Paper+1

Both SL and HL students must take "Paper 1". This is the IB exam that tests for certain specifically historical skills. Generically, it is a kind of "Document-Based Question" test. I have gathered here materials about both such documents.

Key Aspects
Duration: 1 hour Weighting: SL: 30%, HL: 20% Paper 1 is a source-based examination paper based on the prescribed subjects.
 * Each prescribed subject consists of two specified case studies, and in each examination session the paper will focus on one of the two case studies specified for each prescribed subject. (For WFS, either on Japan/China or Italy/Germany in the 1930s)
 * The paper will contain four sources for each prescribed subject. (Typically, three text sources and one graphic source)
 * Sources will be primary or a mixture of primary and secondary, and may be written, pictorial or diagrammatic.
 * The paper will consist of four questions for each prescribed subject, and students must answer all four questions from their chosen prescribed subject. (Question 1 will have two parts, 1a and 1b)
 * Some questions will be answered using only evidence from one or more of the sources, as indicated (this is the case in Qs 1-3). In other questions students will be asked to use their own knowledge of the prescribed subject as well as evidence contained in the sources (this is Q4).

Explains a History teacher in the IB OCC:
 * "Think of the order of the questions as building blocks. Q1 shows that a student can read and understand, Q2 shows that they can assess objectively what a document can or cannot provide to the study of the subject. Q3 shows that a student can compare and contrast various sources, and after all of this work, Q4 shows that students can now integrate this new knowledge to their own knowledge and apply it all to answer a question asked. Students are only ready to answer Q4 after working on the Q1-3 and should not jump to work on Q4 even though Q4 is worth the most points."

Overview on how to do a Paper 1/DBQ test

 * My own guides:
 * "[|How to Write DBQ Qs.1-3]" guide
 * [|Mini-Essay Rubric]


 * "Making Sense of...Paper 1", from The Paper 1 Bible, by Paul Hart.
 * [[file:The Paper 1 Bible-PHart.pdf]]
 * "Tips on DBQs", by ActiveHistory.pdf (Russell Tarr). This is another excellent short overview guide about how to approach a DBQ assignment in general:
 * [[file:Tips on DBQs-ActiveHIst.pdf]]
 * This is another excellent guide, about how to plan/structure a mini-essay, or really, any history essay.
 * [[file:Why G lost WWi–essay planning.pdf]]
 * Some additional pointers:
 * [[file:DBQ Reminders]]
 * [[file:DBQ Reminders]]

How to do Question 2 (the OPCVL) in a DBQ:
Here's the most down-to-earth guide you can apply directly in a Paper 1 or other DBQ test:
 * [|How to Write Answers to DBQ Qs.1-3]

For additional guidelines about how to handle a source evaluation (Question 2 in a Paper 1), look on the "Source Evaluation" page in this wiki.

How to do Question 3 (the comparison) in a DBQ
How many points are needed in the answer?
 * With the holistic rubric now, a student does not need to attain three valid comparisons and 3 valid differences to earn 6 points for Q3. Teacher notes from a Subject Specific Seminar: "Need two of each comparison and contrast. Does not require six points. Just 4, well developed. Not counting points."

What qualifies as a contrast?
 * "A statement that something is written in one source and is not mentioned in the other is not a contrast of the views in the sources."

How to do Question 4 ("the Mini-Essay") in a DBQ:
Here's the most down-to-earth guide you can apply directly in a Paper 1 or other DBQ test:
 * "[|Do's and Don'ts in DBQ Essays]"

Here is the official IB rubric for Paper 1, Question 4 (the Mini-Essay). Note that most emphasis is placed on the student's providing evidence equally from the Documents and from their other knowledge!
 * [[file:IB Markbands, P1, Q4.pdf]]

For additional guidelines about how to handle essays in general, look on documents in the "Writing" page in this wiki.

Our WFS-Specific Content Focus
The IBO defines several possible “prescribed subjects” for IB 20th century history. Every IB school selects one of these on which to focus. “Paper 1”, the first of the two exams required of every HL and SL students, assesses students’ knowledge of the prescribed subject chosen by their school.

WFS has elected the third: The move to global war, 1931-1941.

When you sit down to take Paper 1, you will be presented with three sets of questions, one for each of the possible prescribed subjects. But remember that our efforts have focused on preparing you for only one one of these, this one! This is the only set that you should answer!

The move to global war, 1931-1941
Here is how the IBO defines what areas should be covered by teachers and students electing this subject:

This prescribed subject focuses on military expansion from 1931 to 1941. Two case studies are prescribed, from different regions of the world, and both of these case studies must be studied. The first case study explores Japanese expansionism from 1931 to 1941, and the second case study explores German and Italian expansionism from 1933 to 1940. The focus of this prescribed subject is on the causes of expansion, key events, and international responses to that expansion. Discussion of domestic and ideological issues should therefore be considered in terms of the extent to which they contributed to this expansion, for example, economic issues, such as the long-term impact of the Great Depression, should be assessed in terms of their role in shaping more aggressive foreign policy.


 * Case study 1: Japanese expansion in East Asia (1931–1941)**

Causes of expansion
 * The impact of Japanese nationalism and militarism on foreign policy
 * Japanese domestic issues: political and economic issues, and their impact on foreign relations
 * Political instability in China

Events
 * Japanese invasion of Manchuria and northern China (1931)
 * Sino-Japanese War (1937–1941)
 * The Three Power/Tripartite Pact; the outbreak of war; Pearl Harbor (1941)

Responses
 * League of Nations and the Lytton report
 * Political developments within China—the Second United Front
 * International response, including US initiatives and increasing tensions between the US and Japan


 * Case study 2: German and Italian expansion (1933–1940)**

Causes of expansion
 * Impact of fascism and Nazism on the foreign policies of Italy and Germany
 * Impact of domestic economic issues on the foreign policies of Italy and Germany
 * Changing diplomatic alignments in Europe; the end of collective security; appeasement

Events
 * German challenges to the post-war settlements (1933–1938)
 * Italian expansion: Abyssinia (1935–1936); Albania; entry into the Second World War
 * German expansion (1938–1939); Pact of Steel, Nazi–Soviet Pact and the outbreak of war

Responses
 * International response to German aggression (1933–1938)
 * International response to Italian aggression (1935–1936)
 * International response to German and Italian aggression (1940)

Here are some pre-formatted, blank analytical charts entitled "Interwar International Relations, 1918-1936" that can be used to summarize and categorize the key information from this period in a single page.

The Form and Structure of the Exam
Paper 1 lasts for one hour and takes the form that we have called a “DBQ” test. Students must analyze documents pertaining to their selected prescribed subject. As you are expected to have studied this content area in some depth, you will be expected to write answers that reflect not just your immediate interpretation of the documents provided, but a well-informed understanding of each of the areas above.

Questions 1 to 3 from Past Papers 1
Here are the most recent past Papers 1 on our selected topic, since 2010 (the year this topic was adopted). They are followed by the corresponding IB Subject Report, and by the IB examiners' comments about students' actual performance on questions 1 to 3.

2013-November
 * [[file:History route 2 HLSL paper 1 Peacemaking peacekeeping - international relations 1918-36, 2013 Nov.pdf]]
 * [[file:IB History Subj. Rpt. 1311.pdf]]

2013-May
 * [[file:History route 2 HLSL paper 1 Peacemaking peacekeeping - international relations 1918-36.pdf]]
 * [[file:IB History Subj. Rpt. 1305.pdf]]

2012-May >> Question 2 >> Question 3
 * [[file:History Rt 2 HL+SL paper 1 (Peacemaking, peacekeeping - international relations 1918-36), 2012.pdf]]
 * [[file:IB History Subj. Rpt. 1205.pdf]]
 * Examiners:
 * Question 1
 * (a) It was pleasing to see that the majority of candidates focused on the source and did not spend their time offering unnecessary background information on the creation of the League. Most candidates had no difficulty at all in identifying three problems affecting the League.
 * (b) The message of the source was usually identified by candidates although there needed to be a more explicit use of the elements in the cartoon to support the claims. Weaker candidates limited themselves to describing the source. The phrase “looking a gift horse in the mouth” seemed to cause the candidates little difficulty as it was clearly explained in the attribution. The same expression also exists in other languages. It was also easy to obtain the two marks on offer by analyzing the other aspects of the cartoon.
 * Weaker candidates offered separate end-on descriptions of the sources without making any linkage between them. Comparisons and contrasts should be explicitly made and should focus on specific elements. Too many contrasts were based on issues that were discussed in one source and not mentioned in the other. This shows a limited understanding of the requirement to analyze differing “views”.
 * Candidates are by now familiar with the rubric of the question and most of them referred to all elements in both sources, but effective links between the origins and purpose of a source and its value and limitations were not always clearly made. A significant number of candidates either did not state the date or purpose of the sources or did not elaborate on how these could contribute to an analysis of their values or limitations.

2011-May >> Question 2 >> Question 3
 * [[file:History route 2 HL+SL paper 1 (Peacemaking, peacekeeping - international relations 1918-36), 2011.pdf]]
 * [[file:IB History Subj. Rpt. 1105.pdf]]
 * Examiners:
 * Question 1
 * a) Most candidates had little difficulty finding two or three of the five possible determinants of significance in the markscheme. Some responses were simply too brief – one sentence or so – to gain high marks
 * b) The cartoon worked extremely well and most candidates were able to identify two messages in Source C thus gaining full marks
 * A significant number of candidates offered end-on narratives of the sources with no linkage between them. The question explicitly asked for a comparison and contrast “of the views expressed” in the two sources. Responses, which discuss the origins of the sources and the nature of the historical document (primary or secondary; a speech vs. a book etc.) receive no credit. Having said this, there were also many excellent answers that covered both comparisons and contrasts in a running, linked, style of writing.
 * Candidates were familiar with the rubric of this question and addressed all elements for both sources; however there were answers which continued to focus on the content of the sources rather than on their evaluation. Also, links between O and P on the one hand and V and L on the other were not explicit in some cases. It is fundamental that candidates are trained to see the relevance of understanding the purpose of a source to judge its value and limitations. The analysis of Source A (statement by Hoover) was often more effective than the evaluation of Source B (a book by Payson O’Brien) which was somewhat surprising as Source B is a type of source that appears regularly on this Paper. Similarly, candidates continued to point out that if a source is secondary it has limited value to a historian and, if it is primary, it has no limitations.

2010-May >> Question 2 >> Question 3
 * [[file:History route 2 HL+SL paper 1 (Peacemaking, peacekeeping - international relations 1918-36).pdf]]
 * [[file:IB History Subj. Rpt. 1005.pdf]]
 * Examiners:
 * Question 1
 * a) Candidates generally did well on this question although it was surprising how many of them ignored the information that was given in the second paragraph about the military contributions that member nations should make.
 * b) Again candidates found it relatively easy to obtain full marks here although there were some odd responses that identified the person as Stalin and who thought that the caption meant the road “to” Rome not “from” Rome.
 * Again candidates found both the comparisons and contrasts easy to identify. There are, however, too many candidates who seem to believe that mentioning one comparison and one contrast will be sufficient to gain maximum marks. Once again end-on responses with no direct linkage between the two sources received little credit. Candidates must be taught to structure their responses along the lines of Source B...., whereas (or similarly) Source D..... This will show the examiners that explicit linkage has been made.
 * In general Source E was handled better than Source D, although there were many candidates who believed that the source had few, if any, limitations as “it reflected the true thoughts of the people of Abyssinia”. Source D caused some confusion and candidates made some inaccurate assumptions. “As Packham was in Ghana he knew exactly what was happening in Abyssinia”; “ As Packham is British his views mirror those of the British government”; “As Packham fought in the Second World War he must have known what had happened in Abyssinia” etc. Better candidates noted the date of the extract and made valid claims about the source‟s values and limitations.

Essay Questions from Past Papers 1
Here is a list of past Paper 1 essay (Q.4) questions since 2010 (the year this topic was adopted), followed by IB examiners' comments about students' actual performance on each question.

2012-May
 * Q.4: Using the sources and your own knowledge, analyse the impact of the absence of major powers on the League of Nations.
 * Examiners: Most candidates based their answers on the sources and missed gaining marks because, somewhat surprisingly on such a mainstream topic, they did not use any outside knowledge. Some answers listed points made in the sources but did not then relate this to the focus of the question–the impact of the absence of major powers. The use of all five sources does not automatically guarantee the maximum award of five marks unless there is an explicit focus on the specific question which has been set. There were many candidates who merely summarised what each source said in separate paragraphs and believed that this had responded to the demands of the question.

2011
 * Q.4: Using the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the extent to which you agree with the view that the London Naval Conference was unsuccessful.
 * Examiners:
 * What the question was intending was for the disagreements at London between the various powers, clearly identified in the sources, to be analysed up to 1936. The material needed for this answer should be familiar to all candidates sitting this Prescribed Subject. In fact many candidates were able to respond appropriately to this question. Question 4 was seeking indication that, as the 1930 London Naval Conference was unsuccessful in the long-term, so was disarmament. Relevant information included the position of Japan and its resulting turn to militarism, leading to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931; the uncertainty of Britain’s position regarding its navy, leading to the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty; and suspicion and distrust between France and Italy over the Mediterranean and North Africa resulting in the Abyssinian crisis. This report can substantiate that many candidates realised this and included such own knowledge in their answers.
 * Question 4 was generally answered well with many candidates including elements of their own knowledge. The most common response suggested that the London Naval Conference of 1930 was a short-term and limited success but a long-term failure, which was suggested by the sources. It must be noted that the inclusion of all the sources in a somewhat mechanical litany does not automatically guarantee five marks for the student unless there is a specific attempt to focus on the question that was set. Some candidates produced excellent, focused, answers which integrated specific elements of the sources with relevant and detailed own knowledge

2010
 * Q.4: Using the sources and your own knowledge, assess the reasons why the League of Nations’ policy of collective security was difficult to apply in the Abyssinian Crisis.
 * Examiners: Hardly surprisingly there were many candidates who were able to use both the sources and their own knowledge to construct a convincing argument focusing on the question. What was surprising however was the lack of detailed knowledge about events such as the Geneva Disarmament Conference, the Four Power Pact, Stresa and the Hoare-Laval Pact and their significance to the topic. Too many candidates made links to Hitler‟s policies, such as the invasion of the Rhineland and the Austrian Anschluss, and attempted to argue that these were the cause of Mussolini‟s actions in Abyssinia?