You will have answer one question from a choice of three. Your answer will be written in essay form in Assessprep during one 65 minute class block. It will be marked using the IB History Paper 3 rubric.
You are provided with a list of five questions below. From this list of five, three will appear on the Summative Assessment. From the choice of three, you will have to answer ONE question.
You must be prepared to choose from a minimum of three questions to be assured you will be able to thoroughly answer a question.
The question choices are listed below:
- The grand aspiration of collective security after the Great War was an abject failure. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
- The First World War explains the Second World War, in that first war caused the second.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
- With reference to war reparations, the Great Depression and resource acquisition, assess the economic causes of the Second World War.
- Assess the importance of each of the following factors in causing mass destruction and death during the Second World War: Strategy; Tactics; Technology.
- Explain why the term “Total War” is applied to the Second World War.
Remember the key elements in writing an IB-style essay:
A. Clear organization: Introduction; Body; Conclusion.
B. A clear thesis (position) statement.
C. Correct narrative content, either in chronological or thematic form.
D. Historiographic assessment.
This section will be marked out of 15, using a Paper 3 rubric. The rubric follows:
IB HISTORY PAPER 3 RUBRIC
Marks Level Descriptor
0 Response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 – 3 • There is little understanding of the demands of the question. The response is poorly structured or, where there is a recognizable essay structure, there is minimal focus on the task.
• Little knowledge is present. Where specific examples are referred to, they are factually incorrect, irrelevant or vague.
• The response contains little or no critical analysis. It may consist mostly of generalizations and poorly substantiated assertions.
4 – 6 • The response indicates some understanding of the demands of the question. While there may be an attempt to follow a structured approach, the response lacks clarity and coherence.
• Knowledge is demonstrated but lacks accuracy and relevance. There is a superficial understanding of historical context. The answer makes use of specific examples, although these may be vague or lack relevance.
• There is some limited analysis, but the response is primarily narrative/ descriptive in nature, rather than analytical.
7 – 9 • The response indicates an understanding of the demands of the question, but these demands are only partially addressed. There is an attempt to follow a structured approach.
• Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. Events are generally placed in their historical context. Examples used are appropriate and relevant.
• The response moves beyond description to include some analysis or critical commentary, but this is not sustained.
10 – 12 • The demands of the question are understood and addressed. Answers are generally well structured and organized, although there may be some repetition or lack of clarity in places.
• Knowledge is accurate and relevant. Events are placed in their historical context, and there is a clear understanding of historical concepts. Examples used are appropriate and relevant, and are used to support the analysis/evaluation.
• Arguments are mainly clear and coherent. There is some awareness and evaluation of different perspectives.
• The response contains critical analysis. Most of the main points are substantiated, and the response argues to a consistent conclusion.
13 – 15 • Responses are clearly focused, showing a high degree of awareness of the demands and implications of the question. Answers are well structured, balanced and effectively organized.
• Knowledge is detailed, accurate and relevant. Events are placed in their historical context, and there is a clear understanding of historical concepts. Examples used are appropriate and relevant, and are used effectively to support the analysis/evaluation.
• Arguments are clear and coherent. There is evaluation of different perspectives, and this evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer.
• The answer contains well-developed critical analysis. All, or nearly all, of the main points are substantiated, and the response argues to a reasoned conclusion.
