Introduction to this section
Imperial Russia, revolutions and the establishment of the Soviet Union (1855-1924) Paper 3
This section deals with modernization and conservatism in tsarist Russia and the eventual collapse of the tsarist autocracy, as well as the revolutions of 1917, the Civil War and the rule of Lenin. There is a focus on the concepts of change and continuity, with examination and consideration of the social, economic and political factors that brought about change.
Alexander II (1855–1881): the extent of reform
Policies of Alexander III (1881–1894) and Nicholas II (1894–1917): economic modernization, tsarist repression and the growth of opposition
Causes of the 1905 Revolution (including social and economic conditions and the significance of the Russo-Japanese War); consequences of the 1905 Revolution (including Stolypin and the Dumas)
The impact of the First World War and the final crisis of autocracy in February/March 1917
1917 Revolutions: February/March Revolution; provisional government and dual power (Soviets); October/November Revolution; Bolshevik Revolution; Lenin and Trotsky
Lenin’s Russia/Soviet Union; consolidation of new Soviet state; Civil War; War Communism; New Economic Policy (NEP); terror and coercion; foreign relations
(source: IB History Guide)
Alexander II (1855–1881): the extent of reform
Policies of Alexander III (1881–1894) and Nicholas II (1894–1917): economic modernization, tsarist repression and the growth of opposition
Causes of the 1905 Revolution (including social and economic conditions and the significance of the Russo-Japanese War); consequences of the 1905 Revolution (including Stolypin and the Dumas)
The impact of the First World War and the final crisis of autocracy in February/March 1917
1917 Revolutions: February/March Revolution; provisional government and dual power (Soviets); October/November Revolution; Bolshevik Revolution; Lenin and Trotsky
Lenin’s Russia/Soviet Union; consolidation of new Soviet state; Civil War; War Communism; New Economic Policy (NEP); terror and coercion; foreign relations
(source: IB History Guide)
Paper 3 in IB Final Exams
Paper 3 (HL only)
Duration: 2 hours 30 minutes
Weighting: 35%
Each of the four HL regional options has a separate examination paper. Students are registered for one of these papers.
The paper 3 examination paper for each regional option will consist of 36 questions, consisting of two essay questions on each of the 18 sections specified for the regional option. Students must answer any three questions. Questions that refer to specific countries, events or people are restricted to those listed in the syllabus descriptions. The maximum mark for this paper is 45. The paper is marked using generic markbands and a paper-specific markscheme.
(source: IB History Guide)
Duration: 2 hours 30 minutes
Weighting: 35%
Each of the four HL regional options has a separate examination paper. Students are registered for one of these papers.
The paper 3 examination paper for each regional option will consist of 36 questions, consisting of two essay questions on each of the 18 sections specified for the regional option. Students must answer any three questions. Questions that refer to specific countries, events or people are restricted to those listed in the syllabus descriptions. The maximum mark for this paper is 45. The paper is marked using generic markbands and a paper-specific markscheme.
(source: IB History Guide)
External markbands
0
Response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–3
There is little understanding of the demands of the question. The response is poorly structured or, where there is a recognizable essay structure, there is minimal focus on the task.
Little knowledge is present. Where specific examples are referred to, they are factually incorrect, irrelevant or vague.
The response contains little or no critical analysis. It may consist mostly of generalizations and poorly substantiated assertions.
4–6
The response indicates some understanding of the demands of the question. While there may be an attempt to follow a structured approach, the response lacks clarity and coherence.
Knowledge is demonstrated but lacks accuracy and relevance. There is a superficial understanding of historical context. The answer makes use of specific examples, although these may be vague or lack relevance.
There is some limited analysis, but the response is primarily narrative/descriptive in nature, rather than analytical.
7–9
The response indicates an understanding of the demands of the question, but these demands are only partially addressed. There is an attempt to follow a structured approach.
Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. Events are generally placed in their historical context. Examples used are appropriate and relevant.
The response moves beyond description to include some analysis or critical commentary, but this is not sustained.
10–12
The demands of the question are understood and addressed. Answers are generally well structured and organized, although there may be some repetition or lack of clarity in places.
Knowledge is accurate and relevant. Events are placed in their historical context, and there is a clear understanding of historical concepts. Examples used are appropriate and relevant, and are used to support the analysis/evaluation.
Arguments are mainly clear and coherent. There is some awareness and evaluation of different perspectives.
The response contains critical analysis. Most of the main points are substantiated, and the response argues to a consistent conclusion.
13–15
Responses are clearly focused, showing a high degree of awareness of the demands and implications of the question. Answers are well structured, balanced and effectively organized.
Knowledge is detailed, accurate and relevant. Events are placed in their historical context, and there is a clear understanding of historical concepts. Examples used are appropriate and relevant, and are used effectively to support the analysis/evaluation.
Arguments are clear and coherent. There is evaluation of different perspectives, and this evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer.
The answer contains well-developed critical analysis. All, or nearly all, of the main points are substantiated, and the response argues to a reasoned conclusion.
(source : IB History Guide)
Response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–3
There is little understanding of the demands of the question. The response is poorly structured or, where there is a recognizable essay structure, there is minimal focus on the task.
Little knowledge is present. Where specific examples are referred to, they are factually incorrect, irrelevant or vague.
The response contains little or no critical analysis. It may consist mostly of generalizations and poorly substantiated assertions.
4–6
The response indicates some understanding of the demands of the question. While there may be an attempt to follow a structured approach, the response lacks clarity and coherence.
Knowledge is demonstrated but lacks accuracy and relevance. There is a superficial understanding of historical context. The answer makes use of specific examples, although these may be vague or lack relevance.
There is some limited analysis, but the response is primarily narrative/descriptive in nature, rather than analytical.
7–9
The response indicates an understanding of the demands of the question, but these demands are only partially addressed. There is an attempt to follow a structured approach.
Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. Events are generally placed in their historical context. Examples used are appropriate and relevant.
The response moves beyond description to include some analysis or critical commentary, but this is not sustained.
10–12
The demands of the question are understood and addressed. Answers are generally well structured and organized, although there may be some repetition or lack of clarity in places.
Knowledge is accurate and relevant. Events are placed in their historical context, and there is a clear understanding of historical concepts. Examples used are appropriate and relevant, and are used to support the analysis/evaluation.
Arguments are mainly clear and coherent. There is some awareness and evaluation of different perspectives.
The response contains critical analysis. Most of the main points are substantiated, and the response argues to a consistent conclusion.
13–15
Responses are clearly focused, showing a high degree of awareness of the demands and implications of the question. Answers are well structured, balanced and effectively organized.
Knowledge is detailed, accurate and relevant. Events are placed in their historical context, and there is a clear understanding of historical concepts. Examples used are appropriate and relevant, and are used effectively to support the analysis/evaluation.
Arguments are clear and coherent. There is evaluation of different perspectives, and this evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer.
The answer contains well-developed critical analysis. All, or nearly all, of the main points are substantiated, and the response argues to a reasoned conclusion.
(source : IB History Guide)