IB History HL Internal Assessment Exemplar: Why did Khomeini target Iranian women and how did he target them in 1977-1981?

The student clearly states a focused and answerable research question specifying place, period, and themes, meeting top-band requirements.

Consider clarifying the term “target” in the research question to specify whether it pertains to legal, social, or physical dimensions to avoid ambiguity.

The student selects two credible peer-reviewed articles directly relevant to the research question, showing good source selection.

The relevance descriptions remain broad; link each source’s specific arguments or data to the “why” and “how” aspects of the research question to deepen the explanation.

Try explicitly stating how the defined aspects (dress code, occupation, education) directly answer the research question’s “target” and “method” components.

The OPVL-style labels for value and limitation demonstrate a methodical approach to source evaluation, reflecting good understanding of origin and purpose.

Limitations are stated assertively but lack specific examples; include evidence (e.g., contrasting data) to substantiate how temporal coverage or secondary reliance affects usefulness.

Consider linking each OPVL point back to your investigation’s needs: explain how each value and limitation influences your ability to answer your research question.

The works cited list demonstrates breadth, including multiple peer-reviewed journals covering diverse aspects of the revolution.

The recurring focus on the veil in multiple paragraphs leads to redundancy; consolidate points to sharpen the narrative flow.

The introduction clearly sets the historical context and outlines the investigation’s parameters, contributing to overall coherence.

Incorporate primary sources (e.g., government decrees, eyewitness accounts) alongside secondary analysis to strengthen evidential support.

Introduce counter-evidence or dissenting perspectives to evaluate the robustness of the claim that religious ideology alone drove policy decisions.

The section largely narrates events; deepen critical analysis by linking evidence to causal claims and contrasting alternative interpretations.

Multiple perspectives are presented without systematic evaluation; assess bias, reliability, and significance of each viewpoint.

Use a short evaluative framework to compare sources on key criteria (e.g., proximity, bias) to ground your perspective analysis in evidence.

Rather than restating findings, derive a reasoned conclusion by weighing evidence and showing how it leads to your final judgment.

The conclusion succinctly restates main findings and echoes the research question, providing closure to the argument.

The works cited rely almost exclusively on secondary sources; incorporating primary documents would strengthen the investigation’s evidential base.

The reflection identifies chronology and contextual analysis as key historical methods, demonstrating a clear methodological focus.

Illustrate how applying Islamic context analysis altered your understanding of a key event or source, to make the reflection more analytical.

Reflection remains descriptive; deepen insight by explaining how these methods influenced your interpretation of specific evidence.

Challenges are noted but not critically explored; discuss potential strategies historians could use to mitigate limited perspectives or source biases.

Consider suggesting how triangulation of sources or oral histories might address gaps identified in secondary source research.