IB History SL common mistakes
IB History SL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing a Paper 1 answer that summarises what each of the four sources says, one paragraph per source, without ever comparing them or grouping them by agreement and disagreement.
Candidates treat the sources as four separate mini-comprehension tasks because that is how the sources are presented, and they have often been taught 'analyse each source' rather than 'answer the question using the sources'. Time pressure in the 5-minute reading period pushes them to plan source-by-source rather than by argument.
What to do instead
Before writing, draw a quick two-column grid (agree / disagree with the proposition) and place each source in it, noting the specific line or phrase that justifies the placement. Then structure the answer around points of agreement and disagreement, citing two or more sources per paragraph. Practise by covering the question and writing only the grid for ten past questions until grouping becomes automatic.
Evaluating provenance by assertion: writing 'Source C is a British newspaper so it is biased and therefore useless' without saying what the origin, purpose or date specifically does to the content of that source.
Candidates memorise the vocabulary of bias ('propaganda', 'one-sided', 'subjective') and deploy it as a label rather than as an argument. They also confuse 'biased' with 'worthless', which is a conceptual error about how historians use sources.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-step sentence pattern: 'Because [origin/purpose/date], the source [overstates/omits/anticipates] X, which means it is valuable for showing Y but limited for Z.' Always name the specific claim in the source that the provenance affects. Ban the words 'biased' and 'useless' from your answers and replace them with 'limited for' plus a named purpose.
Answering the Paper 1 'value and limitations' question by listing limitations only, or by giving generic limitations that would apply to any source (e.g. 'it is only one person's opinion').
Candidates read 'value and limitations' as an invitation to criticise, and criticism feels more sophisticated than praise. Generic limitations are easier to produce under time pressure than source-specific ones.
What to do instead
Force a 1:1 ratio: for every limitation, state a matching value, and tie both to the question's specific enquiry (e.g. 'valuable for revealing Tsarist censorship priorities, limited for estimating actual strike numbers'). Test each limitation by asking 'could this sentence be written about a different source?' If yes, cut it.
In Paper 2 essays, narrating the events of a topic chronologically ('In 1917... then in 1921... then in 1928...') and only reaching explicit judgement in the final sentence.
Candidates have learned the content as a story and reproduce it in the order they learned it. Under exam pressure, narrative feels safe because it is guaranteed to contain accurate material, whereas argument feels risky.
What to do instead
Convert the question into a thesis sentence with a 'because' clause before writing, and make every paragraph topic sentence a claim that supports or qualifies that thesis. Use a three-part plan (factors, ranking, counter-case) rather than a timeline. Practise by writing only introductions and topic-sentence skeletons for past Paper 2 questions in 12 minutes.
Producing a one-sided Paper 2 essay that lists only factors supporting the stated view, ignoring the counter-argument or treating it in a single dismissive sentence.
Candidates misread command terms such as 'To what extent' as 'agree with this statement', and many have been rewarded in earlier schooling for one-sided persuasive writing. Counter-argument also requires knowing more content, which feels like extra risk.
What to do instead
Treat 'to what extent', 'discuss' and 'evaluate' as instructions to build a counter-case. Plan at least one full paragraph that argues the opposite and then rebut or qualify it. Write the counter-paragraph plan before the supporting paragraphs so it cannot be squeezed out by time.
Using historical terminology as a substitute for explanation: writing 'Stalin's use of terror and propaganda consolidated his authoritarian state' and moving on, without saying how terror or propaganda produced obedience or what changed as a result.
Candidates have absorbed model-sounding phrases from revision guides and believe that including the right vocabulary earns credit. They do not distinguish between naming a mechanism and explaining it.
What to do instead
After every abstract noun (terror, propaganda, collectivisation, appeasement), write 'which meant that...' and complete the causal chain to a concrete outcome (e.g. '...which meant that local officials falsified grain figures rather than report failure, so the 1932-33 famine was not acknowledged'). Use the 'so what?' test on every paragraph.
Treating change and continuity as a list of events rather than as a comparison across a stated baseline: describing what happened in a period without saying what stayed the same, for whom, and over what timeframe.
Candidates equate 'change' with 'things that happened' and have no habit of identifying a baseline to measure against. The concept also requires them to specify a group or level (state, elite, peasantry), which is rarely taught explicitly.
What to do instead
Always state the baseline first ('compared with 1914...'), then give one change and one continuity for the same group or level, and specify the period. Practise with a two-column change/continuity table for a set period, then convert it into a paragraph that names who experienced change and who did not.
Judging significance by declaring an event 'very important' or 'a turning point' without criteria, and without saying important for whom or in what respect.
Significance is often taught as an intuition rather than as a set of criteria (scale, depth, duration, consequences for particular groups). Candidates also assume the examiner shares their view, so they do not argue for it.
What to do instead
Memorise and apply explicit criteria: how many people were affected, how deeply, for how long, and whether it changed the direction of later events. Then write the judgement as 'significant in terms of X because Y, though less significant for Z'. Always name the group or perspective whose significance you are assessing.
Writing about perspectives as if they were the same as bias: dismissing a source's viewpoint as 'just an opinion' instead of explaining how that viewpoint was formed by the author's position, and what it reveals about the period.
Candidates conflate 'perspective' with 'unreliable' because both are taught as reasons to distrust a source. They have not practised the distinction between a source being wrong and a source being positioned.
What to do instead
Use the formula 'position -> interest -> what the source shows'. For example, a factory owner's report on strikes is shaped by his interest in production figures, which makes it revealing about managerial priorities even where the numbers are unreliable. Practise identifying the author's position and interest before writing any evaluation.
Running out of time because the Paper 1 source questions and the Paper 2 essays are answered in the order printed, with the longest essay attempted last and left unfinished.
Candidates do not rehearse timing under exam conditions, and the temptation to over-write the first source question (which feels easiest) consumes the time budgeted for the essay. Many also plan essays too elaborately.
What to do instead
Fix a per-question minute budget in advance (roughly proportional to marks), write it on the top of the paper, and practise full papers with a visible clock. Plan essays in no more than 8-10 minutes and start with the highest-mark question if that is permitted by your centre's instructions, so the largest reward is never sacrificed to the smallest.