IB History IA 探究题 选源 综述与评价 2200
IB History 的 IA 是一篇自选题目的小型史学论文，两版大纲同时在用，写之前先确认自己那一届按哪一版评分。
现行大纲与新大纲的 IA 结构差别
IB History 的 IA 在 2017 年首次评估的大纲里是三节 25 分：史料识别与评估 6 分、调查 15 分、反思 4 分，全文上限 2,200 字。IBO 官网的 History updates 页面写明，新版历史课程在 2026 年 2 月发布、2026 年 8 月首次教学、2028 年 5 月首次评估，反思部分被取消。新版三节改成历史探究问题、来源与视角、综述与评价，分值是 6 加 6 加 12，共 24 分。IB 的科目简章给出权重：SL 占 30%，HL 占 20%，两版都安排 20 小时教学时间。2027 年及以前应考的学生仍按旧版评分，2028 年 5 月起按新版。很多学生以为两版只是换了名字，其实分值重心从调查段挪到了最后的综述段。2026 年入学的班，Section 3 一节就占掉一半分数。
Two structures are in circulation, and the marks sit in different places. Under the guide first assessed in 2017 the investigation is marked out of 25 (sources 6, investigation 15, reflection 4), while the version first examined in May 2028 is marked out of 24 with the reflection removed; the IBO subject brief gives the new weighting as 30% at SL and 20% at HL. Candidates sitting before 2028 are still graded on the older criteria, so check which guide your cohort follows before planning a word budget. A common mistake is assuming only the section names changed: in the new version the final synthesis section carries twelve of the twenty-four marks.
选题的时间规则与题目范围
现行大纲要求研究对象距今至少十年，这条规则把 2016 年以后的事件挡在门外。新版课程把它写成两个条件：研究时段必须在公元 750 年以后，当代议题只能研究成因，不能研究后果。选题时先把时间段缩小到一两年，再确定一个可以争论的判断，题目就自然收窄。像「冷战为什么在 1947 年走向对抗」比「冷战的起因」好写，前者给了时间边界和因果焦点。常见的错误是选一个本国史课本上已经写完的题目，写到 1,300 字发现没有可引的一手材料。地方史、博物馆、口述访谈都在允许范围内，前提是能找到可以核对出处的材料。题目里出现「评价」「在多大程度上」这类词，后面就得给出衡量标准，否则 Section 2 会写成叙述。
The current guide sets a ten-year buffer, so events after about 2016 are out of bounds. The new course instead requires a topic after 750 AD and treats contemporary issues historically, which usually means asking about causes rather than consequences. Narrow the period to a year or two and commit to a debatable judgement; a question such as why the wartime alliance broke down in 1947 is workable, whereas the causes of the Cold War gives you no edge to argue from. Local history, museum collections and oral interviews are all permitted, provided the evidence can be cited and checked.
Section 1 探究题怎么写成一个可回答的问题
旧版 Section 1 的第一件事是把问题写出来，并且必须是一个问句，不能是「论某某」这样的陈述。新版把这一节单独设成 6 分的「历史探究问题」，400 字左右，还要说明这个问题是怎么形成的、为什么值得研究。写的时候给出时间、地点、行为主体和一个可争议的判断，四样齐了题目就站得住。评分看重的是问题的适切性，不是背景介绍的长度。很多学生以为开头要铺垫三百年的历史，阅卷时看到的是问题被埋在一段教科书式叙述里。把背景压到两句，把问题放在第一段第一句，后面的分数才好拿。
Section 1 in the older guide asks for a question, phrased as a question rather than a statement about a topic. The 2028 version turns this into a six-mark section of roughly 400 words that also explains how the question was developed and why it matters. A workable question fixes a period, a place, an actor and a contestable judgement; examiners reward appropriateness rather than the length of the context you supply. Compress the background to two sentences and let the question open the section.
两份史料的来源、目的、价值与局限
旧版 Section 1 要求挑两份史料做详细评估，各 250 字上下。写清楚来源（谁、何时、什么形式）、目的（写给谁、想达到什么效果），再落到与本题相关的价值与局限。价值的写法是「因为它是某部门的内部记录，所以能说明决策时的实际考虑」，局限的写法是「因为它是事后回忆，所以时间细节不可靠」。常见的错误是把内容摘要当成评估，抄了三行原文却没有一句关于来源与目的的判断。一份一手材料配一份史学著作是稳妥的组合，两份都是二次文献会让来源这一项失分。史料必须和探究题直接相关，泛泛谈某场战争的通史不算。
Two sources are analysed in detail, roughly 250 words each, and the analysis has to connect origin and purpose to value and limitation for this particular question. A government record is valuable because it exposes the considerations inside a decision, while a memoir written years later is limited on dates and sequence; that kind of reasoning earns credit, whereas a summary of what the source says does not. One contemporary document paired with one scholarly account is the safest combination, since two secondary works weaken the evaluation of provenance. Keep both sources tied to the question rather than to the wider topic.
七份来源上限与新 Section 2 的视角分布
新版 Section 2 叫「来源与视角」，6 分，篇幅 400 字左右，最多只能用七份来源。这一节问的是这些材料放在一起能不能覆盖不同的立场，不只是它们各自说了什么。七份来源要能分出层次：决策者、执行者、旁观者、后来的研究者，各占一份就够，堆五份同阵营的报纸没有意义。写的时候逐份说明它带来哪一种视角，再说这些视角合起来能回答问题的哪一部分。2026 年发布的 IB 历史新大纲特意强调选择来源的理由，所以要写「我为什么选它」，不是「它说了什么」。少一份来源不扣分，凑数才会扣分。
The new section 2 is worth six marks, runs to about 400 words and caps the source base at seven items. What is assessed is coverage of perspectives: decision-makers, those who carried out policy, observers and later historians each add something the others cannot, and five newspapers from the same camp add nothing. Justify each choice in terms of the perspective it supplies and what that perspective lets you answer. Fewer sources are acceptable; padding the list is not.
Section 2 Investigation 的主题式结构
旧版 Section 2 是 1,300 字、15 分的主体，也是全篇分数最集中的一段。结构上按主题切分比按时间切分好用：每个小节回答探究题的一个分句，小节标题写出这一节的判断，读者扫一眼标题就知道论证走向。编年式写法的问题是它只交代发生了什么，评分标准要的是对证据的权衡与对不同解释的评判。每一段留一句交代证据的出处，脚注不计入字数，可以放心用。写到一半发现某个小节只是在补充背景，就把它删掉或者压成一句，1,300 字很容易被背景吃掉。
Section 2 carries fifteen marks in about 1,300 words, which makes it the part worth organising most carefully. Thematic subsections work better than a chronological march: each one answers a clause of the question, and a heading that states a judgement tells the reader where the argument is going. Every paragraph should either advance or qualify the case, with citations in footnotes since references fall outside the word count. Anything that only supplies background belongs in a single sentence.
反方解释与史学争论怎么放
只写一方的证据，15 分里拿不到「评估不同视角」那一档。做法是先给出与你结论相反的解释，说明它依据哪些材料，再指出这些材料在时间或立场上的问题。苏联档案开放后出现的一批研究，把冷战起源的讨论从谁先动手推到双方的误判如何叠加，这类争论写进文章比罗列事实有用。写反方观点时别写成稻草人，要给它最强的版本，再解释为什么你的判断仍然成立。阅卷时最容易丢分的地方，是把史学争论写成一句「历史学家有不同看法」却没有具体人名和著作。
Presenting only one line of evidence caps the mark for evaluating perspectives. State the strongest rival explanation, identify the material it rests on, then show where that material is limited by date or standpoint; the scholarship that appeared after Soviet archives opened is a good example of how the debate shifted from who moved first to how misperception compounded. Build the opposing case at its strongest before answering it. Naming historians and their works is what separates evaluation from a vague remark that views differ.
结论段要落到探究题上
旧版和现行评分的共同要求，是结论必须从证据推出来，而不是重复开头。结论段做两件事：用两三句回答探究题的核心判断，再说这个判断在哪些条件下会动摇。不要把新证据放进结论，那一段不再展开论证。判断要有程度词，像「在很大程度上」「在军事层面」这类限定能显示你在权衡，而不是给一个绝对结论。常见写法是最后加一句「历史仍在继续」，这句在评分表上没有对应项。
The conclusion has to follow from the evidence rather than restate the introduction. Two moves are enough: answer the question in two or three sentences, then say under what conditions that answer would fail. Nothing new should appear here, because the section carries no room for fresh argument. Qualified judgements, such as largely or in the military sphere, show that competing evidence was weighed.
旧版 Reflection 的 400 字写什么
旧版 Section 3 的反思 4 分、400 字，问的是这次调查让你看到历史学家的方法有哪些限制。可写的方向包括档案的选择性、回忆录的时间偏差，以及偏见与取舍的区别：前者是有意偏向，后者是材料本身只留下了一部分声音。写自己找材料的经历可以，但要落到方法层面，比如某个档案馆只保留了获胜一方的记录，这直接决定了你能提出什么样的问题。很多学生以为反思要写感想，写了三百字「我学会了坚持」，评分表上找不到对应项。把反思和正文里的某一次具体判断连起来，这一段就有内容。
The older reflection is four marks in about 400 words and asks what the investigation revealed about the limits of historians' methods. Archive selectivity, the time lag in memoirs and the difference between bias and selection are all productive angles; bias is a deliberate slant, whereas selection is what survives in the record at all. Personal experience is fine as long as it lands on method, for example an archive that kept only the victors' files and thereby shaped the questions you could ask. Reflections that describe how much you enjoyed the topic score nothing.
新 Section 3 综述与评价的 1400 字
新版 Section 3「综述与评价」12 分，篇幅约 1,400 字，是新版的重心。它要求把 Section 2 里那七份来源的证据整合起来，形成一条对探究题的完整回答，同时评价每份材料在回答这个问题时的可靠性。写法上先立论，再按来源分组处理：一手材料支撑哪些分句，二次文献提供哪些解释框架，两者冲突时以什么为准。评价不能停在可靠与不可靠两个词，要说清在什么问题上可靠、在什么问题上不可靠。结尾给一个与证据一致的判断，这一段的分值等于旧版整个调查段，篇幅却相近，铺陈的空间很小。
The new synthesis and evaluation section is worth twelve marks in roughly 1,400 words, and it is where the new course places its weight. Evidence from the seven sources has to be integrated into one answer to the question, with each source assessed for how far it can carry that answer. Group the sources by the work they do: documents establish what was said and decided, while scholarship supplies the interpretive frame, and conflicts between them have to be resolved explicitly. Reliability is question-specific, so say reliable for what rather than reliable in general.
字数、脚注与参考书目的计数规则
两版都是 2,200 字上限，页眉、标题、脚注与参考书目不计入，正文里引用的长段落照常计数。IBO 要求在全篇开头写明总字数，这一行不进计数。超限的后果不是扣一两分，而是超出部分不被评阅，所以把字数分到节上更稳妥：旧版按 500、1,300、400 分配，新版按分值比例大致落在 400、400、1,400。写作时用带字数的文档，每写完一节核对一次，比最后通篇删更省时间。删字优先删背景与形容词，保留带证据的句子。
Both versions cap the work at 2,200 words, with headings, footnotes and the bibliography excluded while long quotations in the body are counted. State the total at the start of the document, as the IBO requires, and remember that the penalty is not a mark deduction but readers stopping at the limit. Budget by section from the outset, and check the running total after each section rather than cutting at the end. When trimming, remove background and adjectives and keep sentences that carry evidence.
阅卷时最常见的四处丢分
把近几年被扣分的地方归到一起，问题高度集中。探究题写成话题描述，整篇没有可回答的判断。史料评估只抄内容，不谈来源与目的。调查段按时间顺序复述事件，缺少对不同解释的评判。结论与开头重复，没有程度限定。新版还多一条：七份来源之间的视角没有区分，等于只有一份材料被真正使用。改这些毛病不需要重写，先给每一节写一句「这一节回答问题的哪一部分」，写不出来的小节就是该删的。
The same weaknesses recur every session. Questions describe a topic instead of posing something answerable; source evaluation summarises content without touching provenance; the investigation narrates events in order without weighing interpretations; conclusions repeat the opening. In the new version one more appears, namely seven sources that offer no distinct perspectives. A one-line note under each heading, stating which part of the question it answers, exposes the sections that should be cut.
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
Visit aleveler.com
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图