The 2028 framework is not the 2026 reflection format
The IB launched a revised Diploma Programme History course for first teaching in August 2026 and first assessment in May 2028. The new IA remains an individual historical investigation. It has three sections: historical inquiry question, sources and perspectives, and synthesis and evaluation. A standalone reflection section is removed. The IB allows a maximum of seven sources, with a stronger emphasis on explaining question development and selection of sources.
Students assessed under the previous History curriculum through 2027 must use its actual guide instead. Do not transfer the seven-source ceiling or the new headings backwards to an older session. The existing 2028 source-limit guide covers choosing a portfolio; here the different student job is transforming contradictions into a defensible revised inquiry.
A question should survive an encounter with unexpected evidence
Fictional teaching scenario: Imagine a small town debating the closure of a public market in 1978. The novice researcher starts with: “Why did the council close the market to help developers?” That wording already presumes a motive not yet established. A council minute mentions maintenance costs; traders' correspondence describes political pressure; a later budget report provides expenditure evidence. None can be taken as the whole story on its own.
A revised question would be: “To what extent did financial constraints rather than political pressure shape the town council's decision to close the market in 1978?” The revision names alternatives, a decision, a place and a date, while leaving the historical conclusion genuinely open. Every record in this scenario is invented, not an archive holding or historical fact. Students must choose a real investigation with verifiable original sources.
Five possible records, five distinct evidential jobs
This is a complete selection and cross-checking exercise for the fictional market scenario, not a list of authentic historical documents. For a real IA, replace each row with its exact archive identifier, document date, author and original URL or repository citation.
| Role | Possible source type | Perspective it could reveal | Critical question |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Municipal council minutes | Officials explain the decision as a cost response | Which expenditures were actually voted on? Are missing sessions relevant? |
| B | Merchant association correspondence | Businesses warn the closure may disrupt customers | Do signatories represent all businesses or a vocal subgroup? |
| C | Local newspaper coverage | Reports describe disagreement among residents | Who was interviewed, and what editorial interests shape inclusion? |
| D | Subsequent budget report | Records actual spending following the decision | Does the later report measure consequences rather than just intention? |
| E | Oral history recorded years afterward | A resident recalls the social effects | What does memory illuminate, and what might hindsight compress? |
A source portfolio needs relevant diversity, not merely several files. A newspaper article reproducing the council's press statement is not fully independent evidence for the council's claim. Look for provenance and documentary relationships to avoid counting repeated voices as corroboration.
From contradiction to a qualified historical argument
Weak synthesis
The council said the closure saved money, but merchants said it was political. The two sources contradict each other, so it is impossible to tell which is true.
This summarizes opposition but never explains how to judge it.
Original stronger teaching model
The financial explanation cannot be accepted merely because it appears in an official minute: that record establishes how the council represented its decision, not necessarily every influence upon it. The merchants' correspondence offers a contrasting contemporary interpretation, but its signatories had a stake in preventing closure. Comparing the stated repair costs against later audited spending could test the scale of the financial constraint. Until that comparison is completed, claims about which motive was decisive should remain conditional.
The paragraph models source roles and an unresolved inference. It does not invent the missing historical outcome.
Three checks that prevent attractive but weak history
- Do not conflate authorship with factual reliability. A contemporaneous record can accurately document an official claim while presenting an incomplete account of motives.
- Do not treat agreement as independence. Two sources copying one earlier press release offer less corroboration than two independent observations.
- Do not retrofit the question. Show when and why your question changed because of source discoveries, and distinguish that process from changing the question simply to secure an easy conclusion.
Use the separate source-evaluation guide when you need a provenance framework. This page shows how source tensions should change a historical line of inquiry and its synthesis.
Sources & verification
Primary-source references used to verify key assessment facts on this page. Last source check: October 14, 2026.
The market closure, dated setting and every example record are invented for methodology teaching; they are NOT historical evidence, a real archive or an IB-scored sample.
- IB History curriculum updatesPrimary 2028 curriculum authority for source cap, new inquiry structure and retirement of the separate reflection section.
- IB History subject overviewOfficial course page distinguishing subject briefs for 2027 and 2028 assessment cohorts.