IB DP History: The Historical Investigation (Internal Assessment) -- Revision Notes

The full syllabus guide confirms the historical investigation is the one part of the syllabus genuinely open to personal interest – unlike the focused study, thematic study and (at HL) regional study, which depend on which options your specific class was taught. These notes cover the historical investigation, alongside the Four historical concepts revision notes already on the site.

Why this content applies to every history student

Because the focused study, thematic study and regional study are all teacher/school-selected options, revision material tied to a specific option only helps students whose class actually studied it. The historical investigation is different: every DP History student, regardless of which options their school taught, completes this same internally assessed component using the same skills and criteria.

The core skill: source-based inquiry, start to finish

The investigation moves through four stages, and weakness in any one stage limits the whole investigation’s mark: formulating a focused inquiry question; identifying and selecting relevant, appropriately varied sources; analysing and evaluating those sources (their origin, purpose, value and limitation); and synthesizing evidence into a coherent, evidenced written response.

Worked example: from a broad topic to a focused inquiry question

A student is interested in a broad historical topic (for example, a national independence movement) but has not yet formulated an assessable inquiry question.

Too broad:        "What caused the independence movement?" -- invites
                   a general narrative rather than a focused,
                   evidence-based investigation
Better:            "To what extent did [a specific named factor]
                   contribute to [a specific, narrow outcome] between
                   [precise dates]?"
Why it works:      the narrower question can be answered with a
                   manageable, specific set of sources, allows genuine
                   evaluation of competing evidence, and produces an
                   argument rather than a summary of events

The single most common reason an otherwise well-researched investigation underperforms is an inquiry question left too broad to be answered with focused evidence within the word limit.

Evaluating sources: origin, purpose, value, limitation

For every source used, be ready to state not just what it says but where it came from (origin), why it was produced (purpose), what that makes it useful for (value), and what it cannot reliably tell you (limitation). A source’s value and limitation are not fixed properties – the same source can be highly valuable for one specific question and limited for another, depending on exactly what the investigation is trying to establish.

Common mistakes

Choosing an inquiry question so broad it cannot be answered with a focused set of sources within the word limit. Describing sources’ content without evaluating their origin, purpose, value and limitation. Writing a narrative account of events instead of a structured argument that uses evidence to answer the specific inquiry question asked. Selecting a topic from the class’s studied options by default, when the investigation may in fact be on any historical topic the student can source and evaluate evidence for.

Applying the four historical concepts to the investigation

The same four concepts (cause and consequence, continuity and change, perspectives, significance) that structure the external papers also strengthen an investigation’s analysis. A strong investigation does not just narrate what happened — it explicitly weighs, for example, the significance of one factor against another, or considers how different sources present conflicting perspectives on the same event, using vocabulary consistent with the rest of the course rather than treating the internal assessment as a separate skill in isolation.

Source selection: quality over quantity

A common misconception is that more sources automatically produce a stronger investigation. In fact, a smaller number of well-chosen, genuinely varied sources (differing in origin, type or perspective) that are evaluated in real depth typically scores more highly than a longer source list treated superficially. When selecting sources, deliberately look for at least one that challenges or complicates your emerging argument, since engaging honestly with counter-evidence is itself part of what strong evaluation and synthesis look like at this level.

Quick revision checklist

• Draft and refine an inquiry question early, checking it is narrow enough to answer with a focused set of sources.
• Practise stating a source’s origin, purpose, value and limitation as a routine four-part habit, not an afterthought.
• Build the investigation as a sustained argument answering the specific question, not a general narrative of the topic.
• Remember the topic can be any historical topic you can source evidence for – it does not have to come from your class’s studied focused study, thematic study or regional study.

Self-test

1. Why does the historical investigation apply to every history student regardless of their class’s chosen options?
2. Name the four things a strong source evaluation states about each source used.
3. What is the most common reason an investigation underperforms?
4. Does the investigation’s topic have to come from the class’s studied options?
5. What should a strong investigation produce: a narrative or an argument?

Answers: 1. Because it is a compulsory internal assessment component completed by every DP History student using the same skills and criteria, unlike the focused study, thematic study and regional study, which depend on school-selected options. 2. Origin, purpose, value and limitation. 3. An inquiry question left too broad to be answered with a focused, manageable set of sources. 4. No — students may investigate any historical topic they can source and evaluate evidence for. 5. A structured argument that uses evidence to answer the specific inquiry question, not a general narrative of events.