This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Loading document preview...
IB History SL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent were ideological differences the most significant factor of U.S. intervention in Guatemala in the form of the Guatemalan coup of 1954?
To what extent were ideological differences the most significant factor of U.S. intervention in Guatemala in the form of the Guatemalan coup of 1954?
Loading scores...
6
Official IB Result
18/25
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
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question formulation
Excellent
Source selection and relevance
Excellent
Source analysis and evaluation
Criteria Feedback
The research question is precisely formulated, situated in place, time and theme, and clearly anchors the investigation.
Two highly relevant sources (a primary State Department memorandum and a secondary CIA history) are identified with clear discussion of their pertinence to the research question.
Detailed analysis of origin, purpose and content for both sources demonstrates explicit discussion of value and limitations.
Some evaluations (e.g., limitations of the Cabot memorandum) are incomplete or cut off mid-thought.
Discussion of source limitations occasionally remains general rather than fully specific.
Bibliographic entries lack consistent formatting and some publication details are missing.
1.1·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The research question is precisely worded and clearly situated in place, time and theme, providing a strong foundation for the investigation.
1.2·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The discussion of limitations for the Cabot memorandum cuts off mid-thought. Complete the sentence and deepen the analysis by specifying how missing perspectives skew interpretation.
1.3·Strength
Page 3• Click to view
The evaluation of the first primary source gives clear discussion of origin, purpose and content, demonstrating solid understanding of its value to the investigation.
1.4·Suggestion
Page 4• Click to view
The evaluation of the secondary source’s limitations focuses on scope but could be enhanced by comparing it with alternative accounts to demonstrate awareness of potential bias.
1.5·Strength
Page 4• Click to view
The origin and purpose of the CIA history by Cullather are well outlined, linking authoritativeness and intended audience to the source’s value.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 11• Click to view
Several entries lack consistent formatting (e.g., missing italics, inconsistent use of DOI). Standardize citation style throughout the bibliography.
1.7·Strength
Page 11• Click to view
The bibliography lists a balanced mix of primary and secondary sources, demonstrating thorough research groundwork.
1.8·Suggestion
Page 12• Click to view
One bibliographic entry is undated. Where possible, add publication years to improve source traceability and completeness.
Criteria B: Investigation
10/15
0
8
15
Criteria Strands
Good
Organization and clarity
Good
Critical analysis and evidence use
Moderate
Perspective evaluation and conclusion
Criteria Feedback
Well-structured investigation with logical headings, clear signposting and smooth transitions.
Effective use of a range of evidence (primary documents, quantitative UFCO data, memoirs and historiographical scholarship) to support a balanced argument.
Integration of revisionist, post-revisionist and traditional perspectives demonstrates engagement with historiographical debate.
Occasional repetition (e.g., summaries of Decree 900) and abrupt formatting breaks interrupt clarity.
Some in-text citations lack precise page references, weakening academic rigor.
Evaluation of perspectives in the conclusion is coherent but relatively brief and could probe the evidence more deeply.
2.1·Strength
Page 3• Click to view
Restating the research question in Section 1 robustly orients the reader but could be trimmed to avoid redundancy with the title block.
2.2·Strength
Page 5• Click to view
The investigation introduction clearly situates the coup in its historical context and outlines the competing factors, aiding reader comprehension.
2.3·Suggestion
Page 5• Click to view
The economic analysis paragraph is densely packed and lacks inline citations. Break it into sub-sections and add parenthetical citations to improve clarity and substantiation.
2.4·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
The ideological argument aptly invokes the Truman Doctrine but would benefit from more explicit linkage between doctrine principles and specific U.S. policy decisions in Guatemala.
2.5·Strength
Page 6• Click to view
Detailed acreage figures from UFCO are effectively used to support the economic argument, demonstrating strong use of quantitative evidence.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
Differentiate Arbenz’s genuine collaboration with the PGT from Soviet-directed communism to sharpen the ideological analysis.
2.7·Strength
Page 7• Click to view
The integration of post-revisionist perspectives offers a nuanced interpretation and situates the discussion within historiographical debate.
2.8·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
References to Cullather (1994) lack precise page numbers. Include specific citations to strengthen academic rigor and enable evidence verification.
2.9·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
Integrate brief source-evaluation notes when quoting UFCO figures (Streeter, 2000), rather than parenthetical mentions, to maintain analytical flow.
Criteria C: Reflection
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Methods reflection
Good
Historical challenges awareness
Good
Connection to investigation
Criteria Feedback
Clear reflection on the balance between primary and secondary sources and the necessity of corroboration.
Demonstrates explicit awareness of historiographical challenges such as source redactions and bias.
Directly links methodological insights to specific aspects of the investigation (e.g., the CIA memorandum, Decree 900).
Reflection remains somewhat generic and would benefit from more explicit examples tied to key IA moments.
Several reflections drift into broad statements and one concluding thought is left incomplete.
Could more explicitly tie each identified challenge to a precise investigative decision for greater depth.
3.1·Weakness
Page 8• Click to view
The beginning of the reflection outlines challenges but drifts into broad statements. Connect each challenge to specific investigative moments for greater depth.
3.2·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
The reflection header is concise but could explicitly outline the specific methodological insights to align more clearly with reflection criteria.
3.3·Strength
Page 8• Click to view
The reflection on balancing evidence is insightful, acknowledging the historian’s challenge of integrating primary and secondary sources.
3.4·Strength
Page 9• Click to view
The reflection effectively contrasts primary and secondary source roles, demonstrating clear methodological awareness.
3.5·Suggestion
Page 9• Click to view
While noting the need for varied perspectives, the reflection remains general. Cite exact examples from the investigation to illustrate how bias shaped interpretations.
3.6·Suggestion
Page 9• Click to view
The final sentence is cut off. Complete the thought to clarify how varied evidence contributes to historical objectivity.
3.7·Strength
Page 10• Click to view
The concluding reflection thoughtfully acknowledges the limits of objectivity, showing mature understanding of historical challenges.
History IA Exemplar: U.S. Intervention in Guatemala, 1954 | RevisionDojo
