History Internal Assessment
History Internal Assessment
20 marks Total: 1500–2000 words (counts 20% HL, 25% SL final grade)
All Internal Assessments must include the following clearly labeled sections:
A Plan of the investigation 3 marks 100-150 words
B Summary of evidence 6 marks 500-600 words
C Evaluation of sources 5 marks 250-400 words
D Analysis 6 marks 500-650 words
E Conclusion 2 marks 150-200 words
F Bibliography or List of Sources 3 marks not part of the word count
25 marks
An Appendix may be included when relevant (pictures, tables, charts, statistics, etc)
All References must be footnoted correctly wherever they appear.
BIS General Comments:
· Choose a subject that links directly to a topic on the exam papers. Become an expert in that content area and historiography.
· Its only 2000 words, but it takes time to do this properly.
· You must use a ‘range’ of sources from different perspectives. Aim for a minimum of 10 sources. Avoid reliance on internet sites (often weak unsubstantiated historical writing that limits your ability to analyze properly).
· Choose a topic where there is some historical debate & opinion, otherwise you might struggle to score highly in Section D. Weaker candidates failed to show this.
· Keep the title of your IA simple: ‘Why did Stalin begin the Purges?’; ‘Did political motives dominate Mao`s intentions during the Cultural Revolution?; ‘Could the Dutch have prevented the Japanese occupation of Indonesia in 1942?’ BUT not too specific where there is no range of historical writing.
· Produce a title page where title, word count are clearly stated. Write word count again at end, for the examiners sake.
· Wherever you refer to a source, it must be accurately referenced and appear in a footnote.
Section A Plan of the Investigation 2 marks
To include:
· The subject of the investigation which should be written as a question
· The methods to be used in the investigation
Important:
1. A sharply focused question with an exact, precisely structured plan to show how the investigation is going to be tackled is critical.
2. A bullet pointed section is suggested.
3. Write in two sub-sections:
i. Subject of the investigation
ii. Methods (the plan of the areas to be researched that will answer your subject and the ways you need to research eg analyzing the main schools of thought)
1. You must write a clear & precisely structured plan. Bullet points are the easy way to do this, and save on the total number of words written. Commenting that you are going to ‘look at a variety of primary and secondary sources’ is not precise enough, nor general descriptions of the areas being covered. General ‘ambitions’ for a study should be avoided. Precise tasks are encouraged. Think of this as a plan for any essay.
2. The TASK and APPROACH must be stated or full marks will not be awarded.
3. The Section A Task, must be the same as on title page (you would be surprised how many are different, and again how they change when people start writing other sections).
4. Once created this is an excellent plan for organizing Sections B & D. Use the stated areas as sub-titles.
Markscheme
The scope and plan of the investigation are entirely appropriate and clearly focused. 2
The scope and plan of the investigation are generally appropriate but not clearly
focused. 1
There is no plan of the investigation or it is inappropriate. 0
Section B Summary of Evidence 5 marks
The summary of evidence should indicate what the candidate has found out from all the
sources he or she has used. It can be in the form of either a list or continuous prose.
Any illustrations, documents, or other relevant evidence should be included in an
appendix and will not be included in the word count.
Important:
1. This section is meant to be the straight forward part giving the opportunity to obtain maximum marks. It is intended that students research their topics, and present the factual details of their research, as well as giving references.
2. Strong candidates show good supporting evidence and avoid general unsubstantiated statements.
3. This is where factual information/ content about the subject is valued. Statistics could be shown here (with full reference in Appendix).
4. References to the precise sources used are necessary.
5. Should include, where relevant, the actual facts about the historical debate of a topic.
6. Avoid narrative writing, focus on information that is relevant/ important to the subject. Be concise.
7. You can write this section with subtitles that reflect the main areas you have identified to research in part A. This gives focus.
8. Beware: do not write the analysis that must appear in part D. This is the biggest mistake that candidates make.
9. Do not ‘drift’ away from your TITLE and give general information connected to the topic (the second biggest mistake made).
Markscheme
The investigation has been well researched and good supporting evidence has been
produced which is correctly referenced. 5
The investigation has been adequately researched and some supporting evidence has
been produced and referenced. 3–4
The investigation has been poorly researched and insufficient evidence has been
produced which is not always referenced. 1–2
There is no evidence. 0
Section C Evaluation of Sources 4 marks
This section of the written account should be a critical evaluation of two important
sources appropriate to the investigation and should refer to their origin, purpose,
value and limitation. More than two sources may be evaluated but the emphasis
should be on the thorough evaluation of two sources rather than a superficial
evaluation of a greater number. You must assess the usefulness of the sources and not simply describe their content or nature. Implied explanations of purpose, value and limitations will not score highly.
Important:
- Write under two sub headings, which state exact details of each source, and evaluate each in turn.
- Use the key words: origin, purpose, value, limitation.
- Evaluation of sources must be related to the investigation/ subject.
- Choose and contrast & evaluate two different types of sources and if possible two different nationalities. Sources do not have to be written eg film, propaganda
- A source from a `key` person could be a good choice
- Choose sources from different times – then you can evaluate the historiographical context ; place; position of author etc. Have different things to say about each source (weaker candidates tended to repeat comments under different sources)
- If you use a single document (eg a speech/ statistics), then put a copy in your appendix.
- The inclusion of an accurate reference to the source is a minimum requirement.
Markscheme
The evaluation of sources is thorough and there is appropriate reference to their origin,
purpose, value and limitation. 4
The evaluation of sources is generally appropriate and adequate but reference to their
origin, purpose, value and limitation, is limited. 2–3
Sources are described but there is no reference to their origin, purpose, value and limitation. 1
There is no description or evaluation of sources. 0
Section D Analysis 5 marks
The analysis should include:
• the importance of the investigation in its historical context
• analysis of the evidence
• if appropriate, different interpretations.
This is where the parts that were identified in part B, will be broken down into key points/ issues and analysed. This is where you evaluate/ judge the different points of view/ historical perspectives.
Important:
1. This is not narrating the detail again. You are evaluating the strength of the historical arguments you have encountered. This is historiography and historical analysis not description. Examiners expect candidates to read widely to appreciate the range of argument/opinion that exists.
2. Use your arguments, your evaluation of the views. Do not accept historical views uncritically. Contrast what books have said. Allow your personal voice/ opinion to come through.
3. Weak candidates tend to repeat the content of Section B.
4. Again, reference to specific sources is essential.
5. Consideration of the historical context is essential to explain the historical significance of the material.
6. Create a clear style: each paragraph analysing one point with a logical fluent development of ideas, that are focused to the subject.
7. Pointing out areas of historical doubt, areas of potential associated research/ question that would aid the debate, is not only acceptable but highly recommended. Seeing the absence of evidence, weakness of analysis is good.
Markscheme
There is critical analysis of the evidence and the importance of the investigation in its
historical context. Where appropriate, different interpretations are analysed. 5
There is analysis of both the evidence and the importance of the investigation in its
historical context. Where appropriate, different interpretations are considered. 3–4
There is some attempt at analysing the evidence and the importance of the investigation
in its historical context. 1–2
There is no analysis. 0
Section E Conclusion 2 marks
The conclusion must be clearly stated and consistent with the evidence presented.
This section follows on from part D.
Important:
1. The conclusion must be based on the evidence used which addresses the question ie linked to what you have said in Section D.
2. You do not have to be too judgmental in your conclusions.
Markscheme
The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent with the evidence presented. 2
The conclusion is not entirely consistent with the evidence presented. 1
There is no conclusion. 0
Section F List of Sources/ Bibliography 2 marks
Annotate all sources correctly. Separate Primary from Secondary sources.
Important:
1. No marks will be awarded if there are less than 1500, or more than 2000 words.
2. Any appendices included must be relevant to content of main writing ie used and referenced.
Markscheme
A comprehensive list of all sources is included, using one standard method of listing
sources consistently. The investigation is within the word limit. 2
A list of sources is included but it is incomplete, or one standard method of listing
sources is not used consistently. The investigation is within the word limit. 1
A list of sources is not included and/or the investigation is not within the word limit. 0
Final Advice from Examiners Report
Most candidates would benefit from:
· Choosing a topic which lends itself to analysis, and for which adequate sources are available. Don`t choose something obscure.
· Avoiding dependence on the internet
· Framing the question for the investigation
· Writing an appropriate and well focused plan
· Using the school library
· Referencing evidence accurately in Section B
· Evaluating the sources chosen for Section C, including entering title, author, publisher and date correctly
· Developing analytical skills and realizing the difference between narrating or describing events and analyzing them
· Ensuring that the Conclusion is based on the evidence and analysis presented
· Compiling the Source List/ Bibliography
· Keeping within the word limit
And:
· Look at past examples
· Plan well
Final Check List
1. Do you have a clear title, with the scope for historical analysis?
2. Have you set your IA out into clear sections A – F?
3. Have you created a title sheet with: title/task investigation; your name; your candidate number; school; number of words?
4. Have you set out Section A properly, precisely stating your areas of study?
5. Have you clearly distinguished between the content/ information required in Sections B and D?
6. Have you written in a purely precise factual manner in Section B?
7. Have you written in a purely analytical manner in Section D?
8. Have you chosen your sources in Section C well?
9. Have you numbered your pages?
10. Are all your references and quotes (in whatever section) cited fully in footnotes or endnotes?
11. Does your bibliography contain all the works consulted, and not just those quoted from or referred to in main body?
12. Does any appendix include a copy of any key documents you have referred to?
13. Have you numbered your pages?
14. Have you sent an electronic copy to your teacher and also handed in 3 hard copies?
1
IB History Internal Assessment Updated 2011