IB历史IA 研究问题 来源评估 探究 反思
IB 的历史内部评估（Internal Assessment，简称 IA）是一份自己选题目、自己做材料研究的历史探究。它的满分是 25 分，占 SL 总成绩的 25%、HL 的 20%，SL 与 HL 的要求完全一样。全篇由三节组成：第一节识别与评估来源，第二节是探究正文，第三节是反思。IB 2026 年的 Examiner Instructions 写明，探究的词数上限是 2200 词，参考书目与全部来源的引用信息不计入词数，但必须清楚地给出来；超过上限时，评估只按前 2200 词计。下面按三节的写作顺序拆开讲，重点放在每年丢分最集中的位置。
The History internal assessment is an independently researched investigation into a topic the student chooses. It is marked out of 25 and carries 25 per cent of the SL grade and 20 per cent of the HL grade, and the demands are identical at both levels: identification and evaluation of sources, the investigation, and a reflection. The IB sets the word limit at 2,200 words, and although the bibliography and the referencing of all sources sit outside the count they must still be present, so anything written beyond the limit is simply not assessed. The three sections below are taken in the order they are written, with a note on where the marks most often disappear.
研究问题: 题目要能被 2200 词回答
题目的第一关是它能不能被回答。IB 的流程要求第一节先交代一个明确的研究问题，历史探究的问题通常落在三种形态上：To what extent 判断某个因素的重要性，How significant 衡量一个事件的影响，Why did 追问决策的原因。三种都要写清时间、地点与人物，把 "冷战的影响" 收窄成 "1956 年苏伊士运河危机在多大程度上改变了英国在中东的地位"，后者才装得进 2200 词。Examiner Instructions 同时规定题材必须属于历史，因此近 10 年内发生的事件不能作为研究对象。很多学生以为题目越大越好写，实际情况相反，跨度一大，第二节就只能顺着事件往下叙述。选题时还要确认材料够不够，动笔前在学校图书馆或数据库里找出至少两类可引用的来源。题目要经老师批准才能开始，这一步被 IB 写进了流程要求。
The first question is whether the topic can be answered inside 2,200 words. The IB expects a question that supports a historical judgement rather than a description, and the workable forms are the ones built on extent, significance or causation, asking how far one factor mattered, how large an impact an event had, or why a particular decision was taken. A question also has to name a place and a period, because a broad theme turns Section 2 into a narrative; the rules add a hard boundary in that a topic must be historical, so an event from the last ten years cannot be investigated at all. Before committing, find at least two usable sources through the school library or a database, and remember that the teacher has to approve the question before writing starts.
第一节选源: 两份能互相补足的史料
第一节只要详细分析两份来源，这 6 分几乎全部取决于选得对不对。两份来源要与研究问题直接相关，而且要在第二节里真的被引用，摆出来又不用，等于自己放弃分析空间。比较稳的搭配是一手与二手混用：一份当年的政府文件、报刊报道或私人日记，配一份后来学者的专著，两种立场互相补足，评估时能写出对照。学生最常把来源选成百科词条或通史教材的段落，这类文本的作者身份模糊、写作目的难以讨论，评估部分写不下去。选源时先回答两个问题：材料的作者是谁，他在什么时间、为了什么目的写下它；它提供的信息在多大程度上能被本题使用。落笔前把两份来源的原文片段放进附录，正文里逐处标注引文出处。两份来源最好还能在某个具体判断上互相冲突，冲突本身就是现成的分析材料。
Section 1 asks for a detailed analysis of two sources, and those 6 marks rest almost entirely on the choice. Both sources have to speak to the question and must be used again in Section 2, because a source introduced and then abandoned reads as padding. A reliable pairing mixes an eyewitness or official document from the period with later scholarship, which sets two positions against each other; an encyclopaedia entry or a paragraph from a general textbook is a poor choice, since authorship is vague and purpose is hard to establish, leaving the evaluation with nothing to discuss. Pick two sources that genuinely disagree on one specific point, because that disagreement is itself the raw material for analysis.
第一节评估: 出处、目的、内容、价值与局限
评估段落最容易写成来源摘要。合格的写法先交代出处：作者身份、写作时间、文本类型、写给谁看。目的要紧扣作者当时的处境，战时报纸的社论服务于动员读者，而不是保存事实。内容部分说明这份材料提供了哪些与本题直接相关的信息，最好举出一条具体数据、判断或细节。价值与局限必须回到研究问题，孤立地写 "一手材料更可靠" 拿不到分，因为判断价值的标准是它对回答本题的用处。常见的错误是把局限写成 "作者有偏见"，太笼统；阅卷时更希望看到偏见的来源与后果，例如官方档案只登记被承认的战损，伤亡数字因此被系统性压低。两段评估之后点出两份来源在哪里互相印证、在哪里彼此冲突，这一句往往把答案从描述抬到分析。
Evaluation is where most students slide into summary. A workable paragraph names the origin first, covering who wrote the source, when, in what form and for whom, and then ties purpose to the writer's situation, since a wartime editorial aimed at rallying readers is not a record of events. Content comes next, naming the specific information the source supplies for this question, before value and limitation are judged against the question rather than in the abstract; a blanket claim that primary sources are more reliable earns little, and vague accusations of bias are just as weak. Examiners look for the mechanism instead, such as an official file that logs only acknowledged losses and therefore understates casualties, and a closing sentence on where the two sources corroborate each other and where they conflict lifts the answer from description towards analysis.
第二节骨架: 论点先行, 来源当证据
第二节占 15 分，是全篇重心，篇幅约 1300 词。开头先给一个明确判断，也就是对研究问题的回答，随后分段用来源与史实支撑它，结尾回到问题本身。每一段只推进一步论证，段首写出这一步的结论，后面跟材料。引用要区分转述与原话，直接引语留给关键表述，其余用转述并把出处标清楚。证据与论断之间需要连接句，写清这份材料显示了什么、因此支持哪个判断；缺了这一步，材料就只是堆放。很多学生把这一节写成事件经过，读完知道发生了什么，却看不出作者主张什么。IB 的评分描述看重分析是否聚焦于问题、是否使用了来自一组来源的证据、是否评估了不同视角。段落控制在 200 词上下，八九段刚好把 1300 词用满。
Section 2 carries 15 of the 25 marks in roughly 1,300 words, and it should read as an argument rather than a chronicle. A claim that answers the question opens the section, each following paragraph advances one step of that claim, and a short conclusion returns to the question. Direct quotation works best for a key phrase and paraphrase for everything else, with the reference made clear either way, and every piece of evidence needs a connecting sentence that says what it shows and which part of the claim it supports; material dropped in without that link leaves the reader to guess what it proves. Band descriptors reward analysis focused on the question, evidence drawn from a range of sources, and an explicit engagement with different perspectives, so plan on eight or nine paragraphs of about 200 words.
反方解释与结论: 让两种解读在同一证据上分岔
评估不同视角不是加一段 "也有人认为"，而是让两种解释在同一批证据上分岔，再给出自己取舍的依据。做法是先写对手的论点，写到他最强的版本，然后指出哪一类证据削弱了它，最后说明为什么自己的解释仍然成立。结论要回应研究问题，不要重复开头，也不要引入新证据，两三句写清判断、证据基础与保留意见就够。常见的错误是在结尾补一句 "历史很复杂，所以没有定论"，这句话在评分描述里落不到任何得分点，因为它没有给出判断。来源的类型也值得分开交代，决策者的回忆、当时的报刊、后来的学术研究各有可靠区间，把三类放在一起对照比只依赖其中一类更有说服力。段落内部可以直接用 "这一说法的问题在于" 这类句式开门见山，比绕弯的表述更快进入论证。
Weighing perspectives means letting two readings collide over the same body of evidence and then justifying a preference; a paragraph noting that other views exist does nothing for the marks. Set out the opposing case at its strongest, show which evidence strains it, and explain why your reading still holds. The conclusion answers the question in two or three sentences, restating the judgement with its evidential basis and any reservation worth keeping, and new evidence has no place there, since ending on the idea that history is complicated and no firm answer is possible gives the examiner no judgement to credit. It also helps to sort sources by type, because a decision-maker's memoir, the press of the period and later scholarship each carry a different reliability, and setting the three side by side is stronger than leaning on one.
第三节反思: 方法、局限与史学家的困难
第三节 4 分、约 400 词，要求写这份探究让人看到史学家使用的方法有什么特点，以及他们面对哪些困难。3 到 4 分的描述里有两条硬要求：清楚写出对方法与局限的认识，并且与前面的探究有明确的联系。可写的切入点都很具体，例如档案里缺了什么、某些史料为什么被选择性保留、口述回忆在几十年后的时间偏差、统计口径在不同时期的改变。写法上引用自己在第一、二节做过的判断，说明哪一步证据改变了最初的假设，这样的反思才算谈方法。常见的错误是写成学习总结，比如 "这次探究让我学会了安排时间"，这与历史方法无关；复述研究结论同样不得分，因为其中没有方法层面的讨论。字数不必写满 400 词，把方法与局限各写清一层就够了。
Section 3 is worth 4 marks in about 400 words, and it asks what the investigation revealed about the methods historians use and the challenges they face. The top band sets two conditions, a clear awareness of method and its limits and an explicit link back to the investigation itself; useful entry points are concrete, such as a gap in the archive, the selective survival of documents, distortion in testimony recalled decades later, or a change in how figures were recorded across periods. Reference your own earlier decisions and identify the evidence that overturned your first assumption, because that is what a method-focused reflection looks like. Writing about time management, or summarising the answer a second time, tells the examiner nothing about historical method and cannot reach the upper band.
词数与格式: 2200 词的分配与引用规则
词数上限写在 IB 的 Examiner Instructions 里：历史探究 2200 词，参考书目与全部来源的引用信息不计入，但必须清楚标出；超过上限时评估只按前 2200 词计，多写的部分不会被看到。多数学校按建议比例分配，第一节约 500 词，第二节约 1300 词，第三节约 400 词。三节的小标题保持固定写法，不要额外加目录与封面长图，这些都会被算进结构里。图表与地图放附录，正文只引用编号；脚注里的实质分析不属于引用信息，把分析写进正文更稳妥。交稿前逐句核对三件事：总词数、引用格式是否全篇统一、附录里的史料是否都在正文出现过。引用格式前后不一致的稿子，在第一眼就会影响评分印象。
The word limit is set in the IB examiner instructions: 2,200 words for the investigation, with the bibliography and the referencing of all sources outside the count although they must be clearly given, and any excess not read. Most schools follow the same suggested split of about 500 words for Section 1, 1,300 for Section 2 and 400 for Section 3. Keep the three section headings exactly as they are, and keep a contents page or a long cover image out of the file, since both count as structure; maps and diagrams belong in an appendix and are cited by number in the text. Footnotes carrying real analysis are not covered by the referencing exemption, so put the analysis in the body, and check three things before submitting: the total word count, one consistent referencing style, and the fact that every source listed in the appendix is genuinely used in the text.
2028 首评改版: 三节内容与权重的变化
IB 在 2025 年发布了新版 individuals and societies: History 的课程说明，页面标注 first assessment 2028。内部评估的名称仍然是 historical investigation，课时仍是 20 小时，满分改为 24 分，权重在 SL 升到 30%、HL 保持 20%。三节考什么也换了位置：第一节考评研究问题的提出，第二节考评对所选用来源的分析，第三节要求用来源里的证据综合成一份回应。按现行 History guide（2015 年 1 月出版，2019 年 5 月更新）参加考试的学生，2027 年及之前的考试仍按老结构写作，也就是识别与评估来源、探究、反思这三节，满分 25 分，SL 占 25%、HL 占 20%。准备 2028 年首评的学生要按新说明准备，两版评分描述不一样，把老结构写进新卷子会让第一节直接跑偏。核对办法很简单，在 ibo.org 找当届的 History guide 与 subject brief，看首页写的 first assessment 年份。
A revised History course appeared on ibo.org in 2025 with first assessment 2028. The internal assessment keeps its name, historical investigation, and its 20 hours, but is marked out of 24 and carries 30 per cent of the SL grade and 20 per cent of the HL grade; what each section assesses also changes, with Section 1 assessing the formulation of the inquiry question, Section 2 the analysis of the chosen sources, and Section 3 the synthesis of evidence from those sources into a response. Students sitting examinations up to 2027 still write the older structure set out in the History guide, published in January 2015 and updated in May 2019, with sections on source identification and evaluation, investigation and reflection, marked out of 25 and weighted at 25 per cent at SL and 20 per cent at HL. Because the two sets of descriptors differ, check the first assessment year on the guide or subject brief for your session before planning the three sections.
海外直订AQA GCSE History: Power and the People AQA GCSE历史:权力与人民¥359.0📱 去京东购买京东精选需要一对一辅导？Need One-on-One Tutoring?
A-Level / GCSE / IB / KS2-KS3 全科辅导
16621398022 同微信
aleveler.com
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图