Examiner’s Markscheme for the Internal Assessment (2010 Criteria)
NAME = ??/25.
Comments /
Observations
A. Plan
of the
Investi
gation
(150
words)
INTRODUCTION
▪ This serves the same purpose as an introduction in a normal essay.
Follow this sort of format and you can't go wrong:
a. Paragraph 1: "This study will seek to answer the question 'X'. I
chose this question because..." (what it your PERSONAL interest in
this topic? why was your topic important THEN? What lessons does it
still provide for use NOW?)
b. Paragraph 2: "In order to answer this question, I have structured
my analysis section [d] using the following method:..."
c. Paragraph 3: "In order to keep the scope of the study manageable,
I have made use of a variety of carefully selected sources, in
particular the following:..."
B.
NARRATIVE
Summa ▪ In this section, DESCRIBE the main events, issues, personalities
ry of
etc. relevant to the study. Break this into clear paragraphs to provide
Eviden evidence of ‘organisation’.
ce (600 ▪ As far as possible, it should "tell a story" - it is designed so the
words) examiner gets an overview of the topic.
▪ It should be detailed, with plenty of QUOTES+FOOTNOTES to show
that it is well researched (aim for at least five different sources,
preferably of different types – e.g. interviews, newspaper articles,
website, textbook, statistics, photographs).
▪ Illustrations / documents etc. should be included in Section [F] as
appendices and are not included in the word count.
C.
ANALYSIS (a) Sourcework skills
Evaluat ▪ Select two sources of different types (e.g. speech / photograph /
ion of table of statistics), and assess their usefulness.
Source ▪ This should be approached in exactly the same way as the question
s (400 in paper 1: "With reference to their origins and purpose, explain the
words) value and limitations of Sources X and Y".
▪ TIP: Avoid lapsing into generalised, speculative, lazy comments like
“It is a photo so it might have been staged”, “It is his autobiography so
he could have been lying to make himself look good”. Instead, make
SPECIFIC comments about the PARTICULAR provenance of the
source, and provide SPECIFIC evidence which illustrates how the
content of the source is correct / incorrect / incomplete /
unrepresentative.
0
There is no plan of the investigation, or it is
inappropriate.
1
The research question, method and scope of the
investigation are not clearly stated.
2
The research question is clearly stated. The
method and scope of the investigation are
outlined and related to the research question.
3
The research question is clearly stated. The
method and scope of the investigation are fully
developed and closely focused on the research
question.
0
There is no relevant factual material.
1–2
There is some relevant factual material but it has
not been referenced.
3–4
There is relevant factual material that shows
evidence of research, organization and
referencing.
5–6
The factual material is all relevant to the
investigation and it has been well researched,
organized and correctly referenced.
0
There is no description or evaluation of the
sources.
1
The sources are described but there is no
reference to their origin, purpose, value and
limitation.
2–3
There is some evaluation of the sources but
reference to their origin, purpose, value and
limitation may be limited.
4–5
There is evaluation of the sources and explicit
reference to their origin, purpose, value and
limitation.
D.
ANALYSIS (b) Essay skills
Analysi ▪ This is the main part of the study, and should be written in the same
s (650 format as an IB essay. You could follow this format
words)
1. Different interpretations: What are the main debates
between historians and commentators on your subject? In other
words, what are the most obvious points of disagreement
between the sources you have used in Sections B and C?
(remember quotes and footnotes!)
2. Critical analysis of evidence: In the context of the debates
outline above, outline the strengths and limitations of the
sources you have used in Sections B and C. Accurately footnote
each and every source using the Harvard Author-Date system.
Phrases like "...and this witness is particularly reliable
because..." and "...although we need to bear in mind that there
are limitations to this source because..." are helpful here.
0
There is no analysis.
1–2
There is some attempt at analysing the evidence
presented in section B.
3–4
There is analysis of the evidence presented in
section B and references are included. There
may be some awareness of the significance to
the investigation of the sources evaluated in
section C. Where appropriate, different
interpretations are considered.
5–6
There is critical analysis of the evidence
presented in section B, accurate referencing, and
an awareness of the significance to the
investigation of the sources evaluated in
section C. Where appropriate, different
interpretations are analysed.
E.
Conclu
sion
(200
words)
Restate your main findings. Outline why any conclusion remains
provisional, e.g. Historiography and philosophy in history: Does
the study raise any fundamental problems of history? Refer to your
TOK sessions on causation and sources here to help. For example:
how films necessarily simplify issues; how biographies are too
subjective; how statistics are open to interpretation.
0
There is no conclusion, or the conclusion is not
relevant.
1
The conclusion is stated but is not entirely
consistent with the evidence presented.
2
F. List
of
Source
s/
Word
Limit
▪ A bibliography and / or list of other sources must be included
although this will not form part of the word count.
▪ All sources need to be listed. A consistent, recognised system
should be used (e.g. the Harvard author-date system)
▪ It is recommended that non-written sources (websites, oral
interviews, pictures etc) are listed separately.
0
The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent
with the evidence presented.
A list of sources is not included or the
investigation is not within the word limit.
(no
word
limit to
this)
1
A list of sources is included but these are limited
or one standard method is not used consistently
or the word count is not clearly and accurately
stated on the title page.
2
A list of sources using one standard method is
included and the investigation is within the word
limit.
3
An appropriate list of sources, using one
standard method, is included. The investigation
is within the word limit.