IB History SL Internal Assessment Example

The research question effectively employs the analytical term “To what extent,” guiding the investigation with precision.

While focused, the question lacks further delimitation (e.g., post-1945 developments or specific movement aspects), limiting its scope.

The general statement that both sources “discuss women in the workforce” does not specify unique contributions; clarify which aspects each source illuminates.

Only two secondary sources are chosen without justification of their selection over others; include comparative rationale or broader historiography.

To strengthen analysis, consider integrating at least one primary source (e.g., wartime posters, diaries) to complement the secondary literature.

Good identification of Hartmann’s expertise and publication date, but the discussion of bias lacks exploration of its impact on your findings.

The origin discussion repeats the publication date twice; combine redundant points to enhance conciseness and clarity.

Section heading and historiographical framing of Hartmann vs. Lerner are clearly organized, guiding the reader through the debate.

McDermott & McDermott (2023) provides modern context, but its authority and limitations are not assessed; apply OPCVL for this source too.

The paragraph ends abruptly mid-thought; ensure complete sentences to maintain coherence and reader engagement.

Another incomplete sentence mid-page disrupts flow; revise to ensure each paragraph conveys a complete idea.

Descriptive recount of postwar decline needs deeper interpretation; analyze socioeconomic factors to strengthen your argument.

The claim “Therefore this was a huge step forward” lacks explicit linkage to both evidence and the research question; integrate your analysis more tightly.

Asserting long-term influence of the “We Can Do It!” poster requires comparative data; integrate postwar trends to substantiate your claim.

The Rosie the Riveter image is powerful; apply OPCVL to assess its origin, purpose, value and limitation within your argument.

The conclusion restates points but stops short of a definitive answer; refine to explicitly weigh perspectives and answer “to what extent.”

Raising the possibility that postwar rises were due to “time passing” prompts a new question; provide evidence or clarify its relevance.

The WWI comparison introduces depth, but its relevance to your WWII analysis needs clearer articulation and linkage.

Your final summary reiterates observations but lacks critical evaluation of contrasting views; weigh Hartmann and Lerner to strengthen conclusion.

The reflection outlines historians’ roles broadly but does not link explicitly to the methods you applied; deepen focus on OPCVL and source selection.

Personal bias is acknowledged but needs concrete illustration of how your perspective shaped interpretation of Hartmann and Lerner.

Good note on limited access to Hartmann’s book; extend by explaining how this constraint influenced your analysis or choice of evidence.

Organize the reflection into clear subsections (methods, challenges, bias) to enhance readability and thematic focus.

The science vs. history comparison raises an interesting point but reads as confusing; clarify this analogy and connect to historical evidence challenges.