IB History Essay Techniques - Wyatt's Notes

The IB prescribes specific command terms for each question. Understanding their precise meaning is essential for constructing a response that addresses the question as asked.

“Evaluate” requires you to weigh the significance, validity, or effectiveness of something. You must reach a substantiated judgement, supported by evidence. Listing arguments is insufficient; you must determine which factors are most significant and explain why.

Example: “Evaluate the significance of the Long March in the CCP’s rise to power.”

A strong response identifies multiple factors (Long March, Japanese invasion, KMT corruption, CCP land reform), assesses each, and concludes with a judgement about the relative weight of the Long March compared to other factors.

“Analyse” requires you to break down a topic into its component parts and examine the relationships between them. This involves identifying causes, effects, patterns, and connections rather than merely describing what happened.

Example: “Analyse the causes of the fall of the Qing Dynasty.”

You should categorise causes into long-term (structural weaknesses, foreign imperialism, failure to modernise) and short-term (the Wuchang Uprising, Yuan Shikai’s defection), and explain how these categories interacted.

“Compare” asks for similarities; “contrast” asks for differences. When both terms appear, address both dimensions. Effective comparison requires identifying the same criteria across both cases before drawing conclusions about why similarities or differences exist.

Example: “Compare and contrast the domestic policies of Mussolini and Hitler.”

Structure the response around clear criteria (economic policy, treatment of opposition, role of ideology, propaganda) rather than describing one regime then the other.

This is the most common command term in Paper 2. It requires you to assess how far a statement is true, considering multiple perspectives before reaching a judgement. A strong response does not argue “yes” or “no” but weighs competing interpretations.

“Discuss” requires an open-ended exploration of a topic. You should present multiple perspectives and arguments, analysing their strengths and weaknesses, before reaching a balanced conclusion.

“Identify” is a lower-order command term requiring you to name or recognise something. It carries fewer marks and does not require extended analysis.

PEEL is a framework for constructing clear, analytical paragraphs:

P — Point: State the point you are making in relation to the question. This is your topic sentence.

E — Evidence: Provide specific historical evidence to support your point. Use dates, names, events, statistics, and quotations.

E — Explanation: Analyse the evidence. Explain how it supports your point, why it is significant, and how it relates to the broader argument.

L — Link: Connect the paragraph back to the question or forward to the next point.

Point: One significant factor in the CCP’s victory in the Chinese Civil War was the failure of KMT economic policy.

Evidence: Hyperinflation in Nationalist China reached catastrophic levels in the late 1940s. By August 1948, the gold yuan had lost over 90% of its value, and shopkeepers refused to accept government currency.

Explanation: This economic collapse destroyed the KMT’s credibility with the urban middle class, a constituency that had previously supported Chiang Kai-shek. It also contrasted sharply with the CCP’s stable grain rationing system in base areas, where land reform had secured peasant loyalty. The economic divergence meant that the KMT could not sustain the logistical demands of a prolonged civil war.

Link: Economic mismanagement was thus a decisive factor, though it must be considered alongside military and ideological factors.

Source analysis is tested primarily in Paper 1 but is also relevant for the Internal Assessment. The IB framework requires you to evaluate sources across five dimensions:

Who created the source? Consider:

• The author’s identity, nationality, social position, and political affiliation.
• Whether the author was a direct participant, observer, or outsider.
• When the source was created — proximity to events can provide immediacy but also bias.

A speech by Churchill in 1940 has different authority and limitations than a diary entry by an anonymous civil servant.

Why was the source created? Consider:

• Whether the source was intended for public or private consumption.
• Whether it was designed to persuade, inform, record, or reflect.
• The intended audience and how that shaped the content.

A propaganda poster serves a fundamentally different purpose than a confidential government memorandum, even if both relate to the same event.

What does the source actually say? Consider:

• The explicit claims and arguments made.
• What is included and, crucially, what is omitted.
• Whether the content is consistent with or contradicts other evidence.

What does the source contribute to your understanding? Consider:

• Whether it provides first-hand testimony or independent corroboration.
• Whether it offers an perspective otherwise unavailable.
• Its reliability relative to other sources on the same topic.

What constrains the source’s usefulness? Consider:

• Bias, whether conscious or unconscious.
• The temporal distance between the source and the events described.
• The scope of the source — does it represent a broader picture or a narrow perspective?

Source [X] is valuable because [origin: who wrote it, when] provides [content: what perspective or information] regarding [topic]. This makes it useful for understanding [specific aspect]. However, it is limited because [purpose: it was created to…; or limitation: it reflects… bias; or temporal: it was written X years after the event]. When compared with [other source], it [corroborates/contradicts] the claim that [specific point].

Paper 1 consists of four questions worth a total of 24 marks (20% at SL and HL). Each question tests a distinct skill:

• Read both sources carefully before writing.
• Identify explicit and implicit points of agreement and disagreement.
• Structure your response by theme or point of comparison, not by source.
• Use direct references to the sources.

• Address origin, purpose, and content systematically.
• Do not merely describe what the source says — evaluate its reliability and usefulness.
• Reference the specific historical context.

• Identify similarities and differences in content, perspective, and purpose.
• Evaluate which source is more valuable for a specific historical question and justify your reasoning.
• Consider how the sources complement or contradict one another.

• This is the highest-value question. It requires synthesis, not summary.
• Group points by theme or argument, drawing on multiple sources in each paragraph.
• Integrate your own knowledge to contextualise, support, or challenge the sources.
• Address the question directly — do not discuss the sources in isolation.

Paper 2 requires two essays from a choice of questions covering two of the five world history topics. Each essay is worth 15 marks.

• Provide brief context (1 sentence).
• State your thesis directly (1–2 sentences).
• Outline the structure of your argument (1 sentence).

• Each paragraph should address one factor or aspect.
• Begin with a topic sentence linked to the question.
• Provide specific, accurate evidence.
• Analyse significance, causation, or consequence — do not merely describe.
• Acknowledge counter-arguments before reinforcing your position.

• Synthesise the evidence to deliver a judgement.
• Directly answer the question in light of the evidence discussed.
• Do not introduce new evidence.

IB History is assessed against the following criteria:

1. Describing rather than analysing. Examiners reward interpretation, not narration. Every piece of evidence should be followed by an explanation of its significance.

2. Ignoring the command term. Failing to evaluate when asked to evaluate, or failing to compare when asked to compare, results in a response that does not address the question.

3. One-sided arguments. “To what extent” and “discuss” questions require consideration of multiple perspectives. Presenting only one side demonstrates limited understanding.

4. Vague evidence. “The economy was bad” is weak. “Unemployment reached 6 million by 1932, with industrial production halving” is strong. Specificity demonstrates knowledge.

5. Summary rather than synthesis in Paper 1. Summarising each source in turn does not achieve synthesis. Group by theme and draw connections across sources.

6. Present tense. Write in the past tense about historical events. The present tense implies ongoing relevance in a way that undermines analytical rigour.

7. Introducing new evidence in the conclusion. The conclusion synthesises what has already been argued. New points should be made in the body paragraphs.

8. Confusing causes and consequences. Maintain clarity about chronological and causal relationships. A cause precedes an event; a consequence follows it.

flowchart TD
    A[Essay Techniques] --> B[Key Concepts]
    A --> C[Core Principles]
    A --> D[Practical Applications]
    B --> E[Fundamental definitions]
    C --> F[Design patterns]
    D --> G[Real-world usage]

Essay writing in history is like building a legal case: you need a clear thesis (your verdict), specific evidence (exhibits), analysis of that evidence (your argument), and a structure that leads the examiner step by step to your conclusion. The PEEL structure is your courtroom procedure — Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link. The most common mistake is presenting evidence without argument — that is like a lawyer showing the jury a document without explaining what it proves. Strong essays weigh factors against each other like a judge weighing testimony, always asking ‘compared to what?’ and ‘how significant is this relative to other factors?‘

• History
• 20th Century China
• Authoritarian States