Skip to main content
iBacalao
Try the browser appInstall the app

IB History IA Section 1 (through 2027): evaluate two sources that disagree

This is for History candidates assessed through 2027, not May 2028 onward. The 2028 course replaces the old Section 1 with an inquiry-question section and integrates source perspectives differently. Under the older IA, a useful History IA source evaluation explains how a source's origin, purpose and content help *or limit* a specific historical investigation. Avoid writing a biography of each author and calling that evaluation. The examiner should be able to see why you chose the two sources and how their differences affect the question you are trying to answer.

Back to all guides
Add as a Google preferred sourceReview us on G2
History source-evaluation matrix comparing a source's value, limitations, and corroboration needs
Evidence matrix: compare source value and limitations against the same historical question.

This is for History candidates assessed through 2027, not May 2028 onward. The 2028 course replaces the old Section 1 with an inquiry-question section and integrates source perspectives differently. Under the older IA, a useful History IA source evaluation explains how a source's origin, purpose and content help *or limit* a specific historical investigation. Avoid writing a biography of each author and calling that evaluation. The examiner should be able to see why you chose the two sources and how their differences affect the question you are trying to answer.

The short answer

This is for History candidates assessed through 2027, not May 2028 onward. The 2028 course replaces the old Section 1 with an inquiry-question section and integrates source perspectives differently. Under the older IA, a useful History IA source evaluation explains how a source's origin, purpose and content help *or limit* a specific historical investigation. Avoid writing a biography of each author and calling that evaluation. The examiner should be able to see why you chose the two sources and how their differences affect the question you are trying to answer.

The IB 2026 examiner instructions describe the History IA as a three-part historical investigation: identification and evaluation of sources, investigation, and reflection. The SL and HL internal assessment task is the same; the 2026 guidance says the topic must be historical and cannot concern events from the preceding ten years. Always apply the rule to your examination session, not an undated template.

Check your assessment session before using this structure

The IB's official History curriculum update names May 2028 as the first assessment for the redesigned course. It replaces the old IA sections with historical inquiry question, sources and perspectives, and synthesis and evaluation. The separate reflection section is removed, and students may include no more than seven sources in the updated investigation. Source critique remains valuable but is not the old mandatory two-source Section 1. This page explains the 2026/2027 version, and should never be used as a 2028+ structural or criteria guide. Students must confirm their cohort's subject guide before drafting.

A source disagreement you can actually investigate

Suppose your research question is: To what extent did rationing policy influence household consumption in a particular British city in 1942? This is an illustrative research question; it is not a claim that you have located specific archives or that this is an approved IA topic.

You plan to examine two contrasting hypothetical source types:

  1. A dated Ministry of Food circular addressed to local administrators, setting out how rationing should be implemented.
  2. A diary entry by one resident describing what foods they could obtain in a particular week.

These sources might disagree. The circular may describe formal entitlement; the diarist may describe shortages or informal exchanges. You should not make one "right" and the other "wrong" by default. The circular helps reconstruct rules, while the diary may help investigate lived experience. Each can be accurate within its domain while giving an incomplete view of the other.

A finished value-and-limitation matrix

Evaluation dimension Administrative circular Resident's diary
Origin Official policy issuer with direct access to regulations Individual witness with direct but narrow personal experience
Purpose Instruct staff and standardize compliance; may understate implementation difficulties Record personal events or feelings; not necessarily a public report
Content value for the question Shows intended allocations, dates and policy logic May show how allocations translated into meals or shortages
Content limitation Cannot independently prove every shop followed the rules Cannot establish a representative citywide consumption pattern
Best corroboration Local enforcement files, shop records, contemporaneous notices Household diaries, oral history with provenance, price or distribution records
What cannot be inferred alone Actual household outcomes General policy effectiveness

The specific rows would need to be rewritten after opening real documents. They are a demonstration of method, not evidence about a real 1942 city.

Write a paragraph that answers the historical question

Too generic: "The government document is useful because it is official, but it may be biased." It neither names the information available nor explains what the supposed bias changes.

Better modeled reasoning: "As an instruction issued by the agency responsible for rationing, the circular would be useful for establishing the policy's intended household entitlements during the period under investigation. Its administrative purpose, however, means that an entitlement printed in the circular cannot establish whether shops in the selected city consistently had stock available. Shop records or household accounts would be needed to test implementation."

Notice that the improved paragraph is conditional. It does not pretend to quote a circular that has not been retrieved. Once you have the original, replace the conditional language with the exact document date, archival identity and relevant passage.

Distinguish disagreement from contradiction

A disagreement about perspective is not the same as a factual contradiction. A citywide policy may permit two eggs per person while one diarist received none during one week. These statements can both be true if local delivery failed. Your job is to identify whether they concern the same place, dates, units and definition of availability.

Use a small reconciliation log: claim → source → date/place → comparison source → explanation → confidence. A student can often improve an IA substantially by correcting a mismatch in dates or scope rather than collecting another dozen unrelated links.

Before the source evaluation is finished

Check that both sources are sufficiently connected to your question, that you can authenticate or properly cite their provenance, and that Section 1's evaluation feeds into the investigation rather than becoming isolated commentary. If the whole argument depends on a single witness, explain why representativeness is limited. If an official source's purpose is unclear, do not guess the author intended to deceive; distinguish institutional position from demonstrated selective reporting.

Primary sources and transparency

No historical primary-source passage was fabricated or claimed to have been opened. The rationing case, source types and comparison paragraphs are clearly labelled teaching examples. For student-controlled IA draft feedback, see ibacalao.com.

Continue with related guides

Check your assessment session against the linked official IB sources. Read our editorial policy and sourcing method.