Writing the History IA: What Actually Happens
Most students treat the Paper 3 internal assessment like a book report. It isn't. You're doing original historical research, which means you'll hit walls that no textbook prepared you for. I've supervised enough of these to know where people stumble. The task asks you to investigate a historical issue using primary and secondary sources. You pick the topic, locate evidence, analyze it, and draw conclusions. Simple on paper. Not simple in practice. The real work starts when you realize your primary source is in French and you don't read French. Or when the diary you found is barely legible because the author wrote with a quill pen that skipped across the page. This happened to me last year. I spent three weeks trying to decode 19th-century handwriting before hiring someone who specialized in paleography. Cost about $200. Saved me from failing.
Here's what people miss about this paper. First, source selection matters more than you think. A brilliant analysis of weak sources won't save you. I once saw a student use a single newspaper article from 1962 to discuss the Cuban Missile Crisis. The examiner gave it a 4 out of 7. The problem wasn't the writing. It was the evidence base. You need at least four to six credible sources, ideally from different perspectives. Second, the question itself needs to be narrow. "Why did the Americas change in the 20th century?" won't work. That's a whole semester essay. Something like "To what extent was the Mexican Revolution of 1910 driven by economic inequality rather than political corruption?" gives you focus. You can actually answer that in 2,200 words. The methodology section trips up a lot of students. You're supposed to explain how you selected your sources. Not just list them. I recommend including a brief note about your search strategy: which archives you used, what keywords you tried, why you excluded certain materials. This shows you're thinking critically about evidence, not just hoarding it.
There are some pitfalls you'll encounter. Primary sources often contradict each other. A soldier's diary from the Chaco War might say one thing while official military records claim another. Your job isn't to resolve every contradiction. It's to acknowledge them and explain why they exist. I've seen students ignore conflicting evidence entirely. That's an automatic deduction in the criteria. Another issue is over-reliance on secondary sources. Yes, historians have already interpreted the past. But if you only use secondary sources, you're doing literature review, not historical investigation. The examiners want to see you engaging with raw evidence. Even if it's just a translated excerpt. The word count is strict. 2,200 words maximum. Not 2,201. Not 1,800. Check your count before submitting. I knew a student who wrote 2,600 words and lost two marks purely for going over. Painful. And unnecessary if they'd edited carefully.
Get the Full Details
Sourcing is another area where marks slip away. You need proper citations in Chicago style or whatever format your school requires. Not APA. Not MLA. Chicago. If your bibliography is incomplete, you'll lose points in the presentation criterion. I recommend using Zotero or Mendeley to manage references. Saves hours of formatting time. There's a misconception that your conclusion must be definitive. It doesn't. Historical investigation is about weighing evidence, not proving absolute truths. I've seen excellent papers end with "This investigation suggests..." rather than "This proves that..." The former shows intellectual honesty. The latter sounds like a undergrad trying too hard. The assessment criteria cover four areas: investigation, knowledge, analysis, and presentation. Each carries equal weight. Don't neglect any. A brilliant investigation with poor presentation will cap your score at around 5 out of 7. Balance matters.
One thing nobody tells you about this paper. The topic you choose affects how long it takes. Researching something obscure like the 1980s guerrilla movements in El Salvador might take three weeks. Something well-documented like the Haitian Revolution could take two months because there's so much material. I recommend choosing a topic with accessible sources early. Don't fall in love with a subject that's impossible to research. The feedback loop with your supervisor matters more than you think. Most schools require you to submit drafts. I suggest treating each meeting as a checkpoint, not a formality. Ask specific questions about your sources. Don't wait until the final draft to discover your evidence base is weak. That's a recipe for panic and mediocre results. There's also the issue of language barriers. If your primary sources are in Spanish, Portuguese, or French, you'll need translations. Google Translate won't cut it. I recommend using professional translation services or finding someone fluent. Bad translations lead to misinterpretations. And misinterpretations lead to weak analysis.
Some topics simply won't work. Political sensitivity, lack of sources, or ethical concerns can sink your project before it starts. I've seen students choose topics about recent dictatorships or indigenous land disputes. The sources were either classified or emotionally charged. Bad combination. Pick something with archival material available. The final product should tell a story. Not just present facts. You're investigating a historical issue, which means you need to construct an argument supported by evidence. I recommend outlining your argument before writing. Know where you're going. Otherwise you'll wander and lose focus halfway through. This paper isn't easy. But it's also not impossible. The students who succeed treat it like real research, not homework. They dig into sources, question assumptions, and accept uncertainty. That's what historians actually do. If you want to write like one, you have to think like one first.
One last thing. Don't copy from the internet. Plagiarism detection software catches everything these days. I've seen students lose entire grades for paraphrasing Wikipedia without attribution. Painful and preventable. Write your own analysis. Use sources as support, not crutches.
