Loading document preview...

IB History HL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent was the American National Exhibition in Moscow (1959) used as a tool of ideological warfare during the Cold War?

To what extent was the American National Exhibition in Moscow (1959) used as a tool of ideological warfare during the Cold War?

Overall Score: 17/25

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

Research question is clearly and prominently stated with a precise time frame and balanced scope.
Selection of two relevant and contrasting sources is well justified in relation to the research question.
Detailed evaluation of origin, purpose, content, value and limitation moves beyond description.

Minor phrasing issues and occasional repetition limit the absolute precision of the question.
Analysis lacks discussion of the thesis author’s credentials and publication context.
Evaluation remains U.S.-centric; absence of Soviet archival perspective reduces balance.
Bibliography formatting is inconsistent and needs standardization.

Criteria B: Investigation

9/15

Criteria Strands

Moderate

Organization and clarity

Moderate

Critical analysis and evidence use

Good

Perspective evaluation and conclusion

Criteria Feedback

Investigation is logically structured with clear headings and coherent flow from context to synthesis.
Contains critical analysis supported by evidence from multiple sources, including contrasting official and academic perspectives.
Effective use of evidence (e.g., visitor statistics, quotations) to substantiate key arguments.
Conclusion offers a reasoned evaluation of perspectives consistent with the evidence presented.

Table of Contents entries and citation formatting are inconsistent, affecting navigation and academic convention adherence.
Analysis occasionally slips into description; integration of some evidence (e.g., statistics) is uneven.
Depth of evaluation of Soviet perspectives is limited, acknowledged as a gap rather than analysed.
Quotations often lack precise page references and topic sentences could better distinguish analysis from narrative.

Criteria C: Reflection

3/4

Criteria Strands

Good

Methods reflection

Good

Historical challenges awareness

Good

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: 17/25

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

Research question is clearly and prominently stated with a precise time frame and balanced scope.
Selection of two relevant and contrasting sources is well justified in relation to the research question.
Detailed evaluation of origin, purpose, content, value and limitation moves beyond description.

Minor phrasing issues and occasional repetition limit the absolute precision of the question.
Analysis lacks discussion of the thesis author’s credentials and publication context.
Evaluation remains U.S.-centric; absence of Soviet archival perspective reduces balance.
Bibliography formatting is inconsistent and needs standardization.

Criteria B: Investigation

9/15

Criteria Strands

Moderate

Organization and clarity

Moderate

Critical analysis and evidence use

Good

Perspective evaluation and conclusion

Criteria Feedback

Investigation is logically structured with clear headings and coherent flow from context to synthesis.
Contains critical analysis supported by evidence from multiple sources, including contrasting official and academic perspectives.
Effective use of evidence (e.g., visitor statistics, quotations) to substantiate key arguments.
Conclusion offers a reasoned evaluation of perspectives consistent with the evidence presented.

Table of Contents entries and citation formatting are inconsistent, affecting navigation and academic convention adherence.
Analysis occasionally slips into description; integration of some evidence (e.g., statistics) is uneven.
Depth of evaluation of Soviet perspectives is limited, acknowledged as a gap rather than analysed.
Quotations often lack precise page references and topic sentences could better distinguish analysis from narrative.

Criteria C: Reflection

3/4

Criteria Strands

Good

Methods reflection

Good

Historical challenges awareness

Good

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.