Historical Investigation

[ibibib1022]

Could anyone tell me if the summary of evidence is just a list of facts I found that I will analyze in the analysis part? And what exactly is the conclusion?? So up until the conclusion.. I've said "here's how I conducted the investigation, what I found, where I found it, why what I found is important, then conclusion? so if I've already talked about the importance... what is left to talk about? I'm very confused and my teacher's been away for a while... I would appreciate your help! Thanks in advance

[Austin Glau]

Yes, the summary of evidence is that. The Main function of the summary of evidence is to prove your "scholarlyness" to the IB, to prove that yow know what you are talking about and that you have done research on that.

The Conclusion is where you conclude your investigation, so it is very short and yes, that is what it should really be. It is short, something like 200 to 300 words (I forget).

Tour conclusion should restate theis, how you came to it, ect. It is ok if it is repetitive, just not overly repetitive.

[SushiMonstar]

For your conclusion, just state the ANSWER that you have found for your investigation, and perhaps any uncertainties or limitations / to which extent etc.

[EMT]

Summary of evidence is essentially just a list of facts- make sure you reference every single one!

the next section/s (evaluation of sources) is just OPVL- Origins, Purpose, Value, Limitations. Then in the analysis, just answer your question saying what lead you to that, ie. because of this, i think he was to blame or it is clear that this method was effective due to this.. in the conclusion, make it explicit what you have decided, and why its important