The Papers in DP History

Keys to Success

Alex Bast

© Alex Bast, 2021

The Papers in DP History
Keys to Success
• Paper 1
• Question 1a: Reading Comprehension
• Question 1b: Image Analysis
• Question 2: OPCVL
• Question 3: Compare & Contrast
• Question 4: Mini-Essay
• Final Tips from Examiner’s Reports

• Papers 2 & 3
• Question Selection
• Command Terms
• Introduction
• Body
• Perspectives & Evaluation
• Writing Tips
• Final Tips from Examiner’s Reports
© Alex Bast, 2021
Paper 1
Paper 1
Question 1A: Reading Comprehension
• What, according to Source X, were the factors contributing to tensions between Japan and the US?
• Why, according to Source X, was the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown II (1955) a victory for white
southerners but a disappointment for black leaders?
• How, according to Source X, were Albanians portrayed by Serbian propaganda?

Marks Time

3 5’

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 1A: Reading Comprehension

• Most basic question in all of DP History Assessment. It’s a simple reading comprehension question.
• Students should NOT add any context, own knowledge etc and should answer this in ideally less than 5 minutes.
• A good way to approach this is to underline the ideas on the source text that are relevant to the question and then
simply copy those ideas to the answer booklet.

• While paraphrasing is better than quoting verbatim, the style should be direct, succinct and not add more words than
needed.

• The markscheme states “Award [1] for each relevant point up to a maximum of [3]”. As a result students should aim
to write 4 ideas if possible, as that gives 1 buffer idea.

• A good (3/3) answer could look like this:

“According to source X, the factors that contributed to rising tension between the US and Japan were the following
four: First, The Tripartite Pact worsened relations between the US and Japan. Second, Japan demanded permission
to move troops to Indochina. Third, the US oil embargo and the freezing of Japanese assets created further tensions.
Finally, due to the oil embargo, Japanese officers resolved to go to war.”

© Alex Bast, 2021

Paper 1
Question 1B: Image Analysis
• What does Source X suggest about Japanese expansion?
• What does Source X suggest about the Supreme Court decision in Plessy Vs Fergusson??
• What does Source X suggest about the perceptions some Serbian high school students had of
Albanians in 1986?

Marks Time

2 5’

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 1B: Image Analysis

• The only non-text-based question in DP History. Can be tricky for some students.
• Students should avoid adding a contextual introduction or spend more than 5 minutes. It is common to get
stuck in this question. If the student does not ‘get it’, they should move on and then try to re-attempt it when
they’re done with the other questions, if there’s time. Getting stuck here can cause a confidence crisis.

• A good way to approach this is to:

1) Deconstruct the cartoon/image: symbols (what are they? what do they represent? why are they used?),
labels (what do they say? why do they point to?), key figures (who are they? what are they doing? how are
they dressed?).

2) Decipher the meaning and tone

3) Explain the meaning in a straightforward manner, and while they’re doing that, they should explicitly link the
message to the symbols, labels, caption and key figures shown in the image.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 1B: Image Analysis

• Students should start the response by stating the meaning, not by merely describing the image. It’s
better to start with the meaning and then link that with the different elements of the image, than
start describing the image and then present the meaning after.

• The markscheme states “Award [1] for each relevant point up to a maximum of [2]”. As a result
students should aim to write 3 ideas if possible, as that gives 1 buffer idea.

• A good (2/2) answer could look like this:

“According to source X, the Japanese were motivated by declining oil reserves, this can be seen by
the caption “enough in the tank to get to that filing station?”. In particular, the cartoon shows how
Japan had identified the Dutch East Indies as a target for acquiring oil, as that is how the oil filling
station seen in the background is labeled as. Finally, the cartoon shows how the Japanese were
prepared to use force, as evidenced by their portrayal as gangsters with machine guns”.

© Alex Bast, 2021

Paper 1
Question 2: OPCVL
• With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source X for a
historian studying the tensions between the US and Japan
• With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source X for a
historian studying Brown v Board of Education
• With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Source X for a
historian studying the rise of ethnic tensions between the Tutsis and the Hutus in early 1990s Rwanda.

Marks Time

4 10’

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 2: OPCVL

• Students should focus on the source’s identification, not the excerpt text. For example they should focus on
“Chihiro Hosoya, a Japanese professor of history, writing in the article “Miscalculations in Deterrent Policy: US-
Japanese Relations, 1938–1941”, for the academic publication Journal of Peace Research (1968)” rather than on
what the excerpt states. This information should be enough to identify the source’s origin, purpose and content.

• A good way to approach is to underline the key elements of that description. For example, “Japanese professor
of history”, “academic publication Journal of Peace Research”, “1968” “US-Japanese Relations 1938-1941” etc;
and identify the source’s origin, purpose and content based on that.

• While you don’t necessarily need a value and limitation for origin, purpose and content; you do need to at least
mention origin, purpose and content once (either in value or limitations). Still, if possible, it might be safer to try to
come up with a value and limitation for each origin, purpose and content.

• It’s important to understand that the question is asking for value and limitations for a historian studying
something specific, so the evaluation should ideally refer to that.

• Avoid very boilerplate/cliché values and limitations (eg the author is biased because of his or her nationality).
While they can be used, students should try to make sure that some of the points raised show some original
thought it at all possible. However, the standard for this is obviously much lower than that of the IA’s Section A.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 2: OPCVL

• It’s good practice to explicitly refer to origin, purpose, content, value and limitation. The goal is to write it in a
way that makes life easy for the examiner reading it.

• The markscheme states that “If only value or limitations are discussed, award a maximum of [2]. Origin,
purpose and content should be used as supporting evidence to make relevant comments on the value and
limitations. For [4] there must be at least one reference to each of them in either the value or the limitations”.

• It’s better to separate values and limitations as that helps with both clarity and structure. A good structure is to
try the following:

Paragraph 1: Values
- of origin (V/O)
- of purpose (V/P)
- of content (V/C)

Paragraph 1: Limitations
- of origin (L/O)
- of purpose (L/P)
- of content (L/C)
© Alex Bast, 2021
 Paper 1
Question 2: OPCVL

• If pressed for time, it’s better to expand a couple of the robust values or limitations (by making it more specific to
the question, by developing the explanation further) than trying to add a 6th superficial value or limitation.

• A very common mistake that should be avoided is offering lengthy descriptions of origin, purpose or content
before focusing on value and limitations.

• A source being ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ is not in itself a value or a limitation. The points need to be developed in
a way where the link between value or limitation and the source’s origin, purpose and content is clear in relation
to the question.

• Note-form approaches to this question tend to underperform as superficial sentences lack the clarity required to
establish the source’s values and limitations. Sentences like “a limitation of origin is that the autor is Japanese”
are not considered to be sufficiently developed.

• It’s important to remember that students are to evaluate the source as a whole, not the excerpt that appears on
their source booklet. As such, when dealing with purpose, for example, students are to reflect on the purpose of
the source (an academic journal, a speech etc), not on the purpose of the specific paragraph used as an excerpt.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 2: OPCVL

• A good (4/4) answer to this question could be something along these lines:
One of the values of source X for a historian studying tensions between the US and Japan can be found on
the source’s origin: Since it was written in 1968, it offers a retrospective view within a generation of the actual
events. The purpose of the source is also of value as it is written by an academic historian in a journal in
order to analyze in depth the growth of tensions between Japan and the US. Because it is an article written
by a Japanese academic, it is likely to offer a well-informed Japanese perspective of events. Finally, another
value can be found in the source’s content, as it offers detailed analysis of US-Japanese relations between
1938 and 1941 with focus on the reasons for the escalation of tensions, which is precisely what the historian
is researching.

On the other hand, the source can also contain some limitations. From the source’s title, one can infer that
the content discusses a very narrow period of time, and thus will not consider the tensions between the US
and Japan between 1931 and 1937. The source’s purpose of shedding light on deterrent policy also indicates
that the source may not place US-Japanese relations in the broader context. Finally, based on origin, the
author’s Japanese nationality may have influenced his perspective of events, given Japan was one of the
warring countries and thus this may have had an effect on the author’s upbringing, education and access to
resources.
© Alex Bast, 2021
 Paper 1
Question 3: Compare & Contrast

• Compare and contrast what Sources I and J reveal about the increasing tensions between the US and Japan.
• Compare and contrast what Sources M and O reveal about attitudes to the desegregation of US schools.
• Compare and contrast what Sources S and T reveal about relations between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda.
•

Marks Time

6 15’

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 3: Compare & Contrast

• A good way to approach this questions is for students to re-read the sources and underline the key ideas in each source that
relate to the question. After, using these key ideas, they can sketch a quick T-chart/draft that identifies the similarities and
difference between both sources. This shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes and it really helps students to organize their
thoughts and write superior responses.

• Like in the previous question, the clearer and more straightforward the response, the better. Consequently, my recommended
structure is to have one paragraph with the similarities (“comparisons” in IB lingo) and one with the differences (“contrasts in
IB lingo”). It is not recommended both are mixed, as that may make it harder for the examiner to figure out which is what.

• This is the first of the Paper 1 questions that uses a markband-based markscheme, and, as a result, there is a higher degree
of discretion for the examiner. As a result, using language that clearly connects both sources is recommended. For example,
“similarly, both, likewise etc” for the similarities or “however, on the other hand, unlike, in contrast etc” for the differences.

• In order to quickly come up with similarities and differences, students can use the TASTE system:
- Tone (optimistic vs pessimistic, sarcastic vs realistic, aggressive vs peaceful etc)
- Actors (which individuals or organizations are named, in what context)
- Scope (chronology, geography etc)
- Themes (what theme do they focus on or mention? cultural, political, social, economical, military, technological etc)
- Events (what events are emphasized and why)

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 3: Compare & Contrast

• The marksheme’s 5-6 level descriptor states “The response includes clear and valid points of
comparison and of contrast”. This means that, obviously, students need to come up with both
similarities and differences. While the markscheme does not explicitly state it, it is recommended that
the points are somewhat balanced. Avoid having only one point of comparison or one sole point of
contrast (if well developed it could be enough for a 5 but very unlikely to reach a 6).

• Aim for 3 points of comparison and 3 points of contrast. However, if that is not possible or the
students need to come up with very mediocre points in order to meet this (ie source X says this,
source Y doesn’t), then it’s probably better to have for example a 3+2, 2+3 or even a well-developed
2+2 structure. Listing poor superficial points is not going to help.

• The comparison and contrast refers exclusively to the content of the excerpts, NOT the origin or
purpose of the sources.

• Points of comparison and contrast should have clear reference to the sources’ content. Describing the
sources content without linking it to similarities and differences is irrelevant and should be avoided.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 3: Compare & Contrast

• A good (6/6) answer to this question could be something along these lines:
With regards to the increasing tensions between the US and Japan, both source X and source Y
seem to agree on certain aspects. Firstly, both sources show Japan was dependent on foreign oil
supplies (if relevant, adding quotes here from both sources could help, but only if there’s enough
time). Secondly, the two sources indicate that the Japanese military was prepared to go to war
against the US. Thirdly, both sources show that a diplomatic solution was unlikely, for example,
because of forceful US responses such as imposing the oil embargo.

On the other hand, they also differ in some areas. Firstly, while Source X claims that in 1941 the
Japanese were still deciding between agreeing to US conditions in China or using force, Source Y
claims war might already be difficult to avoid by then. Secondly, Source X suggests Japan was
acting aggressively to obtain resources, whereas Source Y claims it was also responding to the
military preparations and strengthening of the defences of Britain and the US in the Far East. Thirdly,
unlike source Y, Source X states the Japanese diplomats and the Japanese military had opposing
views as to how to address relations with the US whereas. Source Y does not seem to suggest the
existence of conflicting views among the Japanese authorities.
© Alex Bast, 2021
Paper 1
Question 4: The Mini-Essay
• “Mutual fear led to increasing tensions between the US and Japan.” Using the sources and your own
knowledge, to what extent do you agree with this statement?
• Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the impact of the Brown v Board of Education decision on
desegregation in US schools up to the end of 1957.
• Using the sources and your own knowledge, examine the reasons for the rise of ethnic nationalism in Kosovo
during the early 1990s.

Marks Time

9 25’

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 4: The Mini-Essay

• This is the question in which most students underperform. The main reason for this is poor time management.
• Students must understand that, while shorter, this is still an analytical essay, and thus, by and large, they
should prepare it as if it were a Paper 2 or Paper 3 essay. That means they need to focus on the question,
come up with a thesis, present their arguments and use evidence (in this case chiefly from the sources, but
also from their own knowledge).

• Sketching a brief essay outline (4-5 mins) is very helpful. Some students may argue that they don’t have time
for it, but precisely because the time is limited, having planned the essay beforehand will allow them to write
an essay that covers all the ideas and meets the markband requirements. It is actually one of the easiest ways
to avoid running out of time. This outline should include:

- Own knowledge: What information from the student’s own knowledge can be included? Coming up with 3 or
4 ideas is probably enough.

- Arguments: They should try to brainstorm 2 or 3 arguments that clearly answer the question. Make sure
they’re balanced so the essay is not one-sided. This will also allow students to use all the different sources
and own knowledge.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Question 4: The Mini-Essay

• A long context-setting introduction is NOT needed. A good introduction is one that answers the question
(using the question’s wording) with the student’s thesis. The student’s key arguments should ideally also
be presented here (which is why an outline is so important). This will help with readability and will allow
the examiner to understand what the essay is about before they even start reading it.

• Remember that this is an analytical essay. Students should avoid description and narration. Paragraphs
should start with topic sentences and refer back to the question. Evidence (from the sources or own
knowledge) should be presented in each paragraph to support the arguments.

• Students should try to use ALL the sources. They should refer to them as “Source X, Source Y etc”. It’s
not a bad idea to underline this every time they mention one of the sources, as that helps highlight use of
sources.

• Students should avoid listing the content in each source rather than using it to develop an analysis of the
question.

• Having learnt specific facts and then using them in this essay can help highlight use of own knowledge,
more so than using general information about the topic.
© Alex Bast, 2021
 Paper 1
Question 4: The Mini-Essay

• A good structure for this essay would be something along these lines:

Introduction: Clearly state the thesis using the wording of the question. Try to present the main
arguments.

Paragraph 1: Present a topic sentence with the first argument. After, use evidence from the
sources and/or own knowledge to support it.

Paragraph 2: Same as above but with a second argument.

Paragraph 3: Present a third argument, which could be a counterpoint. Explain why is less
convincing using evidence.

Conclusion: If there is enough time, briefly offer a conclusion.

© Alex Bast, 2021

Paper 1
Question 4: The Mini-Essay

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 1
Final Tips from the Examiner’s Report

• Practice Makes Perfect: “Candidates should practice using previous examination source and question booklets to
ensure familiarization and confidence with the papers prior to sitting the examination.”

• Time Management is Essential: “It is recommended that candidates have experience with the timing of Paper 1,
including practice with applying the 5 minutes reading time. Practice under timed conditions is recommended to foster
effective time management. Candidates need to allow sufficient time for the final question which bears the most marks.”

• Questions Matter: “Candidates need to be reminded to read each question carefully; this may assist in ensuring that
responses refer to the correct source/s and that the answers are focused on the specifics of the given question”.

• Both Case Studies Must be Taught (but don’t go overboard!): “Candidates should be taught the content and concepts
for both case studies in the chosen prescribed subject in order to comprehend the context of the sources and to be able
to synthesize relevant and accurate knowledge for the final question”. However, Paper 1 is not content-heavy, and as such
there probably is little need to teach Paper 1 for more than 2 months.

• Know your markschemes, but don’t bullet point: “Although candidates benefit from working with past paper
markschemes as these offer insights in to appropriate approaches to the different types of question and what points or
ideas could be relevant, a note-form or bullet point approach should be cautioned against. Responses should demonstrate
thorough analytical and evaluative skills in continuous prose”.

© Alex Bast, 2021

Papers 2/3
Paper 2/3
Selecting the Question

• Students should be aware of the name (and probably the number too) of the World History topics they have covered in class
and go to the relevant questions as soon as they get the exam. The same applies to Paper 3 with the different sections within
one region.

• Understanding the question well is critical for success in this paper. Students should probably read the question several times
and break down its key elements so they can ask themselves:

- What’s the question’s command term?

- What key terms appear in the question? Any nebulous ones that need to be defined?

- What is the scope of the question?

1. Thematic scope (if the question asks for a factor, that needs to be addressed first)
2. Chronological scope (dates are more important that they think, it can make a response completely irrelevant
if they choose example outside of the question’s scope)
3. Regional scope (make sure they’re aware of IB regions)

Just because a question is about a certain topic, it doesn’t mean that it’s exactly the question the student had prepared. Very
important that students answer the question as it is, not as they wanted it to be.

© Alex Bast, 2021

Paper 2/3
Command Terms
• ANALYZE: Break down in order to bring out essential elements or structure.

• COMPARE & CONTRAST: Outline the similarities (compare) and differences (contrast) between 2 elements. There must be a running comparison.

Graphs made by Ari Najarain in 2008

© Alex Bast, 2021
Paper 2/3
TO WHAT EXTENT / HOW SIGNIFICANT:
Consider the merits or otherwise of an argument or concept

Command Terms DISCUSS:

Offer a considered and balanced review that includes
a range of arguments, factors or hypotheses.

Graphs made by Ari Najarain in 2008

© Alex Bast, 2021
Paper 2/3
Command Terms
• EVALUATE: Make an appraisal weighing up the strengths and limitations of an argument or concept.

• EXAMINE: Consider an argument or concept in a way that uncovers the assumptions and interrelationships of the issue.

Graphs made by Ari Najarain in 2008

© Alex Bast, 2021
 Paper 2/3
Planning the Essay
• Students should sketch an outline before starting to write. Not only will it help them organize their thoughts and
arguments and make sure they don’t forget any critical information, but will also significantly improve their organization
and readability, making the examiner happy. Furthermore, in case the student runs out of time and can’t finish the essay,
but their outline is visible, that could be taken into account when marking.

• In this outline, students should take about 5 minutes to list the following:
1. Thesis. What will my thesis be? Does it clearly answer the question?

2. Arguments. What are my arguments? How do they support my thesis?

3. Evidence. Which facts and data will I present as evidence for my arguments?
It’s good practice to write down a list of key policies, dates, events,
names, actors, statistics etc than can be used to support each point.

4. Perspectives: Am I showing a difference of opinion? Is it historians who are

disagreeing? Which perspective carries more weight?

It’s recommended that students have enough in this outline to write at least 5 paragraphs: the introduction, 3 arguments
(one paragraph per each argument), and 1 conclusion.

© Alex Bast, 2021

© Alex Bast, 2021
Paper 2/3
Introduction

• Long introductions are not needed. They’re a very common time killer.
• The introduction should be used to very briefly set the historical context, clarify -if needed- any terms of the question,
and, most importantly to state the thesis.

• The thesis should clearly and directly answer the question using the same language the question uses.
• A good introduction will also state the main arguments that will be presented. Signposting the examiner is a good tip
as the reader already knows what to expect and subconsciously this affects the perception of ‘clarity’ and ‘structure’.

• A good introduction could look like this:

(Q: To what extent did foreign intervention play a role in the outcome of one civil war?)

On April 1st, 1939 the Spanish Civil war ended after the Republicans surrendered after a bloody 3 year conflict.
Franco and his rebel army took control of the capital Madrid and Spain would remain under his control for almost 40
years. Foreign intervention played a role in the outcome of the civil war, especially due to the unbalanced foreign
support both sides received, with the Nationalists benefiting the most. However, this was not the sole factor, as
internal divisions within the Republicans, unbalanced military leadership and food supply issues all contributed to
Franco’s victory.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 2/3
Body
• Thematically-structured, analytical responses that clearly show arguments and perspectives, as well as detailed
knowledge greatly outperform narrative chronological accounts, or questions with very superficial evidence.

• A body with 3 or 4 paragraphs, each focusing on a different argument, tends to be one of the best performing structures.
Good paragraphs usually start with a topic sentence that presents the argument, followed by clear, relevant data and facts that
are used as evidence to support the argument. The paragraphs should end with a sentence summarizing it and clearly and
explicitly tying it back to the thesis.

• Students should avoid adding information that does not support the argument. Only information that can directly be used as
evidence to support or challenge the points is valuable. Storytelling approaches should be avoided.

• Facts, facts and facts: While narrative/descriptive approaches don’t do well, that does not mean that essays should be devoid of
factual information. Clear, specific knowledge used to support the analysis is required in order to reach the top markbands. It’s
good practice for students to memorize a list of detailed facts for each topic that can then be used throughout the essay (for
example “Brown vs Board: 1954”, “Johnson’s Civil Rights Act was in 1964”, “The Ebro Battle in 1938 was a key battle in the
Spanish Civil War”, “The Night of Long Knives took place in 1934 and was critical in reducing the power of Röhm’s
Sturmabteilung” etc).

• Analytical and Critical writing: Aside from following a PEEL (Point - Evidence - Explanation - Link) structure for each paragraph,
it’s recommended that students explicitly use words and phrases that highlight that they are developing critical analysis. For
example, “This is supported by XYZ”, “This clearly highlights that XYZ”, “in contrast to”, “given X, it can be concluded that Y”,
“This is significant because…”, “the strengths/limitations are XYZ” etc.
© Alex Bast, 2021
Paper 2/3
Perspectives and Evaluation

• Top marks will only go to responses which show evidence of awareness and evaluation of different
perspectives. Let’s break down each concept.

• Awareness of different perspectives: Students need to be able to show that they are aware that the question
can be examined from different sides. This can mean, for example, different historians interpretations, but
also different factors or even points of view. What is critical is that the essay appears balanced.

• While it is true that, traditionally, “different perspectives” equaled historiography, that is no longer the case in
today’s Papers 2 & 3, and, as stated above, “perspectives” is now a much broader term (for example, a
response on the impact of a Cold War crisis looks at the political impact on one country’s policies, but then
also pivots and analyzes those same events from the point of view of families, or women, or soldiers, or 3rd
countries etc).

• That being said, historiography is still likely to be the safest way to show ‘awareness of different
perspectives’. However, historiography should be used to support the essay’s arguments, no in lieu of them.
Descriptive accounts of what historians say, or pure name dropping of schools of thought, without
integrating historians views to the essay’s analysis will not work.

© Alex Bast, 2021

Paper 2/3
Perspectives and Evaluation

• It’s good practice for students to be aware of the main historiographical debates in each of the topics, so
throughout the essay they are able to mention the historians, their views, and, most importantly integrate that
into the student’s discussion. However, if, due to the nature of the question it is not possible to do so, the
student will likely find more success by focusing on non-historiographical perspectives.

• The different perspectives need to be well-developed and then evaluated, ie, the student should weigh the
merits of each perspective (by looking at the historical evidence available) and then conclude which of the
perspectives (or factors, or points of view etc) seems to carry more weight.

• This can be effectively done in two ways: Either by adding evaluative sentences in each of the argument
paragraphs, or by adding an evaluative paragraph before the conclusion where the student weighs the
perspectives and concludes, backed by evidence, which one is better equipped at answering the question.
• Use of language that makes this evaluation obvious is recommended: “While Author X’s view on this factor is
supported by Data Y, Data Z suggests that the impact was more subdued because XYZ. Consequently, Author
B’s theory might be a better explanation than Author X’s because XYZ.” If not using historiography, this could
also look like this: “While the key role of propaganda in the emergence of power is supported by X and Y, data
Z does seem to suggest that the impact was more subdued, due in part to ABC”.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 2/3
Writing Tips

• Start Strong: First impressions count. The best arguments should be presented first. Similarly, students could benefit from starting
with the essay with which they feel the most confident.

• Careful with Adding Information: One of the most important aspects is to write in a clear manner. The essay must feel well
organized, and the examiner should not have to re-read passages to understand them. A common issue, especially when students
don’t plan the essay beforehand, is a heavy use of asterisks or other symbols to add sentences that the student forgot to write. This
should be generally avoided, as it is evidence of poor organization. However, in case it must happen, it’s good practice to always
leave the bottom 15% of each page blank so the text can be added on the same page rather than at the end of the essay, making it
easier for the examiner to read the added part in its context. This should only be a small percentage of space and done at the
bottom of the page and not between paragraphs, as too much space between paragraphs interrupts the reading flow.

• Careful with Poor Handwriting: The responses are scanned and examiners mark them on their computers. Illegible or hard to read
handwriting can be a big problem. If you have students in your class with poor penmanship, or struggle with handwriting in general,
you may want to talk to your DP coordinator to explore the possibility of typing, rather than handwriting, the exams.

• Find ways to introduce detailed facts: Certain phrases can be used to make it easier for students to present detailed information
that would otherwise have a hard time integrating. For example, using the word “tangible” in an argument can then automatically
present the student the opportunity to give a series of specific examples.

• Use Specific Vocabulary: Incorporating academic language common in History (sovereignty, casus belli, hegemony, unilateralism
etc) as well as stating the terms in the original language (Wehrmacht or Sturmabteilung instead of ‘German Army’ or ‘brownshirts’)
can contribute in creating the aura of high quality writing with relevant and specific knowledge often needed to reach 13-15.

© Alex Bast, 2021

 Paper 2/3
Final Tips from the Examiner’s Report
• Make sure the bullet points are taught and students are clear on timelines and parameters: “It is very important for teachers to
ensure that all bullet points of any History Guide section are taught in their entirety and that candidates have a working knowledge of
the terminology of that section. It is equally important for teachers to stress the time lines applicable to each section of the
curriculum, discussing what issues and/or events are, and are not, relevant to the parameters specified”.

• Past questions are very useful for preparing: “Throughout the entire academic year, it is very useful for candidates to frequently
review past exam questions so that they might discuss with their teachers the topics and the content that would provide the most
relevant responses to these practice questions. The conduct of these exercises will help to ensure that candidates make sound
choices as to the section from which they choose questions as well as the determination of the topic representing their greatest
extent of knowledge.

• Make sure students are aware of conceptual differences: “Emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that candidates understand
the difference between independence movements, civil wars and revolutions”. For paper 3, “candidates may need to be reminded
that discussion of historical examples from outside the region will lack relevance”. “The distinction between foreign and domestic
policy may also need emphasis as well as the differences between social, cultural, economic, political and diplomatic history”. In
paper 2, for Topic 10 “students need to be taught the difference between emergence and maintenance of power”.

• Handwriting & Presentation: “It is vital for teachers to identify candidates who have difficulty in writing legible responses and to
work with those students to ensure that their knowledge can be effectively transferred in an exam environment. Various copying
strategies that might be useful include, but are not limited to, printing responses (rather than use of cursive), greater spacing
between words, skipping lines, etc.” On a different report they say “The handwriting of many candidates was almost illegible in this
session and there were many booklets that had been put together in the wrong order. Candidates need regular practice of writing
essays by hand, in timed conditions.”
© Alex Bast, 2021
 Paper 2/3
Final Tips from the Examiner’s Report

• Analysis, Evidence and Perspectives: “The greatest gains may be attained by placing emphasis on the need to provide
supporting evidence that is relevant to the demands posed by the question, rather than a narrative of events alone.
Candidates achieve their best results when this is accompanied by well-developed critical analysis. Acknowledgement and
evaluation of different perspectives should be seen as an important adjunct to the response, rather than as a weakness or lack
of certainty.”

• Command Terms: “Candidates need to be very clear on the meaning of command terms. For example, it was clear in this
paper that not all candidates knew that the term “evaluate” means to find strengths and limitations. Candidates need to be
provided with opportunities to practice each of the command terms throughout the course”. “Given the difficulty many
candidates have in structuring comparison and contrast essays, it would be of substantial benefit if teachers trained
candidates on how they may either create running comparisons or discuss similarities and differences separately”.

• Social History Matters: “It is important that social aspects of history are covered as thoroughly as political, economic and
military ones. There has been a pattern of weak responses to questions with a social history focus and teachers should ensure
their curriculum covers these topics effectively so that candidates are well prepared.”

• Challenging the question does not mean ignoring it: “Candidates need to be clear that although they can challenge the
assumptions in questions they cannot just simply disregard the factor identified in the question. Candidates need to be taught
how to challenge questions and how to present counter arguments effectively. The ability to do this would strengthen
responses, especially to “discuss” and “to what extent” questions.” That’s especially a problem in questions where the
students ignore the main factor and focus almost exclusively in alternative ones.
© Alex Bast, 2021
If you’re interested in further consulting services feel free
to reach out to me at:
[email protected]

© Alex Bast, 2021