Paper 1 Exam
Duration: 1 hour Weighting: 30% SL, 20% HL 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. The paper will contain four sources for each prescribed subject. 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. Some questions will be answered using only evidence from one or more of the sources, as indicated. In other questions students will be asked to use their own knowledge of the prescribed subject as well as evidence contained in the sources. The maximum mark for this paper is 24. The paper is marked using a paper-specific markscheme, except for the final question for each prescribed subject, which is marked using the generic markbands that follow, in addition to a paper-specific mark scheme See file opposite. |
|
Exam Requirements: 1 hour. Answer all FOUR set questions.
You may not be familiar with every document or source on the paper or even all the names & events mentioned.
You need to know the broad topic of the paper (context for unseen sources and questions)
You should revise ALL the bullet points in the curriculum document to understand the “theme”.
You need to have LEARNED RELEVANT MATERIAL for each of the bullet points.
You need to practice responses
You need to practice planning mini-essay responses (Q4). Plan the content that you would need.
You may not be familiar with every document or source on the paper or even all the names & events mentioned.
You need to know the broad topic of the paper (context for unseen sources and questions)
You should revise ALL the bullet points in the curriculum document to understand the “theme”.
You need to have LEARNED RELEVANT MATERIAL for each of the bullet points.
You need to practice responses
You need to practice planning mini-essay responses (Q4). Plan the content that you would need.
key_terms_paper_1_ib.docx | |
File Size: | 151 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Skills
Source Evaluation Advice
Source Evaluation Advice
|
|
Examiner's Advice 2013
Strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual questions
Question 1: (a) Candidates had little difficulty here. Many of them found three points which related to the markscheme and received maximum marks. Responses were also appropriate in length - usually of three sentences each of which had identified a reason. (b) Candidates found this question more challenging. While there were many responses which identified two messages – usually French aggression and that Germany was being pushed into the welcoming arms of the Bolsheviks. Fewer responses made any mention of the conditions of Germany as portrayed in the cartoon and there were a number of candidates who believed that Germany was being pushed by Russia to attack France.
Question 2: There were a range of responses here with many candidates receiving 3 or 4 marks. Excellent responses were more difficult to find for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was inadequate linkage between the sources and too much description of content. Secondly, candidates were content to find one comparison and one contrast without analyzing the sources in more depth.
Question 3: The sources were analysed quite well in the majority of cases. It is important, when identifying the origin of a source, to include the date as a basal point. The main weakness was the inability to explain the purpose of the source and link this to its value and limitations. Too many candidates still write that as the source is an extract it is limited - a comment which receives no credit.
Question 4: What was surprising here was the inability of many candidates to use their own knowledge in their responses. There were two major failings. Firstly, many candidates ignored the word “international in the question and wrote copiously about internal issues without any linkage to international affairs. Secondly, candidates ignored the dates and either wrote about events pre 1923 (Versailles) or post 1929 (Manchuria and Abyssinia). While there were some excellent responses, which synthesized both the sources and candidates’ own knowledge - they were generally few and far between.
For further advice from the Examiners Report 2013 see the document below.
Strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual questions
Question 1: (a) Candidates had little difficulty here. Many of them found three points which related to the markscheme and received maximum marks. Responses were also appropriate in length - usually of three sentences each of which had identified a reason. (b) Candidates found this question more challenging. While there were many responses which identified two messages – usually French aggression and that Germany was being pushed into the welcoming arms of the Bolsheviks. Fewer responses made any mention of the conditions of Germany as portrayed in the cartoon and there were a number of candidates who believed that Germany was being pushed by Russia to attack France.
Question 2: There were a range of responses here with many candidates receiving 3 or 4 marks. Excellent responses were more difficult to find for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was inadequate linkage between the sources and too much description of content. Secondly, candidates were content to find one comparison and one contrast without analyzing the sources in more depth.
Question 3: The sources were analysed quite well in the majority of cases. It is important, when identifying the origin of a source, to include the date as a basal point. The main weakness was the inability to explain the purpose of the source and link this to its value and limitations. Too many candidates still write that as the source is an extract it is limited - a comment which receives no credit.
Question 4: What was surprising here was the inability of many candidates to use their own knowledge in their responses. There were two major failings. Firstly, many candidates ignored the word “international in the question and wrote copiously about internal issues without any linkage to international affairs. Secondly, candidates ignored the dates and either wrote about events pre 1923 (Versailles) or post 1929 (Manchuria and Abyssinia). While there were some excellent responses, which synthesized both the sources and candidates’ own knowledge - they were generally few and far between.
For further advice from the Examiners Report 2013 see the document below.
may_2013_subject_reports_paper_1_student_version.docx | |
File Size: | 163 kb |
File Type: | docx |