• Command Term - Begin your question with either "To what extent" of "How significant"

• Clarifying Terms - Makes sure to include specific dates, people, places, policy, etc... within your question

• Concepts - try to include one of the key concepts within the question (Cause, Consequence, Change, Continuity, Significance, Perspective)

• Focus the question - The IA should not be too big (ex. Hitler's anti-Jewish policy) but an extremely focused topic (ex. Nuremburg Laws)

• Example Questions

  • "Event based"

    • To what extent is the My Lai massacre as evidence of American Experience in Vietnam?

    • To what extent was the Jewish State of Israel established through means of terrorism?

    • To what extent was the bombing of Dresden a necessary act of war?

    • Evaluate the impact of photos/photoshop on the consolidation of Stalin

    • Evaluate the Significance of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in terms of American Involvement in the Vietnam War

    • Examine the reasons for the abolishment of the slave trade

    • Evaluate the impact of the 1936 Berlin Olympics on Hitler's Aryan ideology

    • To what extent were the student riots of the 1980s in Korea the result of the policies of President Park?

  • "People based"

    • To what extent was Stalin's political cunningness responsible for his rise to power

    • Evaluate the portrayal of Rosa Parks since the Montgomery bus boycotts

    • To what extent is Hitler responsible for the German defeat in WW2

    • What was the historical significance of the sporting career of Muhammad Ali?

  • "Evidence based"

    • What are the values and limitations of the PC game 'Company of Heroes' to the Historian studying D-Day?

    • What are the values and limitations of the film "Amistad" to the historian studying the transatlantic slave trade?

    • How accurate is the depiction of the 'White Rose' in the film 'Sophie Scholl – The Final Days'?

    • How useful is "The Secret Diary Of Adrian Mole" for an investigation of Thatcher's first administration?

    • How useful are declassified documents t for an investigation of the treatment of the Jewish Population of Vichy France?

    • To what extent are photographic sources of the Vietnam War more useful to the historian than written accounts?

    • How useful are visual sources in knowing what really happened during the 1984-5 miners' strike

• Secondary Sources - Begin your research by looking at secondary sources, such as Britanica, Wikipedia, etc... The purpose of this is to narrow down your focus and find specific keywords to use in your researching

• History Articles - Take a visit to see the librarian and use online databases, such as JSTOR, to find more academic resources to help with your investigation

• Organizing & Recording Evidence - make sure you are thinking about how you could organize your paragraphs into themes. Mr. Taylor will help you organize this.  As you research, make sure you are filling out the template outline provided

• Primary Sources - Whenever you can, make sure the evidence that you find are primary sources, such as eye-witness accounts, official government documents, speeches, etc... as this allows you to show your interpretation skills, rather than relying on an historians account

• This will be bad!!! - This will not be good and that is normal at this stage.  The purpose for this is to just turn the outline into paragraphs.  

• Writing your paragraphs - Use the tips we have been working on in class for our Essay Writing Skills page

• Thesis - Your goal for the first draft should be to ensure that the thesis statement applies to each paragraph within the essay, meaning that it agrees with the conclusion of each

• Narrative or Analysis - Do not just place a bunch of evidence within your paragraphs and then conclude in your own words. Try to synthesize the evidence so the argument develops

• Structure - At this stage, make sure you have an introduction (BOLT), main bodies (APAL) and a conclusion

• Referencing - make sure you are properly referencing with footnotes at this stage.  It does not need to be full citation since this is a working document, however this should be present so you aware if you are relying on one source too often per paragraph

• Teacher Feedback - Make sure you have watched the video feedback from the teacher, read the comments on the document and met with the teacher to ensure you have clear next steps.

• Strengthening your writing - Make sure you are looking at the DP2 writing skills to improve the overall quality of your writing

• Research - you will probably be required to find stronger evidence to support your claims, which is normal within the process. First check your outline notes to see if you have stronger evidence already. If not, then you should look for a strong primary source for evidence.

• Methodology - Ensure that you outline in the introduction how you organized your investigation (ex. present the context and then present the strength and weakness of each argument; define how you measure significance, etc...)

• Consistent Argument - The thesis should match or agree with every part of your essay.  A tip should be that if I read any main body paragraph, I can guess your thesis

• Evaluation vs. Awareness of Perspectives - Awareness means that there is a different answer presented; evaluation specific explains why one of the perspectives is not the strongest answer or why it is weak. This should be done in the blue section of each APAL

• Reading Other EEs - Make sure you read other high scoring EEs to see where yours compares.

RPPF - Use the form attached to complete this.  Make sure you share this document in the EE drive folder with your supervisor

Proactive - Make sure you annoy your supervisor and get these complete. You will need to do 3 meetings throughout the process

Word Count - this cannot be more than 500 words, so ensure that you are focused

Hours - You are required to meet with your supervisor for a minimum of 3 hours and a maximum of 5

You will be assessed on the following, however take a look at the following document for more details:

• Criterion A - Focus and Method (6) - This criterion focuses on the topic, the research question and the methodology. It assesses the explanation of the focus of the research (this includes the topic and the research question), how the research will be undertaken, and how the focus is maintained throughout the essay.

  • 1–2 - The topic is communicated unclearly and incompletely: Identification and explanation of the topic is limited; the purpose and focus of the research is unclear, or does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject for which it is registered; The research question is stated but not clearly expressed or too broad: The research question is too broad in scope to be treated effectively within the word limit and requirements of the task, or does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject for which it is registered; The intent of the research question is understood but has not been clearly expressed and/or the discussion of the essay is not focused on the research question; Methodology of the research is limited: The source(s) and/or method(s) to be used are limited in range given the topic and research question; There is limited evidence that their selection was informed.

  • 3–4 - The topic is communicated: Identification and explanation of the research topic is communicated; the purpose and focus of the research is adequately clear, but only partially appropriate; The research question is clearly stated but only partially focused: The research question is clear but the discussion in the essay is only partially focused and connected to the research question; Methodology of the research is mostly complete: Source(s) and/or method(s) to be used are generally relevant and appropriate given the topic and research question; There is some evidence that their selection(s) was informed; If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than four marks can be awarded for this criterion.

  • 5–6 - The topic is communicated accurately and effectively: Identification and explanation of the research topic is effectively communicated; the purpose and focus of the research is clear and appropriate; The research question is clearly stated and focused: The research question is clear and addresses an issue of research that is appropriately connected to the discussion in the essay; Methodology of the research is complete: An appropriate range of relevant source(s) and/or method(s) have been applied in relation to the topic and research question; There is evidence of effective and informed selection of sources and/or methods.

• Criterion B - Knowledge & Understanding (6) - This criterion assesses the extent to which the research relates to the subject area/discipline used to explore the research question, or in the case of the world studies extended essay, the issue addressed and the two disciplinary perspectives applied, and additionally the way in which this knowledge and understanding is demonstrated through the use of appropriate terminology and concepts.

  • 1–2 - Knowledge and understanding is limited: The selection of source material has limited relevance and is only partially appropriate to the research question; Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is anecdotal, unstructured and mostly descriptive with sources not effectively being used. Use of terminology and concepts is unclear and limited: Subject-specific terminology and/or concepts are either missing or inaccurate, demonstrating limited knowledge and understanding.

  • 3–4- Knowledge and understanding is good: The selection of source material is mostly relevant and appropriate to the research question; Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is clear; there is an understanding of the sources used but their application is only partially effective. Use of terminology and concepts is adequate: The use of subject-specific terminology and concepts is mostly accurate, demonstrating an appropriate level of knowledge and understanding. If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than four marks can be awarded for this criterion.

  • 5–6 - Knowledge and understanding is excellent: The selection of source materials is clearly relevant and appropriate to the research question. Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is clear and coherent and sources are used effectively and with understanding. Use of terminology and concepts is good: The use of subject-specific terminology and concepts is accurate and consistent, demonstrating effective knowledge and understanding.

• Criterion C - Critical Thinking (12) - This criterion assesses the extent to which critical-thinking skills have been used to analyse and evaluate the research undertaken.

  • 1–3 - The research is limited: The research presented is limited and its application is not clearly relevant to the RQ. Analysis is limited: There is limited analysis. Where there are conclusions to individual points of analysis these are limited and not consistent with the evidence. Discussion/evaluation is limited: An argument is outlined but this is limited, incomplete, descriptive or narrative in nature. The construction of an argument is unclear and/or incoherent in structure hindering understanding. Where there is a final conclusion, it is limited and not consistent with the arguments/evidence presented. There is an attempt to evaluate the research, but this is superficial. If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more than three marks can be awarded for this criterion.

  • 4–6 - The research is adequate. Some research presented is appropriate and its application is partially relevant to the Research question. Analysis is adequate: There is analysis but this is only partially relevant to the research question; the inclusion of irrelevant research detracts from the quality of the argument. Any conclusions to individual points of analysis are only partially supported by the evidence. Discussion/evaluation is adequate: An argument explains the research but the reasoning contains inconsistencies. The argument may lack clarity and coherence but this does not significantly hinder understanding. Where there is a final or summative conclusion, this is only partially consistent with the arguments/evidence presented. The research has been evaluated but not critically.

  • 7–9 - The research is good. The majority of the research is appropriate and its application is clearly relevant to the research question. Analysis is good. The research is analysed in a way that is clearly relevant to the research question; the inclusion of less relevant research rarely detracts from the quality of the overall analysis. Conclusions to individual points of analysis are supported by the evidence but there are some minor inconsistencies. Discussion/evaluation is good. An effective reasoned argument is developed from the research, with a conclusion supported by the evidence presented. This reasoned argument is clearly structured and coherent and supported by a final or summative conclusion; minor inconsistencies may hinder the strength of the overall argument. The research has been evaluated, and this is partially critical.

  • 10–12 -  The research is excellent. The research is appropriate to the research question and its application is consistently relevant. Analysis is excellent. The research is analysed effectively and clearly focused on the research question; the inclusion of less relevant research does not significantly detract from the quality of the overall analysis. Conclusions to individual points of analysis are effectively supported by the evidence. Discussion/evaluation is excellent. An effective and focused reasoned argument is developed from the research with a conclusion reflective of the evidence presented. This reasoned argument is well structured and coherent; any minor inconsistencies do not hinder the strength of the overall argument or the final or summative conclusion. The research has been critically evaluated.

• Criterion D - Presentation (4) - This criterion assesses the extent to which the presentation follows the standard format expected for academic writing and the extent to which this aids effective communication

  • 1–2 -  Presentation is acceptable. The structure of the essay is generally appropriate in terms of the expected conventions for the topic, argument and subject in which the essay is registered. Some layout considerations may be missing or applied incorrectly. Weaknesses in the structure and/or layout do not significantly impact the reading, understanding or evaluation of the extended essay.

  • 3–4 - Presentation is good. The structure of the essay clearly is appropriate in terms of the expected conventions for the topic, the argument and subject in which the essay is registered. Layout considerations are present and applied correctly. The structure and layout support the reading, understanding and evaluation of the extended essay.

• Criterion E - Engagement (6) - This criterion assesses the student’s engagement with their research focus and the research process. It will be applied by the examiner at the end of the assessment of the essay, and is based solely on the candidate’s reflections as detailed on the RPPF, with the supervisory comments and extended essay itself as context.

  • 1–2 - Engagement is limited. Reflections on decision-making and planning are mostly descriptive. These reflections communicate a limited degree of personal engagement with the research focus and/or research process.

  • 3–4 - Engagement is good. Reflections on decision-making and planning are analytical and include reference to conceptual understanding and skill development. These reflections communicate a moderate degree of personal engagement with the research focus and process of research, demonstrating some intellectual initiative.

  • 5–6 - Engagement is excellent. Reflections on decision-making and planning are evaluative and include reference to the student’s capacity to consider actions and ideas in response to challenges experienced in the research process. These reflections communicate a high degree of intellectual and personal engagement with the research focus and process of research, demonstrating authenticity, intellectual initiative and/or creative approach in the student voice.

• What is the word count for the EE? - 4000 words

• How many hours should you spend on the EE? - the IB recommends 40 hours

• How many official meetings do I have with my supervisor? - 3 official meetings for the RPPF, however you can receive verbal support throughout the process

• How many sources should you have for the EE in total? - there is no specific number, but aim for 20 different sources, half should be primary sources

• How is the EE different from the IA? - besides the word count difference (4000 vs. 2200), there is no official section 1 and 3 in the EE, however within the introduction, there should be a paragraph focused on methodology; in general, the EE is a bit more general than the IA.

• Who marks the EE? - The IB examiners mark the EE, meaning your supervisor cannot give you an official score. However, your teacher in responsible for providing your Criterion E score: Engagement

• How does your EE grade impact your total IB score? - You will receive a final grade between A to D.  This grade will be compared with your TOK grade to determine how many extra points you will receive.  For example, an A in TOK and an A in the EE = 3 extra points.  A C in TOK and a B in the EE = 1 extra point.

• What is the role of your supervisor? - To guide and support you, not do the essay for you; They will read and give feedback for only your first draft