Upload your Geography 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 keep the geographic context clear, the method justified, and the findings connected to the question.
Recommended Length
Up to 2,500 words
Build Timeline
4-6 weeks: frame the question, collect data, analyse, evaluate
Anchor Question
Does each section stay anchored to the fieldwork question and geographic theory?
Want a full playbook format? Read Geography IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: The focus and geographic context of the fieldwork and the link between the fieldwork question and the geographic context.
Top-band move: The link between the fieldwork question and the relevant syllabus topic, the syllabus or geographical theory is described. The link made to geographical theory allows for the possible formulation of hypotheses and predictions. The fieldwork question is geographical and focused, clearly identifying a precise location allowing for primary data collection within the limits of the internal assessment. One or more locational maps are presented and follow mapping conventions, providing clear information and details of the fieldwork location.
Common penalty: The fieldwork question is not formulated as a question or is not appropriately linked to the relevant syllabus topic or geographical theory. The fieldwork question does not allow for the collection of primary data, does not include a location or is too broad to address within the limits of the internal assessment. No locational map is included or the map is inappropriate for the fieldwork question.
Examiner focus: The description, justification and appropriateness of the method or methods used to investigate the question.
Top-band move: The method(s) used for information and data collection are described, explaining clearly and accurately how the combination of data collected is relevant to the theory, question formulated or the hypotheses for the internal assessment. They may describe statistical tests if appropriate. The method(s), data collection instruments/technologies and sampling/surveying techniques are used correctly, resulting in reliable and good quality primary data supporting a relevant quantitative and/or qualitative analysis.
Common penalty: The method(s) used for information and data collection are listed or outlined, but are too general or vague or do not allow for the collection of enough information and data that are relevant to address the question formulated or the hypotheses. Data collection technologies/instruments and sampling/surveying techniques are listed or outlined but are not correctly used.
Examiner focus: The quality of information and data collected and its suitability for analysis, appropriateness of presentation techniques, and adherence to conventions.
Top-band move: The information and data collected is all directly relevant to the question formulated or the hypotheses, and is sufficient in quantity and quality to allow for analysis or answering of the question formulated. The most appropriate techniques have been used effectively for the presentation of information and data collected. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on).
Common penalty: The information and data collected is mostly not relevant, or not sufficient, to address the question or hypotheses formulated. The information and data have mostly been presented in such a way that is either not appropriate for what has been collected or does not allow for analysis of the question formulated. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations do not follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on) or contain frequent errors.
Examiner focus: The quality of the analysis of the results, including links to the question and hypotheses, geographic context, information collected, statistics used, and illustrative material.
Top-band move: The written analysis includes descriptive and statistical techniques (with confidence levels if appropriate) that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The trends, patterns and statistics found, including outliers and anomalies if present, are explained and linked to the question formulated, hypotheses, geographical theory, the fieldwork location and methods used. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated, with no or only minor gaps in the supporting evidence.
Common penalty: The written analysis includes descriptive techniques that are not all appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The data or information presented is outlined without explicit link to the question or hypotheses formulated. Obvious trends and patterns are listed.
Examiner focus: The ability to summarize the findings of the fieldwork investigation and draw a supported conclusion.
Top-band move: There is a clear conclusion to the fieldwork question, which is supported by the analysis.
Common penalty: A conclusion to the fieldwork question is formulated, which is partially supported by the analysis.
Examiner focus: The ability to review the investigative methodology, weigh up strengths and/or weaknesses, and suggest improvements.
Top-band move: The most appropriate and relevant strengths and/or weaknesses are explained regarding the data collection methods, the formulation of the fieldwork research question, the presentation of data/information and the choice of location. Suggestions for improvement are outlined and the potential impact of these improvements is explained.
Common penalty: Strengths and/or weaknesses of the data collection methods and suggestions for improvement are listed, but these are mostly superficial, not appropriate, or not relevant to the study.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The fieldwork question is not formulated as a question or is not appropriately linked to the relevant syllabus topic or geographical theory. The fieldwork question does not allow for the collection of primary data, does not include a location or is too broad to address within the limits of the internal assessment. No locational map is included or the map is inappropriate for the fieldwork question.
Points 2
The fieldwork question is geographical, identifying an appropriate link to the relevant syllabus topic, the syllabus or geographical theory. The fieldwork question identifies a specific location allowing for the collection of primary data and a question that can be addressed within the limits of an internal assessment. The locational map is a copy of an existing map with too many unnecessary details or lacking mapping conventions.
Points 3
The link between the fieldwork question and the relevant syllabus topic, the syllabus or geographical theory is described. The link made to geographical theory allows for the possible formulation of hypotheses and predictions. The fieldwork question is geographical and focused, clearly identifying a precise location allowing for primary data collection within the limits of the internal assessment. One or more locational maps are presented and follow mapping conventions, providing clear information and details of the fieldwork location.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The method(s) used for information and data collection are listed or outlined, but are too general or vague or do not allow for the collection of enough information and data that are relevant to address the question formulated or the hypotheses. Data collection technologies/instruments and sampling/surveying techniques are listed or outlined but are not correctly used.
Points 2
The method(s) used for information and data collection are described, outlining how the data collected is relevant to the question formulated and hypotheses. The method(s), data collection instruments/technologies and sampling/surveying techniques are used correctly and allow for sufficient data for quantitative and/or qualitative analysis, but it may be minimal or only one or two variables are collected.
Points 3
The method(s) used for information and data collection are described, explaining clearly and accurately how the combination of data collected is relevant to the theory, question formulated or the hypotheses for the internal assessment. They may describe statistical tests if appropriate. The method(s), data collection instruments/technologies and sampling/surveying techniques are used correctly, resulting in reliable and good quality primary data supporting a relevant quantitative and/or qualitative analysis.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The information and data collected is mostly not relevant, or not sufficient, to address the question or hypotheses formulated. The information and data have mostly been presented in such a way that is either not appropriate for what has been collected or does not allow for analysis of the question formulated. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations do not follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on) or contain frequent errors.
Points 3-4
Most of the information and data collected is relevant to the question formulated or the hypotheses, allowing for partial analysis or answering of the question formulated. The information and data have been presented in ways appropriate for the data type. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on), with occasional errors.
Points 5-6
The information and data collected is all directly relevant to the question formulated or the hypotheses, and is sufficient in quantity and quality to allow for analysis or answering of the question formulated. The most appropriate techniques have been used effectively for the presentation of information and data collected. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on).
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The written analysis includes descriptive techniques that are not all appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The data or information presented is outlined without explicit link to the question or hypotheses formulated. Obvious trends and patterns are listed.
Points 3-4
The written analysis includes descriptive techniques that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. Any statistical techniques used either are not relevant to the question formulated or contain errors. The data and information, trends and patterns presented are described and linked explicitly to the question or hypotheses formulated. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated in a descriptive way.
Points 5-6
The written analysis includes descriptive and statistical techniques (if appropriate to the question formulated) that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The data and information, trends, patterns and statistics are described and linked explicitly to the question or hypotheses formulated. Outliers and anomalies in the data, if present, are listed. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated, although there are gaps in the supporting evidence.
Points 7-8
The written analysis includes descriptive and statistical techniques (with confidence levels if appropriate) that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The trends, patterns and statistics found, including outliers and anomalies if present, are explained and linked to the question formulated, hypotheses, geographical theory, the fieldwork location and methods used. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated, with no or only minor gaps in the supporting evidence.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
A conclusion to the fieldwork question is formulated, which is partially supported by the analysis.
Points 2
There is a clear conclusion to the fieldwork question, which is supported by the analysis.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
Strengths and/or weaknesses of the data collection methods and suggestions for improvement are listed, but these are mostly superficial, not appropriate, or not relevant to the study.
Points 2
Strengths and/or weaknesses of the data collection methods and suggestions for improvement are outlined, and these are mostly appropriate and relevant to the study.
Points 3
The most appropriate and relevant strengths and/or weaknesses are explained regarding the data collection methods, the formulation of the fieldwork research question, the presentation of data/information and the choice of location. Suggestions for improvement are outlined and the potential impact of these improvements is explained.
Step 1
Make sure the question is geographic, location-specific, and answerable with primary data.
Step 2
Explain why the chosen collection methods and sampling choices are appropriate to the question.
Step 3
Use the most suitable graphs, tables, and figures so the data is easy to interpret and compare.
Step 4
Balance strengths, weaknesses, and improvements so the conclusion feels earned by the evidence.
The fieldwork question is specific and clearly linked to geographic theory.
The methods are described and justified with the data they produce in mind.
The analysis is explicit, descriptive where needed, and evidence-based.
The evaluation is specific and tied to the investigation choices you actually made.
Write the geographic context paragraph before collecting data so the scope stays tight.
Check every figure for labels, titles, and usefulness before inserting it.
Add a short sentence after each result explaining how it answers the question.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Geography 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