IB History IA: How to Write an Investigation That Scores Full Marks

The IB History IA is worth 25% of your grade. Here's exactly what each of the three sections needs to contain — and the specific mistakes that prevent students from reaching the top bands.

The IB History Internal Assessment is a 2,200-word historical investigation worth 25% of your final grade. It's structured into three sections, each with its own rubric. The majority of students who underperform do so because they misunderstand what each section is actually asking — not because they lack historical knowledge.

Section A — Identification and Evaluation of Sources (6 marks)

Section A asks you to evaluate two primary sources using OPCVL (Origin, Purpose, Content, Value, Limitation). The critical mistake most students make: they describe the sources instead of evaluating them. Description earns you the first 1–2 marks. Evaluation of value and limitation earns you 5–6.

• Origin: Who created it? When? What type of source (speech, photograph, government document, letter)?
• Purpose: Why was it created? Who was the intended audience? Was it designed to persuade, record, or inform?
• Content: A brief summary — maximum 2–3 sentences. Don't over-describe here.
• Value for a historian studying your RQ: Why does this source help answer YOUR specific research question?
• Limitation for a historian studying your RQ: What does it not tell you? What biases or gaps does it have for YOUR question?

Section B — Investigation (15 marks)

Section B is where most of the marks are, and where students have the most room for both excellence and mistakes. It's a structured historical investigation — essentially a mini-essay with a clear argument, supported by evidence from multiple sources.

Research Question Requirements

Your RQ must be specific, debatable, and answerable in roughly 1,500 words. 'Why did the Cuban Missile Crisis occur?' is too broad — it's a topic, not an RQ. 'To what extent was Soviet domestic pressure the primary factor in Khrushchev's decision to withdraw missiles in October 1962?' is an RQ with a clear scope, a debatable central claim, and a specific focus.

Structure of a High-Scoring Section B

1. 1Introduction: State your RQ, preview your argument, and briefly identify the key factors/perspectives you will examine.
2. 2Analysis 1: Present your main argument with specific evidence. Quote and cite sources explicitly. Link every piece of evidence back to the RQ.
3. 3Analysis 2: Consider an alternative perspective or a complicating factor. Use evidence from different sources. Engage seriously with this view.
4. 4Resolution: Explain why your primary argument is more convincing than the alternative, given the evidence.
5. 5Conclusion: Answer the RQ directly and explicitly. 'In conclusion, the evidence suggests...' is fine. 'In conclusion, there were many factors...' will score low.

Section C — Reflection (4 marks)

Section C asks you to reflect on what the investigation revealed about the methods historians use. This is not a summary of your findings. It's a metacognitive exercise about how history as a discipline works.

• What did this investigation reveal about the challenges of studying historical events?
• How did the nature of your sources (bias, perspective, availability) affect what you could claim?
• What would a historian need to do to investigate this topic further?
• Did this process challenge or confirm any assumptions you had about how history is written?

The 5 Mistakes That Drop You From a Band 4 to a Band 2

• Writing OPCVL without linking values/limitations to your specific research question — the most common mistake
• Presenting evidence without analysis — quoting a source and moving on scores low; you must explain what the evidence means
• A conclusion that doesn't directly answer the RQ — 'to what extent' questions require a direct, scaled answer
• Section C that just summarises Section B — reflection means thinking about the process of doing history, not the results
• Going over 2,200 words — words past the limit are ignored by the examiner