Upload your Chemistry IA draft and get instant feedback aligned with official IB criteria.
Follow the same rubric-first flow students use to move from a raw draft to a submission-ready version.
Start by dropping in your coursework PDF. We built this flow to mirror how students prepare final submission drafts.
Drag and drop to upload
Limit 10 MB per file. Supported files: PDF
Sign in to start your first grading run.
Marksy maps your draft against the rubric so you can see where marks are gained or lost in each criterion.
Every important scoring decision is anchored to your writing so revision is evidence-based, not guesswork.
Get structured next actions so you can move from draft to stronger markband performance in the right order.
For class-wide workflows, the same logic extends to batch marking so feedback stays consistent across submissions.
Keep one grading system across IA, EE, TOK, and subject variants so your preparation process stays consistent.
This guide keeps the Chemistry IA focused on a clear research question, a method detailed enough to replicate, processed data that is presented cleanly, and evaluation that responds to real weaknesses rather than generic lab notes.
Recommended Length
No fixed word count; usually 6-12 pages
Build Timeline
3-5 weeks: question, method, data, analysis, evaluation
Anchor Question
Can your method generate enough quality data to answer the chemistry question convincingly?
Want a full playbook format? Read Chemistry IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question.
Top-band move: • The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.
Common penalty: • The research question is stated without context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student's report provides evidence that the student has recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question.
Top-band move: • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.
Common penalty: • The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. • The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. • Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.
Top-band move: • A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. • A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Common penalty: • A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. • The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student's report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.
Top-band move: • The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.
Common penalty: • The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• The research question is stated without context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.
Points 3-4
• The research question is outlined within a broad context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are described. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.
Points 5-6
• The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.
Points 0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. • The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. • Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
Points 3-4
• The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise. • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
Points 5-6
• The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.
Points 0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. • The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Points 3-4
• A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented. • A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Points 5-6
• A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. • A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Points 0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.
Points 3-4
• The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.
Points 5-6
• The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.
Step 1
Choose one variable relationship or synthesis/trend question that is manageable and experimentally sound.
Step 2
Specify apparatus, conditions, and steps so another student could repeat the work with minimal ambiguity.
Step 3
Show calculations, uncertainties, and processing clearly so the reader can judge the reliability of the result.
Step 4
Explain what limited the data, what mattered most, and what improvement would have the biggest impact on the outcome.
Research question is precise and chemically meaningful.
Methodology is detailed enough to reproduce.
Data processing is accurate and uncertainty-aware.
Conclusion and evaluation directly follow from the chemistry evidence.
List hazards, variables, and repeat strategy before you start writing the report.
Use a clean calculation trail so the marker can follow every transformation.
Match each improvement to a specific weakness instead of giving generic advice.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Chemistry and returns criterion-level marks with actionable feedback.
Yes. Most students use draft grading to identify weak criteria, revise, and re-check before final submission.
Yes. Teachers can upload multiple files in one batch from the bulk grading route for faster class-wide feedback.
Absolutely. By default, nobody other than you can access your uploaded files, however you may make them shareable to others. Even then, you have full control to delete your files at any moment, and your files are not used to train AI models. More information here.
Upload a single submission and get criterion-by-criterion feedback aligned to IB descriptors.
Open Single GradingProcess up to 15 files in one run and keep feedback consistent across your class.
View Bulk Plan