IB History SL Internal Assessment Example

The research question is clearly stated, focused on Korolev’s death and the Soviet lunar programme’s failure, demonstrating strong formulation and relevance.

The PBS documentary evaluation notes government screening bias; suggest cross-checking with uncensored archival documents for corroboration.

Stating the time frame (1964–1974) alongside the question demonstrates strong alignment of scope and focus for source selection.

The evaluation of Harford’s book effectively covers origin and purpose but could probe deeper into Harford’s Western perspective and its influence on narrative bias.

The Senate Committee entry lacks a retrieval date or URL; include this information for completeness and traceability.

The bibliography demonstrates a balanced selection of primary and secondary works, supporting comprehensive research.

Online sources would benefit from stable DOIs or archive links to ensure long-term access and academic rigor.

Ensure consistent citation formatting (e.g., punctuation, italics) across all bibliography entries to enhance professionalism.

Consider specifying measurable criteria for “failure” (e.g., number of failed flights, budget overruns) to tighten the question’s scope and enable precise analysis.

Link each source evaluation explicitly to how it will support or constrain your investigation’s argument to strengthen methodological coherence.

The contextual introduction succinctly frames Korolev’s role and the programme’s genesis, supporting reader orientation effectively.

Consider integrating more primary testimony (e.g., memos, letters) alongside secondary biographies to diversify perspectives on Korolev’s influence.

Dates and statistics benefit clarity, but each claim needs a citation. For example, insert a reference after the 1964 certification date.

The concept of ‘failure’ is not operationally defined here; specify metrics (e.g., technical setbacks vs. program cancellation) to clarify analytical criteria.

After quoting Leonov and Harvey, follow with your own analysis connecting these perspectives to the investigation question.

The integration of multiple historians and firsthand quotes in this analysis paragraph is effective and shows critical engagement.

The Mishin quote is cut off mid-sentence; ensure full quotations are presented and contextualized to avoid misinterpretation.

The conclusion synthesizes multiple factors and acknowledges complexity, demonstrating clear perspective evaluation.

Explicitly restate how your conclusion answers the research question to reinforce clarity and direct linkage.

Avoid colloquial expressions like “red moon” in formal analysis; opt for precise academic language to maintain scholarly tone.

Deepen your reflection by detailing specific analytical steps taken when evaluating origin, purpose, and content of key sources.

The reflection articulates how critical source analysis shaped the investigation, showing strong metacognitive awareness.

Reflect on translation issues or OCR inaccuracies as a challenge to source reliability and interpretation.

The spelling “Kroelev” is inconsistent; ensure correct spelling of Sergei Korolev throughout to maintain accuracy.