IB History IA

The IB History Internal Assessment is a historical investigation of up to 2,200 words: you investigate a question of your own choosing, evaluate two of your sources in detail, and write an analytical argument supported by evidence. It is worth 25% of the final grade at SL and 20% at HL, and it is marked out of 25. The topic is free, and need not come from the syllabus, but it must be historical: it cannot be about an event from the last 10 years, and your teacher approves the topic and question before you start. The three sections each ask for something specific, and that is where many investigations lose marks.

The three-section structure of the IB History IA

The investigation has three sections, each linked to one criterion. The guide suggests a word allocation for each, and knowing what each section is for matters more than general writing skill.

Section 1: Identification and evaluation of sources (suggested 500 words, 6 marks)

State your question, briefly explain the nature of the two sources you have chosen and why they are relevant, then analyse both in detail: with reference to their origins, purpose and content, analyse their value and limitations for your investigation. Many teachers teach this as OPCVL (origin, purpose, content, value, limitations). The sources can be primary or secondary.

What the criterion rewards: not a description of what the source says, but an analysis of what its origin and purpose mean for its value and limitations. A speech by a government minister on the eve of a controversial decision is valuable as evidence of the official government position, but limited because it was designed to persuade rather than inform, and probably leaves out inconvenient facts. That is the level of analysis to aim for.

Common mistake: Students summarise what the source says (content) instead of evaluating what its origin and purpose mean for its value and limitations. The guide asks for value and limitations analysed with reference to origins, purpose and content, so a summary of the content alone misses what the section is for.

Source selection: one primary source (a document, speech, photograph or statistical record produced at the time) and one secondary source (a historian's analysis) often works well, though two of either kind is allowed. Both should be relevant to your question, not just to the general topic.

Section 2: Investigation (suggested 1,300 words, 15 marks)

This is the analytical body of your IA and carries most of the marks. There is no prescribed format, but it must contain critical analysis focused on your question, use a range of evidence, and reach a conclusion. Think of it as a short essay with a clear argument.

What separates the upper levels: investigations in the middle of the range tend to present evidence in order and describe what happened. Those at the top organise the argument around the question, weigh different perspectives and interpretations, and keep a consistent answer to the question throughout. Every paragraph should either advance or qualify the argument, not just add more information.

The guide sets no number of sources, but it does ask for a range of evidence. Reference every piece of evidence you use, in footnotes or in the text. Do not quote at length: short, precise quotations with analysis do more than long block quotations that use up the word count.

Section 3: Reflection (suggested 400 words, 4 marks)

This section asks you to reflect on what doing the investigation showed you about the methods used by historians and the challenges they face. It is the most misunderstood section of the History IA.

What it is not: A summary of your findings. A comment on how interesting your topic was. A restatement of your conclusion.

What it is: A genuine methodological reflection on what you learned about historical investigation by doing this project. The guide's example questions ask, among other things:

• Which methods used by historians you used, and what the investigation showed you about their limits
• What challenges historians face, and how they differ from those of a scientist or a mathematician
• How the reliability of sources can be evaluated, and the difference between bias and selection
• Whether historical events can be described without bias, and who decides which events are significant

A weak Reflection is a paragraph about personal experience ("I found it challenging to find primary sources, but it was rewarding"). A strong one takes up specific questions about method that the investigation itself raised.

How to choose a good research question

The research question determines how achievable a high score is. Good History IA research questions have these properties:

• Narrow enough to answer in about 1,300 words of analysis. "What caused the First World War?" cannot be answered in 1,300 words. "To what extent did the Schlieffen Plan's failure determine Germany's military strategy in 1914?" can.
• Debatable, requiring evaluation of evidence, not just description. A question that can be answered by reciting a sequence of events is not suitable. A question where historians disagree, where you must weigh evidence and come to a justified position, is ideal.
• Supported by accessible sources. The guide stresses that there must be enough sources to support the investigation. Topics with sources available in translation, digitised, or in a local archive are easier than topics whose sources all sit in an archive in another country.
• Historical, and not too recent. The guide rules out events from the last 10 years. The topic does not have to come from the syllabus, and a topic you have not studied in class can show more independent thinking.

Source evaluation: what OPCVL actually means

OPCVL is the way many teachers frame the Section 1 evaluation. Many students memorise the acronym without understanding what the evaluation should achieve.

Word count management

The limit is 2,200 words, with the bibliography and references not counted. A common problem is an Investigation that runs to 1,700 words or more, leaving the Reflection with 200 words instead of the suggested 400. The guide's suggested allocation, which is guidance rather than a rule:

• Section 1: 500 words
• Section 2: 1,300 words
• Section 3: 400 words

Getting feedback that actually helps

Your teacher reads one draft and gives advice on how to improve it, but does not edit it, and the next version is the final one. General feedback ("your analysis could be more developed") does not tell you which paragraphs in Section 2 are describing instead of arguing, or which aspect of the Reflection is missing methodological depth.

If your teacher and your school allow outside feedback, IBLens reads your History IA against the three criteria and gives feedback on each. Use it before your teacher reads your draft, not after: the guide expects the version you hand in after their comments to be the final one. It also counts the words against the 2,200-word limit.

Paste your History IA draft into IBLens for criterion-by-criterion feedback →

Internal Assessment in other subjects

• Economics IA
• Psychology IA
• Check your IA against the criteria
• IB IA grader