IB DP History: Paper-by-Paper Exam Preparation

The assessment revision notes set out what each paper weighs and tests. These notes turn that into an exam-day plan – Paper 1’s three source questions, Paper 2’s concept question and two-part thematic-study question, HL Paper 3’s separate regional study, and the four concepts as transferable analytical tools – with a worked example and a checklist, alongside the full syllabus guide already on the site. This covers the current course, first examined 2028.

Paper 1 (30% SL / 20% HL): three source questions on one inquiry question

Paper 1 (1 hour 15 minutes, 24 marks) is source-based, not pure essay-writing. It is set on the focused studies and linked by an overarching inquiry question, and students answer all three of its static questions for one focused study: the first asks you to explain how the content of two sources can be used to answer the inquiry question; the second to analyse how the context of a source influences how it can be used to answer it; and the third to examine how the perspectives in all the sources can be used to answer it. These replace the “compare and contrast” and “using the sources and your own knowledge” questions of the previous course. Exam-preparation priority: practise these three question types specifically, not just content recall for the focused-study topic, since every one of them asks how the sources can be used to answer the inquiry question – not for a generic commentary on a source in isolation.

Paper 2 (40% SL / 25% HL): a concept question, then a short response and an essay

Paper 2 (1 hour 45 minutes) is not a single essay paper. In Section A, students answer one of two questions on the specified historical concepts, analysing the concept and illustrating it with a relevant historical example from their thematic study. In Section B, two questions are set on each thematic study; students choose one question for their thematic study and answer both of its parts – a short response showing understanding of a historical example, then an essay that synthesizes diverse historical examples from the thematic study into an analytical argument. Exam-preparation priority: every part is answered from specific, dated evidence rather than general narrative description, so when revising the thematic study, build a bank of specific dates, events and named individuals – enough to illustrate each concept in Section A, answer a focused short response, and support an essay that draws several examples together.

HL Paper 3 (35%, HL only): a genuinely separate regional study, not harder Papers 1-2

HL students sit an entirely additional paper built around a regional depth study not examined at SL at all – new content layered on top of the shared SL core, not merely a longer or harder version of Papers 1-2. Exam-preparation priority: treat Paper 3’s regional study as requiring genuinely separate revision time proportionate to its 35% weighting, with its own bank of dated evidence, rather than assuming strong Paper 1/2 preparation will transfer automatically.

The four concepts as transferable analytical tools

Cause and consequence, continuity and change, perspectives, and significance run through all three papers and the historical investigation. Exam-preparation priority: revise the four concepts as transferable analytical tools that can be applied to any period or source, rather than as abstract theory defined once and then forgotten – for example, practise using “perspectives” to explain why two sources on the same event might disagree, given their different origins, across more than one topic.

The historical investigation: evaluation must connect to the research question

The investigation is organised into three sections – section 1, the formulation of an appropriate inquiry question to guide the investigation; section 2, the analysis of the sources the student has chosen; and section 3, the synthesis of evidence from those sources to produce a response – with no separate reflection section in the course first examined in 2028. Exam-preparation priority: a common weakness is describing a source’s origin and content without genuinely assessing its value and limitation for answering the specific research question – revise source evaluation as always tied back to the question being investigated, not a generic commentary on the source.

Worked practice scenario: analysing how a source’s context shapes its use

Inquiry question: “How far did the public support a wartime policy in 1917?” Source C is a 1917 newspaper editorial, published by a government-controlled press, that supports the policy. In the style of Paper 1’s second question: “Analyse how the context of source C influences how it can be used to answer the inquiry question.”

Step 1 - context (origin):
The source is a 1917 newspaper editorial, published under a
government-controlled press during wartime.

Step 2 - purpose:
Its purpose is very likely to build public support for the policy,
not to record public opinion neutrally.

Step 3 - how the context helps (tied to the inquiry question):
It is valuable evidence of the OFFICIAL narrative the government
wanted the public to believe about the policy at the time -- useful
for investigating state propaganda and messaging strategy.

Step 4 - how the context limits (tied to the inquiry question):
It has limited value as direct evidence of ACTUAL public support,
precisely because government control over the press in wartime makes
independent, critical reporting of genuine public opinion unlikely --
the source cannot be assumed to reflect what people actually thought.

Step 5 - conclusion:
Its context makes the source valuable for one specific question
(official messaging) and limited for a closely related but different
one (actual public opinion) -- the same source can be used in
different ways depending on exactly what a historian is investigating.

Notice that every step is tied back to the specific inquiry question asked (public support for the policy), not a generic comment on newspapers or government sources in the abstract – the second Paper 1 question asks how context affects the source’s use for that inquiry question, not for a general judgement on the source.

Before/during exam checklist

• Before the exam: practise the three Paper 1 question types (content, context, perspectives) specifically, not just content recall; build a bank of specific, dated evidence for each Paper 2 thematic topic; HL students should revise Paper 3’s regional study as a genuinely separate strand with its own revision time; practise applying the four concepts across more than one topic or period.
• During Paper 1: tie every answer back to the inquiry question, not a generic comment on the source type.
• During Paper 2 and HL Paper 3: deploy specific dates, events and named individuals, not general narrative description.
• On every paper: check which command term is used – on Paper 1, “explain” (how the content of sources can be used), “analyse” (how a source’s context influences its use) and “examine” (how the perspectives in all the sources can be used) each ask for a different answer, always tied to the inquiry question.

Self-test

1. What distinguishes Paper 1 from Paper 2 and Paper 3 in terms of the skill it tests?
2. Why must a strong Paper 2 or Paper 3 essay use specific, dated evidence rather than general narrative description?
3. In the worked scenario, why is the source valuable for one question (official messaging) but limited for a related one (actual public opinion)?
4. What distinguishes HL Paper 3 from Papers 1 and 2 in terms of content?

Answers: 1. Paper 1 is source-based, testing how given sources can be used to answer an inquiry question (through their content, their context and their perspectives); Paper 2 and Paper 3 are answered from a student’s own knowledge – Paper 2 through a concept question (Section A) and a short response plus an essay on the thematic study (Section B), Paper 3 through essays on a regional study. 2. Because Paper 2 and Paper 3 questions are always set on a named period, region or theme, and examiners reward evidence-based argument over broad, undated narrative description. 3. Because of its context: a government-controlled wartime press’s purpose is to build support for a policy, making it strong evidence of the official narrative but weak evidence of what people genuinely thought, since independent reporting of real public opinion was unlikely under those conditions. 4. Paper 3 is built around an entirely additional regional depth study not examined at SL at all, rather than a harder version of the SL-shared content tested in Papers 1-2.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Subject Brief – Individuals and Societies: History, first assessment 2028, published 2025 – the same source cited by the assessment revision notes and full syllabus guide. The worked scenario above is an original example written for this resource, not a reproduction of any official past or sample paper question.