Upload your Environmental Systems and Societies 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.
Use this guide to frame a focused research question, plan reliable data collection, and connect your results back to the environmental context without losing sight of the rubric.
Recommended Length
2,000-2,500 words
Build Timeline
4-6 weeks: issue, method, data, analysis, evaluation
Anchor Question
Can your research question be answered with the data you actually plan to collect?
Want a full playbook format? Read Environmental Systems and Societies 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 establishes and explores an environmental issue for an investigation and develops a relevant research question.
Top-band move: • States a relevant, coherent and focused research question • Discusses a relevant environmental issue that provides context • Explains the connections between issue and research question
Common penalty: • States a research question, but lacks focus • Outlines an environmental issue linked to the research question • Lists connections between the issue and research question with significant omissions
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student develops appropriate methods to gather data relevant to the research question.
Top-band move: • Designs a repeatable method allowing sufficient relevant data collection • Justifies sampling strategy • Describes risk assessment and ethical considerations
Common penalty: • Designs an inappropriate method for data collection • Outlines sampling strategy with errors/omissions • Lists some risks and ethical considerations
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student collects, records, processes and interprets data relevant to the research question.
Top-band move: • Constructs all relevant diagrams/charts appropriately • Analyzes data completely showing all patterns • Interprets trends for valid conclusion
Common penalty: • Constructs diagrams/charts with significant errors/omissions • Analyzes data with significant errors/omissions • States unsupported conclusion
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student discusses the conclusion in context and evaluates the investigation.
Top-band move: • Evaluates conclusion in context • Discusses method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests modifications addressing significant weaknesses
Common penalty: • Describes some conclusion-aspect relationships to issue • Identifies some method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests superficial modifications/further research
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student identifies and evaluates an application of the investigation outcomes.
Top-band move: • Justifies one application/solution based on findings • Evaluates relevant solution strengths/weaknesses
Common penalty: • States one potential application/solution • Describes some solution strengths/weaknesses
Examiner focus: Whether the report supports effective communication in structure, coherence and clarity.
Top-band move: • Well structured and organized • Consistent appropriate terminology and concise • Logical and coherent
Common penalty: • Limited structure/organization • Limited appropriate terminology use • Presentation limits understanding
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• States a research question, but lacks focus • Outlines an environmental issue linked to the research question • Lists connections between the issue and research question with significant omissions
Points 3-4
• States a relevant research question • Outlines an environmental issue that provides context • Describes connections between issue and research question with some omissions
Points 5-6
• States a relevant, coherent and focused research question • Discusses a relevant environmental issue that provides context • Explains the connections between issue and research question
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• Designs an inappropriate method for data collection • Outlines sampling strategy with errors/omissions • Lists some risks and ethical considerations
Points 3-4
• Designs a repeatable method appropriate to research question but insufficient for data collection • Describes sampling strategy • Outlines risk assessment and ethical considerations
Points 5-6
• Designs a repeatable method allowing sufficient relevant data collection • Justifies sampling strategy • Describes risk assessment and ethical considerations
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• Constructs diagrams/charts with significant errors/omissions • Analyzes data with significant errors/omissions • States unsupported conclusion
Points 3-4
• Constructs appropriate diagrams/charts with some omissions • Analyzes data correctly but incompletely • Interprets some trends for partially valid conclusion
Points 5-6
• Constructs all relevant diagrams/charts appropriately • Analyzes data completely showing all patterns • Interprets trends for valid conclusion
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.
Points 1-2
• Describes some conclusion-aspect relationships to issue • Identifies some method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests superficial modifications/further research
Points 3-4
• Evaluates conclusion in context with omissions • Describes some method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests modifications and further research
Points 5-6
• Evaluates conclusion in context • Discusses method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests modifications addressing significant weaknesses
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.
Points 1
• States one potential application/solution • Describes some solution strengths/weaknesses
Points 2
• Describes one application/solution with weak justification • Evaluates some solution strengths/weaknesses
Points 3
• Justifies one application/solution based on findings • Evaluates relevant solution strengths/weaknesses
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.
Points 1
• Limited structure/organization • Limited appropriate terminology use • Presentation limits understanding
Points 2
• Structure/organization not sustained • Either appropriate terminology or concise • Mainly logical but difficult in parts
Points 3
• Well structured and organized • Consistent appropriate terminology and concise • Logical and coherent
Step 1
Choose a specific issue, location, and question that can be investigated with primary or clearly targeted secondary data.
Step 2
Build repeatable sampling and data-collection steps that match the question and let another student reproduce your study.
Step 3
Use charts, tables, and diagrams that make patterns obvious and keep every figure directly tied to the question.
Step 4
Explain what the results mean for the issue, identify method strengths and weaknesses, and propose realistic improvements.
The research question is specific, geographic, and environmentally meaningful.
Sampling, risk, and ethics are addressed where they matter.
All visuals and statistics support the stated question.
The conclusion and evaluation stay grounded in the data actually collected.
Write the research question so it names the issue, location, and measurable focus.
Annotate every graph with the exact insight it proves.
Make the evaluation section concrete by linking each improvement to a weakness in the method or data.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Environmental Systems and Societies 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