Loading document preview...

IB History HL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent can the crimes of the 1880s British serial killer Jack the Ripper be attributed to Aaron Kosminski?

To what extent can the crimes of the 1880s British serial killer Jack the Ripper be attributed to Aaron Kosminski?

Overall Score: 13/25

Was this exemplar helpful?

Want a report just like this?

Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing

Criteria A: Identification and evaluation of sources

5/6

Criteria Strands

Excellent

Research question formulation

Excellent

Source selection and relevance

Excellent

Source analysis and evaluation

Criteria Feedback

You stated a sharply focused and clearly historical question that stayed relevant throughout the investigation.
You selected two sources that were appropriate, relevant, and closely tied to the issue you were trying to prove.
You went beyond description by discussing origin, purpose, content, and limitations for both sources.

Some source limitations were identified only in general terms rather than showing their full effect on interpretation.
The usefulness of the contested letter was not always pinned down methodologically with enough precision.
A few evaluations could have been pushed further to show why one source was more convincing than the other.

Criteria B: Investigation

6/15

Criteria Strands

Good

Organization and clarity

Moderate

Critical analysis and evidence use

Good

Perspective evaluation and conclusion

Criteria Feedback

Your investigation is generally clear and well organized, with a logical progression through the evidence and a conclusion that returns to the question.
You move beyond narration by trying to weigh evidence and by using different kinds of material to support your argument.
You show caution with disputed evidence by treating contested material as possible rather than definite proof.

Some transitions between pieces of evidence are abrupt, which occasionally weakens the flow of the argument.
A few claims are asserted more strongly than the evidence fully supports, especially where alternative explanations are not weighed in enough detail.
Your final judgment would be stronger if you compared the main line of argument more explicitly with at least one serious alternative interpretation.

Criteria C: Reflection

2/4

Criteria Strands

Moderate

Methods reflection

Moderate

Historical challenges awareness

Moderate

Connection to investigation

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Unlock all criteria

Upgrade to PRO to see detailed feedback for all criteria in this exemplar.

Loading scores...

Overall Score: 13/25

Was this exemplar helpful?

Want a report just like this?

Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing

Criteria A: Identification and evaluation of sources

5/6

Criteria Strands

Excellent

Research question formulation

Excellent

Source selection and relevance

Excellent

Source analysis and evaluation

Criteria Feedback

You stated a sharply focused and clearly historical question that stayed relevant throughout the investigation.
You selected two sources that were appropriate, relevant, and closely tied to the issue you were trying to prove.
You went beyond description by discussing origin, purpose, content, and limitations for both sources.

Some source limitations were identified only in general terms rather than showing their full effect on interpretation.
The usefulness of the contested letter was not always pinned down methodologically with enough precision.
A few evaluations could have been pushed further to show why one source was more convincing than the other.

Criteria B: Investigation

6/15

Criteria Strands

Good

Organization and clarity

Moderate

Critical analysis and evidence use

Good

Perspective evaluation and conclusion

Criteria Feedback

Your investigation is generally clear and well organized, with a logical progression through the evidence and a conclusion that returns to the question.
You move beyond narration by trying to weigh evidence and by using different kinds of material to support your argument.
You show caution with disputed evidence by treating contested material as possible rather than definite proof.

Some transitions between pieces of evidence are abrupt, which occasionally weakens the flow of the argument.
A few claims are asserted more strongly than the evidence fully supports, especially where alternative explanations are not weighed in enough detail.
Your final judgment would be stronger if you compared the main line of argument more explicitly with at least one serious alternative interpretation.

Criteria C: Reflection

2/4

Criteria Strands

Moderate

Methods reflection

Moderate

Historical challenges awareness

Moderate

Connection to investigation

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Unlock all criteria

Upgrade to PRO to see detailed feedback for all criteria in this exemplar.