[Mr Jones-Nerzic]

Although typically very mixed at this stage, I have been generally pleased with the quality of work and the progress made at this point.

Some general comments:

1. Summary of evidence - Section B

There are different ways of doing this and it may be worth trying alternatives to see which works best. The IBO expects a descriptive section of main findings but adds that 'it should be organised, referenced and should provide evidence of thorough research'. In this section you need to demonstrate how much work you have done. Helen Coleman's from a few years back illustrates this very well. (see pages 5 and 6.)
This approach is good when your research has been generally based on secondary evidence rather than from evidence you have generated yourself. Basically, you are showing in a short space of time how many books you have read. Referencing is therefore very important. (see point 2 later)

An alternative approach is recommended for students who have done more than read books. If your research has involved visits to museums, heritage sites, interviews, archive work etc. then you maybe better off writing a sort of 'logbook' of your research. This approach is more methodological and personal: written in the first person, it allows you to demonstrate what you have learnt from the process of doing history, ie not just from books. Robin Webb's work from last year is an excellent example of this: http://194.3.120.243...obin_webb05.pdf If you do decide to undertake this approach, it is important that you outline the history that you have learnt as well as the things that you did.

[Mr Jones-Nerzic]

Referencing

It is certainly worth making this point in its own right. The major weakness of many of the IAs at the moment is the lack of referencing. Anyone can knock out a 2000 word IA in an afternoon. In order to do well, you must provide evidence that your 2000 words is a significant distillation of a much greater body of knowledge that you have acquired through many serious hours of study and reflection. The only way to guarantee this is to make sure every page has a number of footnotes from a range of primary and seconday sources.

[Mr Jones-Nerzic]

Section C - Evaluation of the sources

This ought to be one of the easiest section. At the moment, many of you are taking too many words over this. My advice is to keep is simple and make it structured. Treat it exactly as you would a Paper 1 examination. Examine each source in turn and consider the stregths and weaknesses of the origin and purpose of each source. Separate the strengths from the weaknesses and make your point as clearly as you can. It is a good idea to select very different types of source, perhaps someting visual compared to something written or something dry and traditional compared to something artistic and empathetic. Think about ToK categories of knowledge!