Section+C+(OPVL)

Section C: Evaluation of Sources (6 marks)
This section is similar to Question 3 on Paper 1. With reference to their origin and purpose, assess the values and limitations of two significant sources for your historical investigation.

This section of the written account should be a critical evaluation of two important sources appropriate to the investigation and should refer to their origin, purpose, value and limitation. The two sources chosen should be appropriate for the investigation and could, for example, be written, oral or archaeological. The purpose of this section is to assess the usefulness of the sources but **not** to describe their content or nature.

C Evaluation of sources, Marks Level descriptor
0 = There is no description or evaluation of the sources. 1 = The sources are described but there is no reference to their origin, purpose, value and limitation. 2–3 = There is some evaluation of the sources but reference to their origin, purpose, value and limitation may be limited. 4–5 = There is evaluation of the sources and explicit reference to their origin, purpose, value and limitation.

Suggested word count: 250 - 400 words

What to do:
Good overview of OPVL here (from the Minnesota Humanities Center)

Read the introduction/preface when using a book. This often contains invaluable insights into the motivations and ideas of the author, potentially giving you great ideas for values and limitations. You should also try to find book reviews (only ones that are written by authoritative and credible authors). on't quote the book reviews, but they can give you some different angles to approach the values and limitations of a source.

**OPVL - Analyzing Historical Documents Guide** Origin, Purpose, Value and Limitation (OPVL) is a technique for analyzing the value and limitations of historical documents. The #1 Rule for evaluation of a source = focus on the specific details of given source.
 * ORIGIN || PURPOSE || VALUE || LIMITATION ||
 * In order to analyse a source, you must first know what it is. Sometimes not all of these questions can be answered. The more you do know about where a document is coming from, the easier it is to ascertain purpose, value and limitation


 * 1) Primary/Secondary?
 * 2) Who created it?
 * 3) Who is the author?
 * 4) When was it created?
 * 5) When was it published?
 * 6) Where was it published?
 * 7) Who is publishing it?
 * 8) Is there anything we know about the author that is pertinent to our evaluation? || This is the point where you start the real evaluation of the piece and try to figure out the purpose for its creation. You must be able to think as the author of the document. At this point you are still only focusing on the single piece of work you are evaluating.


 * 1) Why does this document exist?
 * 2) Why did the author create this piece of work?
 * 3) What is the intent?
 * 4) Why did the author choose this particular format?
 * 5) Who is the intended audience?
 * 6) Who was the author thinking would receive this?
 * 7) What does the document “say”?
 * 8) Can it tell you more than is on the surface? || Based on who wrote it, when/where it came from and why it was created…what value does this document have as a piece of evidence? Show your expertise and put the piece in context. Bring in your outside information at this point.


 * 1) What can we tell about the author from the piece?
 * 2) What can we tell about the time period from the piece?
 * 3) Under what circumstances was the piece created and how does the piece reflect those circumstances?
 * 4) What can we tell about any controversies from the piece?
 * 5) Does the author represent a particular ‘side’ of a controversy or event?
 * 6) What was going on in history at the time the piece was created and how does this piece accurately reflect it? || With a primary source document, having an incomplete picture of the whole is a given because the source was created by one person (or a small group of people), naturally they will not have given every detail of the context. Do not say that the author left out information unless you have concrete proof (from another source) that they chose to leave information out.


 * 1) Being biased does not limit the value of a source! Who is it biased towards? Who is it biased against? What part of a story does it leave out? Sometimes a biased piece of work shows much about the history you are studying
 * 2) What part of the story can we NOT tell from this document?
 * 3) How can we verify the content of the piece?
 * 4) Does this piece inaccurately reflect anything about the time period?
 * 5) What does the author leave out and why does he/she leave it out (if you know)?
 * 6) What is purposely not addressed? ||

What the examiners say:
After every round of exams, IAs and EEs, the IB examiners prepare a "Subject Report". See example here. It is very useful to read the comments for all areas as it gives you valuable pointers.

In this session strong candidates evaluated two sources adequately, explicitly developing origin, purpose, value and limitations. A number of candidates clearly identified their sources‟ origin and purpose yet their actual evaluation was often limited to a consideration of the sources‟ content and consequent utility, with little or no assessment of the sources‟ possible reliability in terms of their origin and purpose. Many candidates lacked detailed knowledge of the sources and included assertions and speculative points which they do not successfully support. Allegations of bias were seldom supported by evidence. Many candidates also made a poor choice of the sources to evaluate. There seems to be an increase in selecting small excerpts from a larger source and then evaluating the excerpt and not the actual source. Positively, most candidates evaluated only two appropriate sources.
 * Criterion C – Evaluation of sources (May 2012)**


 * Practice in the evaluation of sources using the origin, purpose, value and limitation model is desirable. It is particularly necessary to convey to candidates that the evaluation of the value and limitation is related to the origin and purpose and not simply based on the utility of the source.
 * The selection of sources for evaluation is also an area that centres need to review with their candidates. An understanding of what is an appropriate source for evaluation, with reference to the quality and type of source selected needs to be conveyed to candidates.
 * It was also dispiriting to encounter many instances of a belief that primary sources are intrinsically superior to secondary.

Candidates continue to improve in their development of this section. Most are now explicitly addressing origin, purpose, value and limitation in their evaluation of the two sources. The specific evaluations are also becoming more appropriate and candidates are using sources that are important to the study. A variety of sources were used including speeches, memoirs, government documents, visuals and secondary accounts. There is still room for improvement in this area. The source choice needs to reflect sources that are significant to the investigation and not simply sources used but with limited worth. It is important that the value and limitation are addressed with regard to the origin and purpose and not simply for their utility to the candidate When addressing value and limitation superficial or generic descriptions are not credible and need to be more indicative of the specific source. Stating that an author is biased based on nationality with no linkage to what is displayed in the source is not a successful approach.
 * Criterion C: Evaluation of sources (May 2011)**

This criterion was mostly satisfactory and continuous improvement in addressing its requirements was noted. Yet, there are some shortcomings here. There is a tendency to interpret value and limitations in terms utility or usefulness and this is not a valid approach when evaluating a source. Moreover, some candidates did not include the complete details of the source being evaluated or included reference to the author or conditions of the source. Complete bibliographical details of the source maybe included as a footnotes or endnotes. The provenance of authors is of great importance. Rudimentary and generalized evaluations are inappropriate.
 * Criterion C: Evaluation of sources (May 2010)**


 * Candidates should be aware that not all primary sources are so objective and valuable. Also value and limitations should include something more than basic hints about bias and should not just be about the utility to the candidate.
 * Practice in the evaluation of sources using the origin, purpose, value and limitation model is desirable. It is particularly necessary to convey to candidates that the evaluation of the value and limitation is related to the origin and purpose and not simply based on the utility of the source.
 * Candidates are by now familiar with the rubric of the question and most of them referred to all elements in both sources, but effective links between the origins and purpose of a source and its value and limitations were not always clearly made. A significant number of candidates either did not state the date or purpose of the sources or did not elaborate on how these could contribute to an analysis of their values or limitations.
 * Evaluation from the origin and purpose to find value and limitation still needs to be better prepared. Too many students are still focusing on the content of the sources. Students should also be encouraged to develop specific evaluation points for the document they are given - and not simply rely on generic comments.