IB History SL Internal Assessment Example

The research question is succinct, analytical and appropriately delimited, framing a clear investigation focus.

The evaluation of Simon’s limitations asserts lack of hindsight without concrete examples; providing specific instances would substantiate this critique.

Could the student have incorporated a brief discussion of archival primary sources to deepen source evaluation in addition to secondary works?

Break down the source analysis into distinct sections (origin, purpose, content) to improve readability and clarity of evaluation.

Reference list entries show inconsistency in citation style and missing access dates; standardize formatting per academic conventions.

Comprehensive list of scholarly sources demonstrates commendable breadth in research and source selection.

Standalone URL under References lacks author-date formatting; ensure all entries follow a consistent citation style.

The table of contents is clear and logically structured, aiding navigation through the sections.

How might including an explicit thesis statement in this section strengthen the framing of the investigation?

The introductory paragraph restates the research question rather than advancing new context; consider avoiding repetition and focusing on framing arguments.

Smooth transition into Section 2 maintains coherence and signals clear progression from sources to investigation.

Paraphrase critical points more concisely rather than relying on lengthy quotations to sharpen analytical focus.

Explicitly link each historical example back to the research question’s objectives to reinforce the argument’s coherence.

Analysis of A.J.P. Taylor’s perspective is described but lacks evaluation of its limitations or contextual bias.

Interrogate potential bias in Simon’s account by comparing his philosophical lens against other contemporary sources.

Effective use of primary evidence (e.g., the date of the Rome–Berlin Axis) strengthens the argument with concrete historical reference.

Presentation of Holt’s perspective adds valuable nuance to the appraisal of the pact’s objectives.

Avoid fragmenting the flow of your argument with embedded footnotes; consider endnotes to maintain readability.

Sharpen the evaluative stance in the conclusion by articulating a definitive answer clearly supported by your evidence.

Concluding summary effectively synthesizes multiple objectives and outcomes to address the research question.

Label reflection subsections (methods, challenges, connection) explicitly to ensure alignment with reflection criteria strands.

Reflection on methods lists activities but lacks deeper insight into the methodological challenges you encountered.

Link challenges faced directly to specific historiographical decisions made during your investigation for stronger reflection.

Drawing contemporary parallels enhances the relevance and depth of reflection on historical methods.