History paper 1 help

[Isaac123]

hey guys,

So I just had my second paper 1 practice test and I have gotten a '3'  twice in a row. I know I am capable of getting at least 5's but it's just the way I answer the question that lets me down. Can you please give me tips/advice on how to improve my answers and hopefully get a better grade?

 

thanks

[oakendurin]

Since the questions in Paper 1 are basically always the same, look at mark schemes of past papers to see what the IB expects from each type of question. 

For the first question: Write at least three points in part a because the question gives three points. Don't straight up copy from the source of course, but list the same points as the source but just using different words. So be as precise as possible without copying the text. And in part b, have at least two points that the source conveys.

The second question gives six points, so maybe you could attempt to find three similarities and three differences from the two sources that you need to compare and contrast. Or at least six in total, if you can't think of an equal ratio of similarities and differences. 

The third question: You just need to make sure you mention the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of both sources. You don't need to compare the two sources, you can just treat them separately. So, you could say that 'a source was written in 1936 (origin) to present a new viewpoint in the analysis of the impact of the Locarno Treaty (purpose) which makes it valuable for historians since it can look at the events of the 1925 treaty in retrospect and it also differs from the usual opinions of the time, providing a new perspective (value). It is limited because the author was not present at the treaty and thus might not know all the facts (limitations).'  Or something along those lines. Just look at the origin and purpose and think of the values and limitations that come from them.

Fourth: Try to use all the sources in the paper for this mini essay. So construct an answer to the question using the points that the sources make and then also use your own knowledge of the topic to provide more arguments or background information and such. You could also use the sources as evidence for your own arguments. This is the only question where you actually need to know anything about the topic, so the other three questions you can score well on by just knowing the technique of answering them and what the IB expects.

Something that's also important is the time allocation. Dividing your time something like this is advisable according to my history teacher:

• 1: 5-10 minutes
• 2: 10-15 minutes
• 3: 10-15 minutes
• 4: 20-30 minutes

I don't remember the exact amounts he said, but the main point is that you should spend the least amount of time on question 1, about the same on 2 and 3, and almost half of the hour should be spent on the last question. But this of course depends on you and your strengths, so try to find what works best for you.

I hope this helps! 

[Isaac123]

7 hours ago, oakendurin said:

Since the questions in Paper 1 are basically always the same, look at mark schemes of past papers to see what the IB expects from each type of question. 

For the first question: Write at least three points in part a because the question gives three points. Don't straight up copy from the source of course, but list the same points as the source but just using different words. So be as precise as possible without copying the text. And in part b, have at least two points that the source conveys.

The second question gives six points, so maybe you could attempt to find three similarities and three differences from the two sources that you need to compare and contrast. Or at least six in total, if you can't think of an equal ratio of similarities and differences. 

The third question: You just need to make sure you mention the origin, purpose, value, and limitations of both sources. You don't need to compare the two sources, you can just treat them separately. So, you could say that 'a source was written in 1936 (origin) to present a new viewpoint in the analysis of the impact of the Locarno Treaty (purpose) which makes it valuable for historians since it can look at the events of the 1925 treaty in retrospect and it also differs from the usual opinions of the time, providing a new perspective (value). It is limited because the author was not present at the treaty and thus might not know all the facts (limitations).'  Or something along those lines. Just look at the origin and purpose and think of the values and limitations that come from them.

Fourth: Try to use all the sources in the paper for this mini essay. So construct an answer to the question using the points that the sources make and then also use your own knowledge of the topic to provide more arguments or background information and such. You could also use the sources as evidence for your own arguments. This is the only question where you actually need to know anything about the topic, so the other three questions you can score well on by just knowing the technique of answering them and what the IB expects.

Something that's also important is the time allocation. Dividing your time something like this is advisable according to my history teacher:

• 1: 5-10 minutes
• 2: 10-15 minutes
• 3: 10-15 minutes
• 4: 20-30 minutes

I don't remember the exact amounts he said, but the main point is that you should spend the least amount of time on question 1, about the same on 2 and 3, and almost half of the hour should be spent on the last question. But this of course depends on you and your strengths, so try to find what works best for you.

I hope this helps! 

 

whoah thank you so much! I'll make sure to do this on the next test and I'll let you know how it goes