Upload your History 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 question narrow, make source value and limitations explicit, and connect your reflection to historical method rather than summary.
Recommended Length
2,200 words max
Build Timeline
4 weeks: question, source set, draft, reflection
Anchor Question
Can you defend your question with sources that you actively evaluate, not just quote?
Want a full playbook format? Read History IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: Evaluating the selection and analysis of sources for the investigation.
Top-band move: An appropriate question for investigation has been clearly stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate and relevant sources, and there is a clear explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. There is a detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources with explicit discussion of the value and limitations of the two sources for the investigation, with reference to the origins, purpose and content of the two sources.
Common penalty: The question for investigation has been stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate sources, but there is little or no explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. The response describes, but does not analyse or evaluate, two of the sources.
Examiner focus: Evaluating the clarity, organization, and critical analysis of the investigation.
Top-band move: The investigation is clear, coherent and effectively organized. The investigation contains well-developed critical analysis that is focused clearly on the stated question. Evidence from a range of sources is used effectively to support the argument. There is evaluation of different perspectives. The investigation argues to a reasoned conclusion that is consistent with the evidence and arguments provided.
Common penalty: The investigation lacks clarity and coherence, and is poorly organized. Where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task. The response contains little or no critical analysis. It may consist mostly of generalizations and poorly substantiated assertions. Reference is made to evidence from sources, but there is no analysis of that evidence.
Examiner focus: Evaluating the student's reflection on the methods and challenges of historical investigation.
Top-band move: The reflection is clearly focused on what the investigation highlighted to the student about the methods used by the historian. The reflection demonstrates clear awareness of challenges facing the historian and/or limitations of the methods used by the historian. There is a clear and explicit connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation.
Common penalty: The reflection contains some discussion of what the investigation highlighted to the student about the methods used by the historian. The reflection demonstrates little awareness of the challenges facing the historian and/or the limitations of the methods used by the historian. The connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation is implied, but is not explicit.
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 question for investigation has been stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate sources, but there is little or no explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. The response describes, but does not analyse or evaluate, two of the sources.
Points 3-4
An appropriate question for investigation has been stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate sources, and there is some explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. There is some analysis and evaluation of two sources, but reference to their value and limitations is limited.
Points 5-6
An appropriate question for investigation has been clearly stated. The student has identified and selected appropriate and relevant sources, and there is a clear explanation of the relevance of the sources to the investigation. There is a detailed analysis and evaluation of two sources with explicit discussion of the value and limitations of the two sources for the investigation, with reference to the origins, purpose and content of the two sources.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
The investigation lacks clarity and coherence, and is poorly organized. Where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task. The response contains little or no critical analysis. It may consist mostly of generalizations and poorly substantiated assertions. Reference is made to evidence from sources, but there is no analysis of that evidence.
Points 4-6
There is an attempt to organize the investigation but this is only partially successful, and the investigation lacks clarity and coherence. The investigation contains some limited critical analysis but the response is primarily narrative/descriptive in nature, rather than analytical. Evidence from sources is included, but is not integrated into the analysis/argument.
Points 7-9
The investigation is generally clear and well organized, but there is some repetition or lack of clarity in places. The response moves beyond description to include some analysis or critical commentary, but this is not sustained. There is an attempt to integrate evidence from sources with the analysis/argument. There may be awareness of different perspectives, but these perspectives are not evaluated.
Points 10-12
The investigation is generally clear and well organized, although there may be some repetition or lack of clarity in places. The investigation contains critical analysis, although this analysis may lack development or clarity. Evidence from a range of sources is used to support the argument. There is awareness and some evaluation of different perspectives. The investigation argues to a reasoned conclusion.
Points 13-15
The investigation is clear, coherent and effectively organized. The investigation contains well-developed critical analysis that is focused clearly on the stated question. Evidence from a range of sources is used effectively to support the argument. There is evaluation of different perspectives. The investigation argues to a reasoned conclusion that is consistent with the evidence and arguments provided.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The reflection contains some discussion of what the investigation highlighted to the student about the methods used by the historian. The reflection demonstrates little awareness of the challenges facing the historian and/or the limitations of the methods used by the historian. The connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation is implied, but is not explicit.
Points 3-4
The reflection is clearly focused on what the investigation highlighted to the student about the methods used by the historian. The reflection demonstrates clear awareness of challenges facing the historian and/or limitations of the methods used by the historian. There is a clear and explicit connection between the reflection and the rest of the investigation.
Step 1
Define a question that can be answered with specific evidence instead of a broad historical overview.
Step 2
Explain why your key sources matter by discussing origin, purpose, content, value, and limitations.
Step 3
Organize your argument around evidence and interpretation, not just chronology.
Step 4
Make the historian's methods and limitations explicit so the final section is clearly connected to the investigation.
The question is precise and researchable.
Two sources are explicitly evaluated for value and limitations.
Evidence from sources supports a sustained argument.
The reflection clearly discusses historical method and its limits.
Trim the question until it fits one clear line of inquiry.
Note origin, purpose, and content for every key source before drafting.
Use one paragraph to compare perspectives instead of retelling events.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for History 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