IB History Internal Assessment guide

What this criterion assesses

A clearly focused research question. Appropriate, relevant sources identified with their relevance explained. Detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources, with explicit discussion of their value and limitations with reference to origin, purpose and content.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion A: Identification and evaluation of sources (0–6):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The student states a research question, but it may not be appropriate or clearly focused. Sources are identified but their relevance to the investigation is not explained. There is little or no analysis or evaluation of the value and limitations of the sources.
- 3–4: The student states an appropriate research question. Relevant sources are identified and selected, with some explanation of their relevance. There is analysis and evaluation of two sources, but the references to origin, purpose and content are partial or implicit; value and limitations are stated but not fully developed.
- 5–6: The student states an appropriate, clearly focused research question. Appropriate and relevant sources are identified and selected, and their relevance to the investigation is clearly explained. There is detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources, with explicit and well-developed discussion of their value and limitations with reference to the origins, purpose and content of the two sources.

What this criterion assesses

A clear, coherent and well-organized investigation with critical analysis supported by relevant, well-chosen evidence from a range of sources. Different perspectives are evaluated, leading to a reasoned conclusion that is consistent with the evidence.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion B: Investigation (0–15):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–3: The investigation lacks clarity and organization. There is little or no evidence that sources have been used. The material is mainly narrative or descriptive. There is no analysis, and no conclusion or a conclusion not based on the evidence presented.
- 4–6: The investigation shows some organization. Some relevant evidence is included, but the sources are not used effectively. There is limited analysis. There is some attempt at a conclusion.
- 7–9: The investigation is generally clear and organized but may lack coherence. Relevant evidence from a range of sources is included and used. There is some analysis and some critical use of sources. A conclusion is offered that is consistent with some of the evidence.
- 10–12: The investigation is clear, coherent and effectively organized. Relevant and well-chosen evidence from a range of sources is used effectively to support the argument. There is analysis and critical evaluation of sources, and a reasoned conclusion consistent with the evidence is presented.
- 13–15: The investigation is clear, coherent and effectively organized. There is a critical analysis that is well supported by relevant, well-chosen evidence from a range of sources. Different perspectives are evaluated. The argument is convincing and sustained, leading to a reasoned conclusion that is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

What this criterion assesses

Reflection focused on what the investigation revealed about the methods used by, and the challenges facing, historians. An explicit connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation, supported by specific examples.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion C: Reflection (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The reflection is mainly descriptive or general. It demonstrates limited awareness of what the investigation highlighted about the methods used by, or the challenges facing, the historian. The connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation may be unclear.
- 3–4: The reflection is clearly focused on what the investigation highlighted about the methods used by, and the challenges facing, the historian. It demonstrates a clear and explicit connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation, with reference to specific examples (such as the nature of the sources used, or the value and limitations of particular types of evidence).