Produce an Investigation that establishes a focus and inquiry question from the stimulus and develops it through researched knowledge

What this dot point is asking

IA1 is the Investigation, inquiry phase 1, and it opens the whole Year 12 body of work. This dot point asks you to understand what the instrument requires: establishing a focus and inquiry question from the stimulus, and developing them through researched knowledge. It is the instrument that turns the abstract inquiry approach into a concrete first assessment.

The answer

The Investigation is where the inquiry begins for assessment. It corresponds to the develop and research phases of the inquiry approach, so it asks you to establish a direction and inform it through research rather than to produce a finished body of work.

What IA1 requires

The Investigation requires you to take a teacher-directed stimulus, develop an individual focus and a self-directed inquiry question from it, and develop that inquiry through researched knowledge of artists, artworks, art practices and contexts. It combines responding (analysing researched art) with making (early visual experiments that test the emerging focus). The instrument is the documented opening of your inquiry.

How it opens the inquiry

IA1 launches the single focus that you will carry across both concepts and the whole body of work. Because everything downstream depends on this focus, the Investigation has to do two things well: frame a focus and question that are open and researchable, and gather research that genuinely informs the direction rather than decorating it. A weak Investigation leaves the rest of the inquiry without solid ground.

Making and responding in phase 1

Even though it is research-heavy, the Investigation is not a pure essay. It integrates making and responding from the start. The responding shows analysis and interpretation of researched artists across the relevant contexts; the making shows early experiments that test ideas, materials or approaches the research suggested. The two should visibly inform each other, demonstrating the loop that drives the subject.

Using the four contexts

The Investigation positions your inquiry within the contemporary, personal, cultural and formal contexts. Naming the contexts you are working through sharpens both the research and the focus. Most strong investigations lean on one or two contexts while acknowledging others, rather than spreading thinly across all four.

Presenting evidence of inquiry

Because it is assessed, the Investigation has to make your thinking visible. Evidence of developing and researching includes the framed inquiry question and focus, the analysis of researched artists, the early experiments, and the reasoned links between research and your own direction. The presentation should let an assessor follow the chain from stimulus to focus to early decisions without guesswork.

What the assessment rewards

The Investigation is judged on the quality of inquiry it opens, so the marks favour reasoning over polish. Three qualities lift an Investigation. First, a focus and inquiry question that are genuinely open and researchable, narrow enough to sustain and broad enough to explore. Second, examined research: artist analysis that explains how a work is made, what it means and why those choices matter for your focus, rather than a list of admired names. Third, visible links between research and your own emerging direction, so an assessor can trace how a source reshaped a decision. A common pattern in strong Investigations is the productive tension, where a researched artist contradicts an assumption in your focus and forces you to sharpen the question. That visible reshaping is exactly the evidence of inquiry the instrument is built to capture.

Balancing depth and breadth

A frequent trap is to spread research thinly across many artists and all four contexts, touching everything and examining nothing. The Investigation rewards depth: a small number of artists examined closely, read through the one or two contexts that pressure your inquiry hardest, with early experiments that test what the research suggests. Two artists analysed in genuine depth, each tied to a making decision, demonstrate more inquiry than six artists named in passing. Curating the research, choosing what advances the focus and cutting what only decorates it, is itself evidence of the critical thinking the subject develops.

What IA1 is not

The Investigation is not the resolved body of work and not a finished concept. It is the opening phase, so it is judged on the quality of the inquiry it sets up, not on polished outcomes. Trying to resolve the work in IA1 misreads the instrument; over-finishing here can even weaken the evidence of genuine investigation.