning,
teachers and students in Canadian provincial elementary arts curricula. A
summary is outlined in Table 1.
Hanley explores the orientation(s) that dominate(s) each document. In
the relevant documents from Quebec, a transformation position is
emphasised, focusing on personal discovery, interconnectedness and
social awareness, and change. In contrast, the Saskatchewan curricula
mostly reflect a transaction position, emphasising students’ cognitive
growth as they interact and construct knowledge in partnership with their
teachers. Other curricula analysed contained a mixture of Miller and
Seller’s (1985) orientations. Where a mixture of orientations was
identified, tension exists in the positionings of teachers, students and
learning. Hanley’s use of Miller and Seller’s theory to inform the
discursive analysis of curricula provided the present study with a model
for the approach taken.

Table 1. Summary of Miller and Seller’s (1985) tripartite model of curriculum

orientations.
Transmission This orientation assumes an atomistic paradigm in which reality
orientation is broken down into distinct, separate elements. The major
goals are mastery of school subjects and inculcation of students
in social norms. Students are expected to learn facts and
concepts associated with the subject and to master certain key
skills. Instruction in this position is often didactic, with
students responding to teacher initiatives.
Transaction This orientation focuses on the interaction between the person
orientation and the social environment. The goal is the development of
rational intelligence and problem-solving skills. There is
emphasis on inquiry-based learning, both within and across
traditional subject disciplines. The teacher is expected to
facilitate the development of students’ inquiry skills.
Transformation This orientation is based on assuming interdependence among
orientation many phenomena and is related to various forms of mysticism,
transcendentalism and humanistic thought. The aims include
self-actualisation, self-transcendence and social involvement.
Learning focuses on integrating physical, cognitive, affective
and spiritual dimensions of personhood, and connections
between disciplines are emphasised. Teachers must first work
on themselves, being in touch with their inner life, their
students and the communities with which they engage.
302 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

Broader issues
The present study is particularly focused on how contested positionings in
the TOK curriculum may relate to a conflict between political and
pedagogical purposes. The use of education for political purposes is
explored by Ortloff (2005), who identifies the discourses surrounding the
development of national, European and international identity as a goal
for student learning. She distinguishes civics education as the most
explicit attempt by the state to produce a certain type of citizen.
Comparing Danish, Austrian and German civics curricula, she finds
differences in the nature of the ‘citizen-to-be-produced’ that is idealised.
In Denmark, the ideal citizen is Danish first, with an increasing
familiarity with and appreciation of European-ness. In Austria, the
emphasis is on being good international citizens, with Austrian and
European identities being sub-categories of this highest level. In Germany,
being German is equated with valuing European-ness. This study is relevant
in the present context, as the IB TOK curriculum emerged partly in
response to the needs of European students in international contexts.
However, while TOK is constructed in some similar ways to the civics
curricula examined by Ortloff, this construction is contested. The ideal
citizen, according to the IB TOK curriculum, and as discussed further below
in the Analysis sections on Students and teachers and TOK-as-developmental
facilitator, is caring, active, compassionate, respectful, and is involved in
creating a better world. But students and teachers are also positioned in non-
political ways, giving rise to conflict between the constructions.
An issue alluded to by several authors (Hanley 1994; Ortloff 2004;
Connell 2005; Jones 2007) is that curricular documents do not stand alone
in the practice of education. They interact with teacher and student beliefs
and educational and cultural practices. Shkedi and Nisan (2006) explored
teachers’ personal cultural ideologies in relation to the teaching of the
Hebrew Bible in Israeli schools. Their findings are particularly relevant to
this study, as the subject matter of TOK is philosophical in nature, similar
to the Bible course taught in Israel. Their study explored teachers’
interpretations of the Bible curricula and their personal cultural
ideologies about the Bible, as well as their pedagogical practice in the
classroom. They outlined a particular cultural ideology expressed in the
official curricular documents through discourse analysis. However, it was
observed that teachers’ personal cultural ideology was more important
than the official curricular ideology in determining pedagogical practice.
This may also be the case in relation to TOK.
The present study follows the pattern of Hanley (1994) in examining
the constructions of teachers and students with reference to Miller and
Seller’s (1985) model of curriculum orientation. Hereafter reference to the
transmission, transaction or transformation orientation should be taken to
mean the orientations described by Miller and Seller (1985). Examination
 The Curriculum Journal 303

of the way in which political and pedagogical positionings conflict also

highlights the intended purpose of TOK to foster internationalism and
globalisation through the production of global citizens.

Method
This study used a discursive analytic approach based on the description of
discourse analysis outlined in Willig (2001). The Theory of knowledge –
Guide (IBO 2006) was the text analysed. Each IB subject guide contains
generic material relating to the IB Diploma as a whole. This material was
included for analysis because of the way in which TOK is described as a
‘flagship course’ (IBO 2006, 3) within the Diploma, ‘ideally placed’ to
deliver the broader goals of the whole Diploma. The word ‘flagship’
carries the connotations ‘highest importance’, ‘centrality of role’, ‘best
representative’ and even ‘locus of command’. Therefore what is spoken of
in relation to the IBO, and all programmes in general, can be understood
in relation to TOK in particular.
Through a process of reading and re-reading in which textual
constructions were identified and coded, and specific constructions were
validated in subsequent iterations of coding, key positions of teachers,
students and TOK itself were identified. These coalesced into two main
constructions of TOK, each of which positioned students and teachers in
different ways. It became clear that these two constructions were aligned
with two of Miller and Seller’s curriculum orientations: the transforma-
tion and transaction orientations. In the light of Miller and Seller’s work,
it further emerged that the transformation orientation, as expressed in the
TOK curriculum, served a primarily political purpose, while the
transaction orientation served a pedagogical purpose.

Analysis
In analysing the TOK Guide, two constructions of TOK emerged, each
one associated with one of Miller and Seller’s curriculum orientations.
First, a construction labelled ‘TOK-as-hero’ represents TOK as the agent
of transformational change. Second, a construction labelled TOK-as-
developmental-facilitator positions teachers and students as the joint
agents of learning that is transactional in nature.

TOK-as-hero: agent of transformation

The Theory of knowledge – Guide begins with the International
Baccalaureate Organisation’s mission statement:

The International Baccalaureate Organisation aims to develop inquiring,

knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better
304 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and

respect. . . . These programmes encourage students across the world to
become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that
other people, with their differences, can also be right. (Extract 1, IBO
2006, v)

The programmes, which include TOK, are located as the agents of this
transformational change, along with the International Baccalaureate
Organisation itself, which created the programmes:

In many ways TOK is ideally placed to foster internationalism, in close

harmony with the aims of the IB learner profile. The TOK aims embody
many of the attributes needed by a citizen of the world: self-awareness; a
reflective, critical approach; interest in other people’s points of view; and a
sense of responsibility. (Extract 2, IBO 2006, 3)

Here TOK-as-hero as an entity in itself is fostering internationalism

and, in common with other IB programmes, is developing students. TOK
itself (and all programmes) is/are identified as having agency. The actions
are transformational in nature in that they produce students who, as a
result of their studies, become ideal citizens and through TOK will help to
create a better and more peaceful world.

No teacher can be an expert in every field, and the sheer scope of the TOK
course is daunting. Students also can be awed by the size of the questions
they are considering. Both teachers and students need the confidence to go
a little – not too far – outside their usual ‘comfort zones’. Then, with a spirit
of inquiry and exploration, they can begin to share the excitement of
reflecting on knowledge. (Extract 3, IBO 2006, 3)

In this passage, the characteristics of TOK-as-hero emerge further.

As a ‘flagship element’ (IBO 2006, 3) of daunting scope that inspires
awe in students, there is an impressiveness and a heroic quality
ascribed to the TOK course itself. Indeed, teachers cannot be experts
in a sufficient number of fields to master TOK, and both students and
teachers need confidence to go outside their comfort zones when dealing
with TOK.

The . . . [TOK] course is designed to develop a coherent approach to

learning that transcends and unifies the academic areas and encourages
appreciation of other cultural perspectives. (Extract 4, IBO 2006, 2)

TOK [is] unique, and [is] distinctively different from other standard
academic disciplines. . . . Students entering the Diploma Programme
typically have sixteen years of life experience and more than ten years of
formal education behind them. In TOK they have the opportunity to step
back from this relentless acquisition of new knowledge, in order to consider
knowledge issues. (Extract 5, IBO 2006, 3)
 The Curriculum Journal 305

Not only is TOK a hero, but this hero is unique and different-from-
standard in nature, acting to transcend and unify. The contrasting standard
disciplines are described as formal education involving the relentless
acquisition and accumulation of vast amounts of knowledge. Meanwhile,
TOK-as-hero provides the opportunity to step back and consider knowl-
edge issues, and further, to share the excitement of reflecting in knowledge,
which presumably was absent in the relentless acquisition involved in
other subjects. Miller and Seller describe the transformation orientation
as being about self-transcendence and integration. The description of
TOK as agent of transcendence, consideration and reflection is evidence
that this construction is transformational in nature. If TOK is the agent
of such change, we would expect to see the constructions of teachers and
students reflecting the impact of such action.

Students and teachers

Implicated in the construction of TOK as agent of transformational
change (refer to Extracts 1 and 2 above) is a construction of ideal students
who will themselves create a better and more peaceful world and who will
have the characteristics needed by citizen[s] of the world. They are to be
caring, active, compassionate, respectful, and involved in creating a better
world. These characteristics all resonate with the transformation
orientation. There is a strong focus on social action and self-actualisation,
although perhaps not self-transcendence. These ideal outcome qualities
indicate that, at the broadest level, a transformation orientation is
generally intended. However, the mission statement also includes being
inquiring and knowledgeable as outcome goals: goals more aligned with
the transaction orientation. This tension exists in other parts of the
document and will be discussed further below in the Discussion section on
Tensions between the constructions.
There is little indication of how teachers are positioned in relation to
the TOK-as-hero construction. Generally, TOK is acting directly on
students. The exception to this is the mention of teachers in Extract 3,
where teachers are given an escape clause from being the agents of
transformational change through the caveat that ‘no teacher can be an
expert’. This is a key issue in the resolution of tension created by the
presence of multiple curriculum orientations in the document (see
Analysis section on Rejection of transmission orientation below).

TOK-as-developmental-facilitator: students/teachers as agents of

transactional learning
The other dominant construction is of TOK-as-developmental-facilitator.
Here students and teachers are the agents, achieving various objectives
306 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

and gaining a variety of knowledge and skills as a result of taking TOK.

This construction is consistent with Miller and Seller’s transactional
orientation, which emphasises teachers facilitating student development
of inquiry skills:

IB learners strive to . . . acquire the skills [;] . . . make reasoned ethical

decisions [;] . . . explore new roles, ideas and strategies [;] . . . [be] articulate
in defending their beliefs. (Extract 6, IBO 2006, viii)

This list of general objectives for IB learners needs to be read in

conjunction with the reminder that TOK fosters internationalism
harmoniously in relation to its learner profile (see Extract 2). So students
of TOK are expected to display the general IB learner objectives, as TOK
is ideally placed and is in close harmony with these goals. Most obviously,
learners are the focus of this extract. They are the agents of learning and
they should have the characteristics described.
However, there is a mixture of transactional and transformational
positions evident. Students should apply thinking skills and make reasoned
ethical decisions (transactional), but they should also have a personal
commitment to service and act with integrity and honesty (transforma-
tional). (See also the Discussion section on Tension between the
constructions below.)
TOK-as-developmental-facilitator has its own list of specific aims and
objectives which detail the expectations of students more clearly:

Having followed the TOK course, students should be able to:

. analyse critically knowledge claims;

. generate questions, explanations, conjectures, hypotheses, alternative
ideas and possible solutions. (Extract 7, IBO 2006, 5)

The transactional orientation best fits this construction. Students are the
agents of a certain type of learning, involving the development of key
analytical skills.
One very clear indication of TOK-as-developmental-facilitator is
found in a section where the definition of knowledge issues is discussed as
having to be ‘in accordance with the TOK aims and objectives as they are
formulated’ (Extract 8, IBO 2006, 10) This affirms that TOK is the
formulated product. Here TOK is not the actor, but the enacted.

Teachers
Much of the discussion about the TOK-as-developmental-facilitator
construction to this point has focused on the location of agency within
 The Curriculum Journal 307

students and on the positioning of students in line with the transaction

orientation. But what about teachers?

Teachers bring [topic questions] into closer focus by taking into account
their students’ interests, circumstances and outlooks in planning the
course. . . . Teachers will often seek to ground discussion of knowledge
issues in actual examples taken from students’ experience elsewhere.
(Extract 9, IBO 2006, 3)

Here we see that teachers should begin the engagement with students by
using their interests, circumstances, outlooks and experiences as the
starting point for learning. Teachers need to work with students in order
for learning to occur. This is reinforced in several places where the phrase
‘Teachers and students’ (6, 8) is followed by some instruction for action.
They are requested to act together in ‘doing learning’. This fits neatly with
the transaction orientation, where teachers and students jointly develop
the students’ skills.
There is far less said in the document about teachers than students.
This is significant. Perhaps it is the construction of teachers that is most
conflicted as a result of the mixture of orientations present, and therefore
less is said about them. (See the Analysis section on Rejection of
transmission orientation.)

Beyond the introductory statements. In the body of the Guide, the

dominance of transactional terms and ideas is reinforced by the
presentation of the course content: the ‘guide consists mainly of
questions that have been found to stimulate appropriate TOK inquiry’
(3). These questions enable ‘reflection on knowledge’ (4) and this
reflection is the main activity to be undertaken in the course. This flows
quite explicitly out of a transactional orientation.
Considering the questions that form the largest single section of the
Guide (30 out of 62 pages) is the basis for the course. Teachers and students
are expected to explore these questions together, with the teacher
providing guidance where possible. The main emphasis is on the
development of rational analytical skills, as opposed to covering particular
content (which would be a characteristic of the transmission orientation,
see below). This is further reflected in the assessments, where students
choose the topic they treat, but have no choice about the format of the
work they must produce. The transactional orientation is also evident in
the emphasis on joint exploration of issues and development of students’
analytical skills. The location of agency is within students and teachers.
Despite this significant transactional emphasis the transformation
orientation is still identifiable within the body of the document. Miller
and Seller identify the awareness of the fact that ‘knowledge is always
filtered through personal perception . . . [as] one of the main tasks of
308 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

education’ (Miller and Seller 1985, 168). (Note the agentive position of
education.) Clearly, the Guide’s question, ‘To what extent do our senses
give us knowledge of the world as it really is?’ (IBO 2006, 14), is aiming at
increasing such awareness. Additionally, Miller and Seller argue that: ‘the
transformation educator asserts that students should learn to see
relationships between themselves and their social environment . . . and
all aspects of the curriculum’ (Miller and Seller 1985, 168). The TOK
Guide asks, ‘How much of one’s knowledge depends on interaction with
other knowers?’ (IBO 2006, 10). These aspects of the body of the Guide
provide the possibility for transformational positionings.
However, Miller and Seller’s transformation orientation goes beyond
the aspects identified above, into territory which the TOK Guide only
minimally addresses. There is an emphasis on integrating the physical,
cognitive, affective and spiritual dimensions, where teachers need to get in
touch with their ‘inner life’ and are then able to help students with the
process of ‘being and becoming’ (Miller and Seller 1985, 167). Intuition is
seen as a valid way of knowing. The TOK Guide has a heavy emphasis on
the rational, mentioning spirituality only as a possible sub-category of
emotion, and intuition is mentioned only as a ‘linking question’, one
which is not central itself, but which may ‘raise issues and concepts
central to the course’ (36). Perhaps most tellingly, the assessment criteria
focus on rationality, requiring ‘sophisticated understanding’, ‘counter-
claims [to be] explored and evaluated’ (52–60). In both assessments, only
one out of the four assessment criteria mentioned anything transforma-
tive, that being: ‘significant self-awareness as a knower’ (53).
Generally, the construction of TOK-as-developmental-facilitator is
described in transactional terms, placing agency in students and teachers
and emphasising the development of rational skills. In contrast TOK-as-
hero is a construction that generally reflects Miller and Seller’s
transformational orientation and places agency within TOK itself.

Rejection of transmission orientation

Up to this point, little has been said of Miller and Seller’s transmission
orientation. It is rejected quite explicitly in the Guide. In Extract 5, TOK
is presented in contrast to standard subjects, where relentless acquisition is
said to be the norm. This contrasting tone is continued in Extract 5, where
in TOK no teacher can be an expert, assuming that in other subjects a
teacher could be, or even is expected to be, an expert. The assumed
orientation of students’ past educational experience seems to be Miller
and Seller’s transmission orientation, which focuses on ‘mastery of school
subjects and inculcation of social norms’ (56) and where teachers
‘transmit’ knowledge to students. Positioning the course in this
comparative way seeks to ensure that TOK is not to be characterised
by Miller and Seller’s transmission position.
 The Curriculum Journal 309

Additionally, the phrase ‘no teacher can be an expert’ acts as a disclaimer

within the TOK-as-developmental-facilitator, easing the pressure on
teachers by emphasising that they are not expected to be the fount of
knowledge. Importantly, they are also not expected to be the enlightened,
self-aware practitioners that the transformational orientation requires. This
phrase is a further indicator that when TOK is constructed as a
developmental-facilitator, the emphasis is on the transactional orientation.
Further, perhaps this disclaimer indicates that the tension created by
the mixture of transaction and transformation orientations is most sharp
in relation to the construction of teachers. As noted above in the Analysis
section on Students and teachers, there is far less said about teachers than
students. Teachers are responsible for the delivery of the teaching
programme and therefore they need to understand clearly the expecta-
tions that a curriculum places upon them. The disclaimer, which primarily
functions to remove the responsibilities of being a transmission-oriented
teacher, also acts to remove the responsibilities of being a transforma-
tional teacher, instead affirming that the facilitative position of the
transaction orientation is all that is required.

Discussion
The mixture of curriculum orientations identified in the TOK Guide is
parallel to that found by Hanley (1994). She alludes to the general aims of
the broader curriculum being transformational while more specific course
descriptions are more transactional, which is similar to the pattern found
here (Hanley 1994).
The tension that this mixture of curriculum orientations involves relates to
expectations about students and teachers: the construction of ideal
participants in the learning process. Operating within one curriculum
orientation provides a clear set of goals and strategies for learning, as well
as constructing students and teachers in a compatible way. This can be said for
either the transformational orientation or the transmission orientation. But
having teacher and student positions being described by more than one
curriculum orientation can potentially cause confusion. This is potentially
related to the finding by Rhedding-Jones (2002) that the clash between
inclusive and exclusive discourses within the curricular documents analysed
caused tension and conflict for teachers, students and parents. Similarly, Fine
(1988), Connell (2005) and Farrell et al. (2007) all argue that the conflict or
imbalance between difference discourses in sexuality education curricula have
caused confusion and maladaptiveness for students, both female and male.

Tension between the constructions

The Guide includes both transformational and transactional discourses.
This gives rise to a tension, which is partly resolved by the use of the two
310 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

constructions of TOK identified above. TOK-as-hero emphasises the

transformational orientation. Within this construction, agency is located
in TOK itself. TOK-as-developmental-facilitator emphasises the transac-
tional orientation. Within this construction, agency is located in students
and teachers.
We suggest that this tension arises from a gap between the political
aims of transforming young people through education and the reality of
delivering a course with measurable outcomes. While curricular writers
may be motivated by transformational aims, achieving these goals within
an educational framework such as the IB Diploma Programme (DP) is
difficult. One of the major barriers is the expectation that it places on
teachers. Aiming at self-actualisation, self-transcendence and social
involvement through being in touch with their inner life, their students
and the communities they engage with places very high demands on
teachers. It is unlikely that many teachers are equipped to work in this
way.

Towards resolution?
We suggest that the TOK Guide attempts to resolve this tension by
employing two constructions of TOK. Within the TOK-as-hero construc-
tion, the transformational aims of the TOK course are achieved by the TOK
course itself. The TOK-as-hero construction is the agent of this change.
Teacher and student positions are described mostly by the TOK-as-
developmental-facilitator construction, employing a generally transactional
orientation. The rejection of the transmission orientation at least secures
some level of uniqueness for TOK-as-ordinary-course.
Whether or not the TOK course achieves the broad transformational
change set out in the TOK-as-hero construction depends, perhaps, on
factors beyond the scope of this study. Shkedi and Nisan (2006)
identified that personal ideologies of teachers are more important than
official curricular orientation. Indeed, if teachers have a personal
ideology that is transformational in nature, they may well achieve the
transformational goals of TOK-as-hero, in addition to the outcomes of
transactional learning expressed through TOK-as-developmental-
facilitator.

Political implications
The broad goals of the IBO, and particularly TOK, have been identified
in this study as being mostly transformative in nature. However, there is a
particular end point for this transformation that differs from Miller and
Seller’s conceptualisation of transformation. Several phrases provide
clues as to the political intent of the TOK course, in particular identifying
 The Curriculum Journal 311

the type of citizen that TOK (and other IB programmes) are intended to
create. Referring to text presented in Extracts 2 and 3 above, TOK
attempts to foster internationalism, developing internationally minded
people who will become citizens of the world. The stage on which IB DP
graduates will tread is marked out as specifically international, not
restricted to one nation-state.
Ortloff’s (2005) work on the intended outcomes of civics curricula
provides a context for the international aspirations of the TOK
curriculum. Perhaps reflecting the popularity of the IB DP within
international schools, the TOK curriculum intends to create citizens who
identify themselves internationally, as well as (or instead of) nationally.
Moreover, they are intended to improve the world through what they
gain from IB TOK. Perhaps the lack of focus on national identity is a
pragmatic response to the needs of multinational student cohorts in
international schools. Or perhaps the IB curriculum is a small part of the
broader political agenda to work towards internationalism and globalisa-
tion. In any case, this study has identified these broad goals as at least
partially conflicting with the need for teachers and students to have a
clear understanding of their positions in completing the TOK course.

Conclusion
This study used discourse analysis of the TOK Guide to explore the
constructions of teachers and students in the IB TOK programme. Two
constructions of TOK were identified. TOK-as-hero places TOK itself
as the agent of change through learning that matches Miller and Seller’s
transformational curriculum orientation. TOK-as-hero aims to create a
better and more peaceful world by producing students who are self-
aware and compassionate and have a personal commitment to service.
TOK-as-developmental-facilitator locates agency in teachers and stu-
dents and describes a course of study that should be undertaken in a
manner consistent with Miller and Seller’s transactional curriculum
position. Within TOK-as-developmental-facilitator, teachers will facil-
itate the development of students’ rational analytical skills through
inquiry-based learning. The transmission orientation is rejected, further
defining TOK.
The tension between transformational and transactional aims is partly
relieved by use of the two constructions of TOK. The respective location
of agency in TOK itself and in teachers and students clarifies the positions
of the main participants. However, practical resolution of this conflict
depends on the personal ideologies of teachers. If personal teacher
ideologies are transformative, the political intentions of TOK-as-hero
may be achieved. If not, the pedagogical positions of TOK-as-ordinary-
course will be the dominant framework experienced.
312 N.V. Smith and M. Morgan

Acknowledgements
Funding for this research project was provided by the British School, Manila.

Notes on contributors
Nigel V. Smith is a graduate student in psychology at Massey University in Aotearoa/New Zealand,
with a background and continuing involvement in secondary education. As the co-ordinator of the
World Internet Project (New Zealand) from 2008–2010, he has been involved in applying the
findings of international collaborative research to policy development, within both the private and
public sectors. Peer reviewed publications appear in Journal Observatorio (OBS*) and NZ
Sociology. He is currently working with Professor Stuart Carr (Massey University, Auckland) and
Professor Malcolm MacLachlan (Trinity College, Dublin) on a thesis exploring the impact of power
and other differentials between expatriates and locals on empowerment in the aid/development
sector. He has taught Psychology and Theory of Knowledge within the International Baccalaureate
Diploma Programme since 2003, and examined since 2007.
Mandy Morgan is an associate professor in critical psychology and Head of School at the
School of Psychology at Massey University in Aotearoa/New Zealand. She has particular
interests in theoretical debates concerning the relationships between feminism, poststructur-
alism and psychology. As well as these theoretical interests she is involved in a research
programme in the area of domestic violence services and interventions. Most recently she has
been collaborating with other researchers and stakeholders at the Waitakere Family Violence
Court in Auckland to evaluate the Court’s protocols and the services of some non-
Government Organisations who provide community based interventions to those who are
involved in court processes. She has published work in a variety of places, including the
journal Theory & Psychology.

References
Connell, E. 2005. Desire as interruption: Young women and sexuality education in
Ontario, Canada. Sex Education 5, no. 3: 253–68.
Farrelly, C., M. O’Brien, and V. Prain. 2007. The discourses of sexuality in curriculum
documents on sexuality education: An Australian case study. Sex Education 7, no. 1:
63–80.
Fine, M. 1988. Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse of
desire. Harvard Educational Review 58, no. 1: 29–53.
Hanley, B. 1994. Canadian arts education: A critical analysis of selected elementary
curricula. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’Education 19, no. 3:
197–214.
International Baccalaureate Organisation. 2006. Diploma programme: Theory of
knowledge – Guide. Cardiff, UK: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
Jones, P. 2007. Lessons of the local: Primary English and the relay of curriculum
knowledge. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 30, no. 1: 54–68.
Miller, J.P., and W. Seller. 1985. Curriculum, perspectives and practice. New York:
Longman.
Ortloff, D.H. 2005. Becoming European: A framing analysis of three countries’ civics
education curricula. European Education 37, no. 4: 35–49.
Rhedding-Jones, J. 2002. An undoing of documents and other texts: Towards a critical
multiculturalism in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood 3, no. 1: 90–116.
Shkedi, A., and M. Nisan. 2006. Teachers’ cultural ideology: Patterns of curriculum and
teaching culturally valued texts. Teachers College Record 108, no. 4: 687–725.
Singh, P. 1997. Review of Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research,
critique by Basil Bernstein. British Journal of Sociology of Education 18, no. 1: 119–24.
Willig, Carla. 2001. Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory
and method. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Copyright of Curriculum Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.