Upload your Global Politics 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 your engagement project focused on a clear issue, balanced stakeholder perspectives, and explicit reflection on what the process taught you.
Recommended Length
Approx. 2,000 words for the report, with HL-only recommendation section where required
Build Timeline
4-6 weeks: issue selection, engagement planning, evidence capture, drafting, and reflection
Anchor Question
Can every paragraph be traced back to the political issue and the engagement work that shaped it?
Want a full playbook format? Read Global Politics IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: Does the report clearly identify and explain a political issue? Does the report explain why the candidate decided to conduct particular engagement activities?
Top-band move: The report includes an appropriate explanation and justification of the engagement project. • A political issue is identified and clearly explained. • There is a clear explanation of the importance and suitability of the project. • The engagement activities are explained, and their relevance is justified.
Common penalty: The report includes a limited explanation and justification of the engagement project. • A political issue is identified, but not clearly explained. • There is a limited explanation of the importance and suitability of the project. • The engagement activities are described, but their relevance is not justified.
Examiner focus: Does the report evidence a well-developed process of research and engagement?
Top-band move: The report evidences a well-planned and integrated research and engagement process.
Common penalty: The report evidences a limited research and engagement process.
Examiner focus: To what extent is the political issue analysed, with reference to the specific context of the engagement? To what extent does the report capture and synthesize diverse perspectives of sources and engaged stakeholders?
Top-band move: The report presents an effective analysis and synthesis of the political issue. • The analysis demonstrates a good understanding and application of relevant course concepts and content. • The political issue is clearly analysed. • There is an effective synthesis of the perspectives of involved stakeholders and sources.
Common penalty: The report is mostly descriptive. • There is a vague reference to relevant course concepts and content. • The political issue is identified, but not analysed. • There is no synthesis of perspectives.
Examiner focus: Is there an evaluation of the selected sources and the conducted engagement activities? Does the report evidence the candidate’s critical reflection about the project as a learning experience?
Top-band move: The report evidences a critical evaluation and reflection. • The research and engagement activities are critically evaluated. • Personal positions and biases related to the political issue are explained. • There is an in-depth reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
Common penalty: The report demonstrates limited evaluation and reflection. • The research and engagement activities are not evaluated. • Personal positions and biases related to the political issue are not identified. • There is limited reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
Examiner focus: Are the information and points presented in the report communicated clearly?
Top-band move: Communication is effective. • The report is well organized and coherently supports understanding.
Common penalty: Communication is limited. • The organization and clarity of the report are limited and do not support understanding.
Examiner focus: Does the report include a well-supported recommendation? Is the recommendation presented appropriate for the analysed context?
Top-band move: An effective recommendation is presented. • The recommendation is well supported by relevant and specific evidence. • The recommendation effectively addresses the political issue within the context studied. • Possible implications or challenges are explained.
Common penalty: A limited recommendation is presented. • The recommendation is partially supported, with limited reference to specific evidence. • The recommendation partly addresses the political issue with some considerations of the context studied. • Possible implications or challenges are not identified.
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 a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The report includes a limited explanation and justification of the engagement project. • A political issue is identified, but not clearly explained. • There is a limited explanation of the importance and suitability of the project. • The engagement activities are described, but their relevance is not justified.
Points 3-4
The report includes an appropriate explanation and justification of the engagement project. • A political issue is identified and clearly explained. • There is a clear explanation of the importance and suitability of the project. • The engagement activities are explained, and their relevance is justified.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The report evidences a limited research and engagement process.
Points 2
The report evidences an adequate research and engagement process.
Points 3
The report evidences a well-planned and integrated research and engagement process.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The report is mostly descriptive. • There is a vague reference to relevant course concepts and content. • The political issue is identified, but not analysed. • There is no synthesis of perspectives.
Points 3-4
The report presents limited analysis and synthesis of the political issue. • The analysis demonstrates a limited understanding of relevant course concepts and content. • Analysis of the political issue is limited. • There is limited synthesis of the perspectives of stakeholders and sources.
Points 5-6
The report presents an adequate analysis and synthesis of the political issue. • The analysis demonstrates an adequate understanding of relevant course concepts and content. • The political issue is partially analysed. • Perspectives of stakeholders and sources are partially synthesized, but not always clear.
Points 7-8
The report presents an effective analysis and synthesis of the political issue. • The analysis demonstrates a good understanding and application of relevant course concepts and content. • The political issue is clearly analysed. • There is an effective synthesis of the perspectives of involved stakeholders and sources.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The report demonstrates limited evaluation and reflection. • The research and engagement activities are not evaluated. • Personal positions and biases related to the political issue are not identified. • There is limited reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
Points 3-4
The report demonstrates an adequate evaluation and reflection. • The research and engagement activities are partially evaluated. • Some personal positions and biases related to the political issue are identified. • There is adequate reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
Points 5-6
The report evidences a critical evaluation and reflection. • The research and engagement activities are critically evaluated. • Personal positions and biases related to the political issue are explained. • There is an in-depth reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
Communication is limited. • The organization and clarity of the report are limited and do not support understanding.
Points 2
Communication is adequate. • The report is adequately organized and supports understanding.
Points 3
Communication is effective. • The report is well organized and coherently supports understanding.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
A limited recommendation is presented. • The recommendation is partially supported, with limited reference to specific evidence. • The recommendation partly addresses the political issue with some considerations of the context studied. • Possible implications or challenges are not identified.
Points 3-4
An adequate recommendation is presented. • The recommendation is supported by relevant evidence. • The recommendation adequately addresses the political issue within the context studied. • Possible implications or challenges are identified.
Points 5-6
An effective recommendation is presented. • The recommendation is well supported by relevant and specific evidence. • The recommendation effectively addresses the political issue within the context studied. • Possible implications or challenges are explained.
Step 1
Identify a political issue that is narrow enough to investigate through real engagement, but broad enough to show wider significance.
Step 2
Log what you researched, who you engaged with, and how each activity improved or challenged your original understanding.
Step 3
Move beyond description by comparing stakeholders, institutions, and sources against the context of the issue.
Step 4
Show what changed in your thinking, where your original bias showed up, and how the project reshaped your view of the issue.
The political issue is introduced clearly and justified as worth investigating.
Engagement activities are tied to the issue instead of listed as a timeline only.
Stakeholder perspectives are synthesised, not just quoted separately.
Reflection explains learning, bias, and limitations of the process.
Write one sentence in each section that names the political concept driving the analysis.
Pair every source with a note on why it matters to your question.
Use the conclusion to revisit the issue, not to introduce new evidence.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Global Politics 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