IB History HL Internal Assessment Example

The research question is precisely formulated, specifying place, timeframe, and aspect for investigation. This clarity sets a strong foundation and aligns well with IA requirements.

Most sources are secondary. To deepen analysis, incorporate at least one primary source—such as government reports or firsthand testimonies—to enrich original evidence evaluation.

The evaluation of Thompson’s book discusses value well but the sentence ending “on one hand” is incomplete. Ensure each paragraph finishes its thought to maintain analytic clarity.

Consider adding a brief note in Section A to introduce how each source will contribute to answering the research question, rather than waiting until individual evaluations. This preview improves coherence.

The initial overview of both sources provides context but lacks explicit mention of each source’s origin and purpose. Including these details early would strengthen the source identification.

The Burawoy evaluation outlines date, origin, and purpose but the limitations discussion should clarify how the 1974 cutoff affects the investigation’s timeframe to strengthen relevance.

When you introduce supplementation with the Sullivan Principles, break this into a new paragraph and explain how it specifically addresses political perspectives missing in Thompson’s narrative.

Simpson’s 2023 historiography is introduced but lacks a detailed evaluation (purpose, scope, limitations). Include origin credentials and content analysis to meet top‐band expectations.

The IA would benefit from more explicit definition of “economic development” metrics (e.g., GDP, employment rates, inequality) to clarify analytical criteria.

The sentence ending “What this implies is” is left hanging. Complete the clause to maintain logical flow and avoid reader confusion.

The background on Verwoerd and legislative acts is well‐organised and effectively sets context for the inquiry.

The use of quantitative figures (R1,211 vs R146 funding) effectively supports the argument about educational inequality’s economic impact.

The analysis of the migrant labour system goes beyond description, linking policy to long‐term economic unsustainability. This critical insight strengthens the argument.

Incorporating Burawoy’s sociological insights is well‐integrated, showing how race‐class structures shaped economic outcomes.

The comparison with South Korea’s educational investment is a strong comparative perspective that highlights the counterfactual of alternative development paths.

Contextualizing international sanctions and investment withdrawal effectively extends the analysis to global dimensions of apartheid’s economic effects.

The synthesis of policy impacts and vulnerability to shocks shows cohesive argumentation linking apartheid measures to later unrest.

The conclusion restates key points clearly but stops short of evaluating alternative viewpoints. Integrate counterarguments and evidence weighting for a more robust closure.

The reflection paragraph ends mid‐thought at “my”. Complete the sentence to fully articulate how perspectives shifted during research.

The reflection clearly identifies content analysis and narrative evaluation as historian methods. This shows strong awareness of methodological approaches.

Reflection on using multiple sources to reduce bias demonstrates good understanding of triangulation and maintaining neutrality.

Your recognition of long‐term analysis and interdisciplinary methods shows mature reflection on the challenges historians face.

You highlight the scarcity of primary sources well. Consider specifying which types of primary documents (e.g., government archives, personal letters) would strengthen future research.