Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yeah, basically everything changed. It is no longer a six part research project. Now it is a three part research paper type thing. (Evaluation of sources, research paper, and reflection.) 

 

What's below is copied from my school's handbook for writing the history IA (I'm pretty sure this is mostly the IB scoring guide)

 

Section 1: Identification and evaluation of sources Explained
A crucial element of this section of the internal assessment task is formulating an appropriate question to investigate.   The question’s scope must be clearly defined and be narrow enough to complete in the 2,200 word limit.
 
This section requires students to analyse in detail two of the sources that they will use in their investigation.  Sources selected must be appropriate academic sources. In this section students must:
• clearly state the question they have chosen to investigate (this must be stated as a question)
• include a brief explanation of the nature of the two sources they have selected for detailed analysis, including an explanation of their relevance to the investigation 
• analyse two sources in detail. With reference to the origin, purpose and content, the student should analyse the value and limitations of the two sources in relation to the investigation. 
 
Marks Criterion A: Identification and evaluation of sources (6 marks) 
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 
1-2 The question for investigation has been stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate sources, but there is little or no explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. The response describes, but does not analyse or evaluate, two of the sources. 
3-4 An appropriate question for investigation has been stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate sources, and there is some explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. There is some analysis and evaluation of two sources, but reference to their value and limitations is limited. 
5-6 An appropriate question for investigation has been clearly stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate and relevant sources, and there is a clear explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. There is a detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources with explicit discussion of the value and limitations of two of the sources for the investigation, with reference to the origins, purpose and content of the two sources. 
 
Section 2: Investigation Explained
This section of the internal assessment task consists of the actual investigation. The internal assessment task provides scope for a wide variety of different types of historical investigation, for example:
• a historical topic or theme using a variety of written sources or a variety of written and non-written sources
• a historical topic based on fieldwork, for example, a museum, archeological site, battlefields, places of worship such as mosques or churches, historic buildings
• a local history study.
 
The investigation must be clearly and effectively organized (chronological/thematic with sub-titles that indicate organization). While there is no prescribed format for how this section must be structured, it must contain critical analysis that is focused clearly on the question being investigated, and must also include the conclusion that the student draws from their analysis.In this section, students must use a range of evidence to support their argument from appropriate sources.  Web sources of any kind should be used very sparingly.  Those sources selected must be vetted to ensure reliability.  The exception to this guidance is the use of databases, which contain academic print sources that have been digitized.
 
Marks Criterion B: Investigation (15 marks) 
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 
1-3 The investigation lacks clarity and coherence, and is poorly organized.
4-6 There is an attempt to organize the investigation but this is only partially
7-9 The investigation is generally clear and well organized, but there is some Where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task.The response contains little or no critical analysis. It may consist mostly of generalizations and poorly substantiated assertions. Reference is made to evidence from sources, but there is no analysis of that evidence. successful, and the investigation lacks clarity and coherence.The investigation contains some limited critical analysis but the response is primarily narrative/descriptive in nature, rather than analytical. Evidence from sources is included, but is not integrated into the analysis/argument. repetition or lack of clarity in places. The response moves beyond description to include some analysis or critical commentary, but this is not sustained. There is an attempt to integrate evidence from sources with the analysis/argument. 
10-12 The investigation is generally clear and well organized, although there may be awareness of different perspectives, but these perspectives are not evaluated. There may be some repetition or lack of clarity in places. The investigation contains critical analysis, although this analysis may lack development or clarity. Evidence from a range of sources is used to support the argument. There is awareness and some evaluation of different perspectives. The investigation argues to a reasoned conclusion. 
13-15 The investigation is clear, coherent and effectively organized. The investigation contains well-developed critical analysis that is focused clearly on the stated question. Evidence from a range of sources is used effectively to support the argument. There is evaluation of different perspectives. The investigation argues to a reasoned conclusion that is consistent with the evidence and arguments provided. 
 
Section 3: Reflection Explained
This section of the internal assessment task requires students to reflect on what undertaking their investigation highlighted to them about the methods used by, and the challenges facing, the historian. Examples of discussion questions that may help to encourage reflection include the following.
• What methods used by historians did you use in your investigation? 
• What did your investigation highlight to you about the limitations of those methods?
• What are the challenges facing the historian? How do they differ from the challenges facing a scientist or a mathematician?
• What challenges in particular does archive-based history present?
• How can the reliability of sources be evaluated?
• What is the difference between bias and selection?
• What constitutes a historical event?
• Who decides which events are historically significant?
• Is it possible to describe historical events in an unbiased way?
• What is the role of the historian?
• Should terms such as “atrocity” be used when writing about history, or should value judgments be avoided?
• If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?
 
Marks Criterion C: Reflection (4 marks) 
0 The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 
1-2 The reflection contains some discussion of what the investigation  highlighted to the student about the methods used by the historian. The reflection demonstrates little awareness of the challenges facing the historian and/or the limitations of the methods used by the historian. The connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation is implied, but is not explicit. to the student about the methods used by the historian.
3-4 The reflection is clearly focused on what the investigation highlighted .  The reflection demonstrates clear awareness of challenges facing the historian and/or limitations of the methods used by the historian. There is a clear and explicit connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation. 
Total= 25 IB Marks for IB College Grade
 
Hopefully this helps
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
22 minutes ago, Pitz02 said:

No it only is partially suitable for the new IA style. You could use it for part 1 where you analyze two sources using OPVL. But the main part (Part 2) is investigating a question on a specific historical event.

How narrowly defined does the 'specific historical event' have to be? Could it for example also detail the psychological effects of a war on the soldiers fighting in it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...