Loading document preview...

IB History SL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent was the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, 7th December 1975 driven by fears of a leftist government on its border?

To what extent was the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, 7th December 1975 driven by fears of a leftist government on its border?

Overall Score: 20/25

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 precisely stated, focusing on a specific event and causal factor.
Two well‐chosen sources with clear explanations of their relevance to the investigation.
Detailed analysis of origin, purpose and content for both sources, with explicit discussion of value and limitations.

Key terms such as “leftist government” or “border” are not explicitly defined, leaving minor conceptual ambiguity.
Relevance statements could be strengthened by indicating exactly how each source will be used in later analysis.
Evaluation of limitations could engage more deeply with provenance issues (e.g., diplomatic censorship).

Criteria B: Investigation

12/15

Criteria Strands

Moderate

Organization and clarity

Moderate

Critical analysis and evidence use

Moderate

Perspective evaluation and conclusion

Criteria Feedback

Logical essay structure with clear headings and coherent paragraphing supporting reader navigation.
Critical analysis that weighs orthodox anti‐communist explanations against nationalist and economic interpretations.
Effective use of a range of primary and secondary evidence (e.g., Kissinger memo quotations, scholarly monographs) to substantiate arguments.
A reasoned conclusion that synthesises multiple strands of evidence to address the research question.

Occasional lapses into descriptive narrative, particularly in lengthy historical background sections.
Paragraphs are sometimes too long; structural breaks or topic sentences would improve clarity.
Perspective evaluation, while present, is unevenly developed—some counter‐arguments are asserted rather than critically dissected.
Some assertions lack pinpointed citations, reducing evidentiary precision.

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: 20/25

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 precisely stated, focusing on a specific event and causal factor.
Two well‐chosen sources with clear explanations of their relevance to the investigation.
Detailed analysis of origin, purpose and content for both sources, with explicit discussion of value and limitations.

Key terms such as “leftist government” or “border” are not explicitly defined, leaving minor conceptual ambiguity.
Relevance statements could be strengthened by indicating exactly how each source will be used in later analysis.
Evaluation of limitations could engage more deeply with provenance issues (e.g., diplomatic censorship).

Criteria B: Investigation

12/15

Criteria Strands

Moderate

Organization and clarity

Moderate

Critical analysis and evidence use

Moderate

Perspective evaluation and conclusion

Criteria Feedback

Logical essay structure with clear headings and coherent paragraphing supporting reader navigation.
Critical analysis that weighs orthodox anti‐communist explanations against nationalist and economic interpretations.
Effective use of a range of primary and secondary evidence (e.g., Kissinger memo quotations, scholarly monographs) to substantiate arguments.
A reasoned conclusion that synthesises multiple strands of evidence to address the research question.

Occasional lapses into descriptive narrative, particularly in lengthy historical background sections.
Paragraphs are sometimes too long; structural breaks or topic sentences would improve clarity.
Perspective evaluation, while present, is unevenly developed—some counter‐arguments are asserted rather than critically dissected.
Some assertions lack pinpointed citations, reducing evidentiary precision.

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.