IB History SL Internal Assessment Example

Consider refining the term “purely” in the research question to specify criteria for strategic versus non-strategic motives, which would guide clearer parameters for analysis.

The title is descriptive but could more directly integrate the research question to reinforce focus; aligning the title wording with the specific investigative phrasing may enhance coherence.

The research question is clearly and precisely articulated, specifying date, location and issue, which establishes a focused investigative scope. Excellent formulation that directs the inquiry toward analytical evaluation rather than description.

Consider incorporating at least one primary account, such as Belgian diplomatic communications, to enrich the investigation with direct evidence and diversify source types.

Selection of Ritter and Fischer as contrasting secondary sources is purposeful; explaining how each contributes divergent perspectives strengthens source relevance and aligns well with the research question.

The delineation of the 1870–1914 timeframe demonstrates thoughtful context-setting, establishing clear temporal boundaries that aid focused source analysis and historical depth.

The discussion of Fischer’s single-chapter coverage remains descriptive; explicitly relating this limitation back to how it may skew your argument would sharpen the evaluation.

Articulation of both value and limitation regarding Ritter’s focus on the Schlieffen Plan shows detailed awareness of content scope and its potential bias in omitting broader causal factors.

The evaluation of Fischer’s revisionist stance is insightful, yet further interrogation of his access to archives and intended audience would deepen the critique of origin and purpose.

Citation formatting varies across entries; adopting a consistent style (e.g., MLA or Chicago) will improve professionalism and ensure clarity in source referencing.

The bibliography lists a diverse range of reputable secondary sources, enhancing the investigation’s scholarly foundation and historiographical context.

Section headers are well-structured, guiding the reader effectively through the investigation and enhancing organizational clarity.

Quotations from Ritter are integrated to support claims, yet adding a brief analysis after each quote would further demonstrate critical engagement and avoid narrative summary.

The introduction concisely sets out historiographical debate and methodology, but repeating the research question verbatim here introduces minor redundancy; consider summarizing it instead.

Barbara Tuchman’s analysis is applied aptly to elucidate geographical factors, demonstrating effective use of secondary evidence to substantiate strategic necessity.

The citation for Tuchman’s geographical discussion lacks a precise page reference; including page numbers consistently strengthens academic rigor and traceability.

The transition to Fischer’s imperialism argument is coherent; however, explicitly contrasting this with the preceding strategic perspective in a single comparative sentence could heighten the critical dialogue.

The evaluation that Belgium’s minimal land area limits expansionist significance shows astute perspective evaluation; consider linking this explicitly back to the research question in the next paragraph.

Quote integration of Stevenson underscores historiographical nuance, yet offering more interpretive comments on his credibility would deepen the critical analysis.

Incorporating population and industrial statistics effectively broadens the analysis, linking economic growth to imperialist motives and enriching critical examination of non-strategic factors.

Norman Stone’s discussion of the Russian threat enriches the strategic argument; however, explicating how this fits into long-term versus short-term strategy would strengthen the temporal analysis.

The final assertion reiterates the research question’s scope effectively; adding a reflective comment on potential counterperspectives could enhance the evaluation of competing interpretations.

The conclusion succinctly synthesizes evidence and argues convincingly for strategic motivations, reflecting an effective alignment between analysis and research question.

The reflection demonstrates clear awareness of source bias and explains how cross-examination of historians mitigates this, showcasing sound methodological understanding.

Your discussion of managing abundant evidence exhibits an understanding of historians’ challenges; outlining concrete strategies for evidence prioritization would further strengthen this reflection.

Connections between methodological reflection and the specific case (Ritter vs Fischer) are clear, but elaborating on how this shaped your final judgement could deepen the introspection.