135 replies to this topic

[PrincessPink2911]

Can someone please explain the Evaluation of sources??? I just do not understand!

[sweetnsimple786]

My teacher said to just use the OPVL [origin, purpose, value, limitations] method. Here's a rubric for it that my teacher assessed me with: OPVL

And here's an IBS thread on it: OPVL Explanation

For my HI I picked 2 sources. Many people say to evaluate a primary source if you used one. I evaluated two secondary sources that basically contradicted each other. I talked about their biases and why they contradicted each other and if both could be right to certain extents.

Hope that helps.
=)

[PrincessPink2911]

Yes! Thank you very much!!!!

I really hate to sound clueless, but at this point I am. My teacher didn't explain much! Can you help me with the analysis? What are you suppose to put in to it?? How is it like and not like the summary of evidence?

[sweetnsimple786]

Have you read through the rest of this thread? It's really helpful.
Here's a good site: HI

Basically, in the summary of evidence, I listed all my statistics, facts, and figures. Then in the analysis, I talked about them. What they implied, why they're important, what they mean, etc. I don't think it's a good idea to quote the same stuff in both sections. Save the analyzing for analysis section. Obvious, right? Yeah lol. Just make sure you follow through with what you said you would do in the plan of investigation [Part A].

[PrincessPink2911]

Thank you!!!!!!! I really am a smart person! I promise! I do deserve the IB program! I swear I'm not dumb

[sweetnsimple786]

Lol
One could argue I'm stupid for doing IB. I don't mind questions. I ask boatloads of them, and many of mine teeter on the verge of ridiculousness.

Just for reference, my part B was 580 words, my part C was 400 words, my part D was 570, and my part E was 200.  I don't know if this is the norm. Just how it worked for me.

[PrincessPink2911]

Yes that does help! Your numbers are close to mine so I know I'm on the right track! And I think we all have to be a little crazy for doing IB! My parents think I need help! LOL!!!!!

[sweetnsimple786]

mattimeo117, on Jun 26, 2009 - 08:34, said:

vodka_shot, on Feb 04, 2008 - 04:43, said:

Isn't the History IA marked out of 20?

At my school, the grade boundaries were around (from what I can remember):

18-20: 7
14-17:6
11-13:5
...and so on.

I'm quite sure that these vary from year to year but those were the approxiamate numbers.

To be fair(and correct me if i'm wrong) the 20 marks the coursework is out of directly translates to the percentage of your mark so if you get 17 it's not a disaster as you're only 1% less....

I believe it's now out of 25 points.

I'm not sure what you mean... the mark out of 25 that your teacher gives you can be moderated. And even then, you've got the external assessment to account for, so a "6" for the IA doesn't mean you can't get a 7 overall. Or a 5.

[COCOK]

i was hoping if someone could tell me if my question is to broad pleasse?

How far were German Grievances of the Treaty of Versailles  Justifiable?

my teacher says the question is fine..but i dont completely trust him it is his first year teaching ib...
i was hoping maybe comment on certain articles but im not sure what to do

anyone have any suggestions/??

[sweetnsimple786]

How far? As in to what extent?
That sounds okay to me, but I think you should add a descriptive/modifying phrase or two. Like which treaty? there were several treaties signed at Versailles. I think I know what you mean, but better safe than sorry =)

Also, while I should know these grievances, my knowledge of them is shallow. I think, however, that you can narrow down your question by analyzing if the nationalism and outrage caused by the treaty, specifically the War Guilt Clause that blamed Germany for starting the war, was justifiable. that's basically what you're doing, but if you follow what I just said, you're limiting the scope by only looking at this major clause rather than the entire treaty.

I think you should start a new topic for more/in-depth advice.

[Ruan Chun Xian]

Just specify the Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919.

[creativityinthenight]

Hey,

I'm currently writing my analysis of investigation and I'm finding it hard to introduce the analysis section without repeating what I mentioned in the summary. How can I draw in the historiography and debates without starting off re-introducing my topic?

How much of the analysis needs to be historiography? What is a good ratio?

Thanks

[sweetnsimple786]

Hm well since you spent C talking about a couple of sources, can you transition using them? In D, I still repeated some facts. I don't see how you can explain yourself without referring to the facts somehow, and I just ended up paraphrasing or quoting them again if the words were effective the way the author said them. You can just start off explaining what your argument is. It'll be some blend of the historians' arguments. Use the historians to back up what you're saying--not the other way around--and to bring about counterarguments or points you wish to discuss.

As for historiography, my teacher didn't even tell me we should make some mention of that. *facepalm. But I think there are some topics where this is more important and others where it's less important. The historiography can even be a major point you use to support your idea. Or it can just be something you mention a couple of times in passing. There's no set ratio or quota. Mention it when you think it comes up, but don't force it. If you don't feel it comes up at all, [and this'll sound hypocritical] think about it some more until you see a logical place you can add it in haha. Good luck.

[Austin Glau]

To what extent did the invention of radar decrease the American Advantage in Pearl Harbor?

Is this to broad? Suggestions? Thanks



EDIT: Nevermind, i fixed it. I used "To what extent did the training and experience of the newly formed Fighter Information Center with radar limit the American advantage at Pearl Harbor?" If anyone wants to know

Edited by 2401 I Hate Tangents, Dec 09, 2009 - 00:49.

[filmjolk]

It's a good start, you gotta keep in mind that you might tweak the title/rq as you go on, and hopefully you will narrow it down even further.

[Austin Glau]

Thanks, I narrowed it down to To what extent did the installment of radar in the US Pacific Military limit the American advantage at Pearl Harbor?, because although I was going to mention how it did detect the incoming Japanese and the officers did not have the training and experience to know it, that should go in the body of the paper, not the question.

[ibibib1022]

Could anyone tell me if the summary of evidence is just a list of facts I found that I will analyze in the analysis part? And what exactly is the conclusion?? So up until the conclusion.. I've said "here's how I conducted the investigation, what I found, where I found it, why what I found is important, then conclusion? so if I've already talked about the importance... what is left to talk about? I'm very confused and my teacher's been away for a while... I would appreciate your help! Thanks in advance

[Austin Glau]

Yes, the summary of evidence is that. The Main function of the summary of evidence is to prove your "scholarlyness" to the IB, to prove that yow know what you are talking about and that you have done research on that.

The Conclusion is where you conclude your investigation, so it is very short and yes, that is what it should really be. It is short, something like 200 to 300 words (I forget).

[Wendy]

Hi,
In a conclusion, what exactly do i include?

is it my direct answer to my question?

Edited by Wendy, Apr 12, 2010 - 09:32.

[Austin Glau]

The Conclusion is basically a follow-up to the Analysis, and it needs an answer or conclusion, based on the evidence presented, which either partially or fully addresses the question stated or implied in the investigation.

I would Imagine that the answer to the question should be conveyed to the reader by the end of the analysis section, but it should be bluntly stated in the conclusion.