IB History Internal Assessment Guide

The Internal Assessment (IA) is your opportunity to act as a historian, conducting an independent investigation into a topic that fascinates you. Worth 25% of your final IB History HL grade and 20% for SL, this project is not just another essay; it is a demonstration of your ability to formulate a question, rigorously evaluate evidence, and construct a nuanced historical argument. Mastering it requires a blend of curiosity, discipline, and strategic planning.

Understanding the IA's Purpose and Structure

The Internal Assessment is a historical investigation, capped at 2,200 words. Its primary purpose is to assess your skills in historical thinking, not just your knowledge of a specific event. You are evaluated on your ability to identify a focused question, select and critically analyze relevant sources, and present a coherent, evidence-based argument. The formal structure consists of six required sections, each with a specific role: a clearly stated question, a detailed plan of investigation, a summary and evaluation of your sources, a well-organized investigation (the main analytical essay), a reflective conclusion, and a complete bibliography. Viewing the IA as a single, flowing narrative from question to answer, supported by transparent source evaluation, is key to a high-scoring submission.

Formulating a Focused and Analytical Research Question

Your entire investigation hinges on the quality of your research question. A strong question is focused, debatable, and historically significant. It should be narrow enough to be answered in depth within the word limit, yet broad enough to allow for meaningful analysis and the consideration of multiple perspectives. Avoid descriptive questions that merely ask "what happened." Instead, craft analytical questions that begin with "To what extent," "How significant was," or "Evaluate the reasons for." For example, instead of "What were the causes of the Cuban Missile Crisis?" a more analytical formulation would be: "To what extent was Soviet insecurity, rather than Cuban aggression, the primary cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis?" This question immediately sets up a framework for evaluating and weighing different historical interpretations.

Selecting and Evaluating Sources

You must use a variety of sources, typically a mix of primary and secondary materials. The quality of your source evaluation is directly assessed. For each source, you must go beyond a simple summary. Engage in source evaluation by considering its origin, purpose, content, value, and limitations. Who produced it? When and why was it created? What is its tone and content? How does this information help answer your question (its value)? What are its biases or gaps (its limitations)? For a secondary source, you should also consider the author's argument and methodology. This critical analysis should not be isolated in the "Evaluation of Sources" section; the most effective IAs weave these evaluations into the main investigation, using them to support or challenge points in the argument.

Conducting the Original Historical Investigation

This is the main body of your IA, where you present your argument. It must be a structured, analytical essay, not a narrative report. Begin with a brief introduction that outlines your argument and the structure you will follow. Each paragraph should focus on a specific point or theme related to your question, supported by evidence from your sources. Crucially, you must analyze this evidence—explain how it supports your point and consider its reliability in context. Engage with differing interpretations, showing you understand the historiography. For instance, if arguing about the significance of economic factors in the rise of a political movement, you would present evidence for that view, but also acknowledge and critique scholarly perspectives that emphasize ideological or social causes. This demonstrates the critical thinking the IB demands.

Structuring Your Writing and Aligning with Assessment Criteria

A clear structure is non-negotiable. Follow the prescribed section order. Within the investigation section, use clear topic sentences and logical transitions. Adhere strictly to the 2,200-word limit (excluding the bibliography, footnotes/endnotes, and the plan of investigation). More importantly, write with the assessment criteria in mind. The IA is marked out of 25 across five criteria: Identification and evaluation of sources (6 marks), Investigation (15 marks), Reflection (4 marks), and the formalities of Communication (4 marks). Your "Investigation" section must show clear organization, critical analysis, and a focused argument. Your "Reflection" must thoughtfully discuss the challenges and limitations of your methodology as a historian. Precise referencing (using a consistent style like Chicago) is essential for scoring well on Communication.

Common Pitfalls

1. The Vague or Overly Broad Question: A question like "What was the impact of World War I?" is impossible to address effectively. This leads to a superficial, descriptive narrative. Correction: Narrow your scope dramatically. Focus on a specific aspect, group, or short time period, e.g., "To what extent did the Treaty of Versailles satisfy French security concerns between 1919 and 1923?"

1. Source Summary Instead of Evaluation: Many students simply describe what a source says in the evaluation section. This earns minimal marks. Correction: For every source, explicitly state its value for your specific research question and its limitations based on its origin, purpose, and content. Ask: "Why is this a useful piece of evidence for my argument, and what must I be cautious about when using it?"

1. Descriptive Investigation, Not Analytical Argument: The investigation section becomes a story-telling exercise, listing events without constructing an argument. Correction: Every paragraph must have a clear point that contributes to your overall thesis. Use evidence to prove that point, and analyze the evidence itself. Constantly link your analysis back to the core question.

1. Neglecting the Reflection Section: Students often treat the reflection as a simple afterthought or a diary entry about their feelings. Correction: The reflection is a meta-analysis of your process. Discuss the limitations of your chosen methodology, the challenges of working with certain types of sources, and how this investigation has made you aware of the challenges historians face. It should show deep thinking about the nature of historical inquiry.

Summary

• The IA is a historical investigation that tests your skills in formulating a question, evaluating evidence, and building an argument, not just your factual recall.
• Success starts with a focused, analytical research question that uses terms like "To what extent" or "Evaluate" to frame a debatable inquiry.
• Source evaluation is critical; you must analyze the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of each source, integrating this critique into your main argument.
• The core investigation must be a structured, analytical essay that presents a clear thesis, supported by analyzed evidence and engagement with different historical perspectives.
• Consistently write with the assessment criteria in mind, ensuring your work demonstrates the required skills in source handling, investigation, reflection, and formal communication.