This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Loading document preview...
IB History SL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent was the Hoare - Laval Pact effective in achieving its primary objectives in the context of interwar diplomacy?
To what extent was the Hoare - Laval Pact effective in achieving its primary objectives in the context of interwar diplomacy?
Loading scores...
6
Official IB Result
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
General feedback
17/25
0
13
25
4.1·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
Footnote formatting is inconsistent across pages (e.g., math tags mixed with HTML); standardize citations for professionalism.
Criteria A: Identification and evaluation of sources
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question formulation
Excellent
Source selection and relevance
Excellent
Source analysis and evaluation
Criteria Feedback
Succinct, analytical and appropriately delimited research question framing a clear line of inquiry
Explicit explanation of each source’s relevance (French vs. British perspectives) beyond token justification
Detailed discussion of origin, purpose and content with linked value-and-limitation comments
Comprehensive breadth of scholarly sources demonstrating strong research effort
Justification of limitations (e.g. Simon’s lack of hindsight) asserted without concrete examples
Evaluation could be deepened by referencing specific archival or primary documents
Inconsistencies in citation style and missing access dates in the reference list
1.1·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The research question is succinct, analytical and appropriately delimited, framing a clear investigation focus.
1.2·Weakness
Page 3• Click to view
The evaluation of Simon’s limitations asserts lack of hindsight without concrete examples; providing specific instances would substantiate this critique.
1.3·Question
Page 4• Click to view
Could the student have incorporated a brief discussion of archival primary sources to deepen source evaluation in addition to secondary works?
1.4·Suggestion
Page 4• Click to view
Break down the source analysis into distinct sections (origin, purpose, content) to improve readability and clarity of evaluation.
1.5·Weakness
Page 10• Click to view
Reference list entries show inconsistency in citation style and missing access dates; standardize formatting per academic conventions.
1.6·Strength
Page 11• Click to view
Comprehensive list of scholarly sources demonstrates commendable breadth in research and source selection.
1.7·Weakness
Page 11• Click to view
Standalone URL under References lacks author-date formatting; ensure all entries follow a consistent citation style.
Criteria B: Investigation
9/15
0
8
15
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Organization and clarity
Moderate
Critical analysis and evidence use
Poor
Perspective evaluation and conclusion
Criteria Feedback
Generally clear and well organized with logical sub-headings, table of contents and coherent line of argument
Effective use of primary evidence (e.g. League sanctions dates) to support critical points
Recognition and integration of multiple historiographical perspectives (e.g. Holt, Taylor, Sullivan, Cassels)
Concluding summary synthesizes objectives and outcomes to address the research question
Sections remain partly descriptive; large quotations sometimes lack analytical linking
Integration of evidence occasionally slips into unexamined quotation strings
Evaluation of perspectives tends to restate historians’ opinions rather than interrogate underlying evidence
Minor lapses in flow due to typographical errors and duplicated citation markers
2.1·Strength
Page 2• Click to view
The table of contents is clear and logically structured, aiding navigation through the sections.
2.2·Question
Page 3• Click to view
How might including an explicit thesis statement in this section strengthen the framing of the investigation?
2.3·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The introductory paragraph restates the research question rather than advancing new context; consider avoiding repetition and focusing on framing arguments.
2.4·Strength
Page 4• Click to view
Smooth transition into Section 2 maintains coherence and signals clear progression from sources to investigation.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 5• Click to view
Paraphrase critical points more concisely rather than relying on lengthy quotations to sharpen analytical focus.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 5• Click to view
Explicitly link each historical example back to the research question’s objectives to reinforce the argument’s coherence.
2.7·Weakness
Page 6• Click to view
Analysis of A.J.P. Taylor’s perspective is described but lacks evaluation of its limitations or contextual bias.
2.8·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
Interrogate potential bias in Simon’s account by comparing his philosophical lens against other contemporary sources.
2.9·Strength
Page 6• Click to view
Effective use of primary evidence (e.g., the date of the Rome–Berlin Axis) strengthens the argument with concrete historical reference.
2.10·Strength
Page 7• Click to view
Presentation of Holt’s perspective adds valuable nuance to the appraisal of the pact’s objectives.
2.11·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
Avoid fragmenting the flow of your argument with embedded footnotes; consider endnotes to maintain readability.
2.12·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
Sharpen the evaluative stance in the conclusion by articulating a definitive answer clearly supported by your evidence.
2.13·Strength
Page 8• Click to view
Concluding summary effectively synthesizes multiple objectives and outcomes to address the research question.
Criteria C: Reflection
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Methods reflection
Good
Historical challenges awareness
Good
Connection to investigation
Criteria Feedback
Clear focus on what the investigation revealed about historical methods
Explicit awareness of historiographical challenges (scarcity of literature, dominant interpretative traditions)
Consistent, explicit linkage between reflection points and the original investigation
Drawing of contemporary parallels enhances relevance of methodological reflection
Reflection remains relatively brief and descriptive, lacking deeper methodological debate
Connections between challenges and specific historiographical decisions could be more concrete
Would benefit from subdivision into labelled subsections to match criteria strands
3.1·Suggestion
Page 9• Click to view
Label reflection subsections (methods, challenges, connection) explicitly to ensure alignment with reflection criteria strands.
3.2·Weakness
Page 9• Click to view
Reflection on methods lists activities but lacks deeper insight into the methodological challenges you encountered.
3.3·Suggestion
Page 10• Click to view
Link challenges faced directly to specific historiographical decisions made during your investigation for stronger reflection.
3.4·Strength
Page 10• Click to view
Drawing contemporary parallels enhances the relevance and depth of reflection on historical methods.
History IA Exemplar: Hoare-Laval Pact Effectiveness in Interwar… | RevisionDojo
