IB DP History: The Historical Investigation (Internal Assessment)

This guide covers the Historical Investigation, the compulsory internal assessment component of IB Diploma Programme History, first assessment 2028. The full syllabus guide confirms this 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 a student’s specific class was taught, alongside The Four Historical Concepts already on the site.

Where this fits in the syllabus

Because the focused study, thematic study and regional study are all teacher- or 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, and may investigate any historical topic they can source and evaluate evidence for – it does not have to come from the class’s studied options.

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. A question such as “What caused the independence movement?” is too broad: it invites a general narrative rather than a focused, evidence-based investigation. A better question takes the form “To what extent did [a specific named factor] contribute to [a specific, narrow outcome] between [precise dates]?” This narrower framing works because it 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.

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.

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, which of several causes mattered most (cause and consequence), argues how important an event or development was (significance), 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.

How to approach it

Draft and refine an inquiry question early, checking it is narrow enough to answer with a focused set of sources rather than inviting a general narrative. Practise stating a source’s origin, purpose, value and limitation as a routine four-part habit, not an afterthought added after the analysis is otherwise finished. 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, so choose one that genuinely interests you and for which varied, evaluable sources are realistically available, rather than defaulting to whatever the class’s taught options happen to be.

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.

Structuring the written response

In the course first assessed in 2028, the investigation is organised into three sections: section 1, the formulation of an appropriate 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. The subject brief’s outline of the task follows the same path: students formulate an inquiry question, identify and choose sources, synthesize information and evaluate sources to produce a response (24 marks) – the four stages described above, assessed across those three sections. There is no separate reflection section – the reflection on the methods and challenges facing the historian belonged to the previous course, so words spent on one here go to a section that is not assessed, in a task with a word limit. Build the synthesis as a sustained, evidenced argument that weighs the evaluated sources against each other, rather than a source-by-source summary followed by a conclusion.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Diploma Programme Subject Brief – History, first assessment 2028 – the same source already cited by the full syllabus guide and the revision notes already on the site. Verified 2026-09-06.