Upload your Psychology 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 align your aim, theory, sampling, statistics, and evaluation with the IB psychology investigation criteria.
Recommended Length
1,500 words max
Build Timeline
3 weeks: theory, design, analysis, evaluation
Anchor Question
Can your hypothesis, variables, and statistics be followed from start to finish without ambiguity?
Want a full playbook format? Read Psychology IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: The clarity and completeness of the investigation's aim, theoretical basis, and hypothesis formulation.
Top-band move: The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is explained. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described and the link to the student’s investigation is explained. The Independent and Dependent Variables are stated and operationalized in the null or research hypothesis.
Common penalty: The aim of the investigation is stated but its relevance is not identified. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is identified but the description is incomplete or contains errors. Null or research hypothesis is stated, but does not correctly identify the Independent or Dependent Variables.
Examiner focus: The explanation and justification of research design, sampling, participants, variables, and materials.
Top-band move: The research design is explained. The sampling technique is explained. The choice of participants is explained. Controlled variables are explained. The choice of materials is explained.
Common penalty: The research design is described. The sampling technique is described. Characteristics of the participants are described. Controlled variables are described. The materials used are described.
Examiner focus: The appropriateness and accuracy of statistical analysis, graphing, and interpretation of findings.
Top-band move: Descriptive and inferential statistics are appropriately and accurately applied. The graph is correctly presented and addresses the hypothesis. The statistical findings are interpreted with regard to the data and linked to the hypothesis.
Common penalty: Only descriptive or inferential statistics are applied. A correct graphing technique is chosen but the graph does not address the hypothesis. There is no clear statement of findings.
Examiner focus: The discussion of findings, strengths/limitations, and proposed modifications.
Top-band move: The findings of the student’s investigation are discussed with reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample and procedure are stated and explained and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation and fully justified.
Common penalty: The findings of the student's investigation are described without reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated but are not directly relevant to the hypothesis. One or more modifications are stated.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The aim of the investigation is stated but its relevance is not identified. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is identified but the description is incomplete or contains errors. Null or research hypothesis is stated, but does not correctly identify the Independent or Dependent Variables.
Points 3-4
The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is identified but not explained. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described but the link to the student’s investigation is not explained. The Independent and Dependent Variables are correctly stated in the null or research hypothesis, but not operationalized.
Points 5-6
The aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is explained. The theory or model upon which the student’s investigation is based is described and the link to the student’s investigation is explained. The Independent and Dependent Variables are stated and operationalized in the null or research hypothesis.
Points 0
Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The research design is described. The sampling technique is described. Characteristics of the participants are described. Controlled variables are described. The materials used are described.
Points 3-4
The research design is explained. The sampling technique is explained. The choice of participants is explained. Controlled variables are explained. The choice of materials is explained.
Points 0
Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Only descriptive or inferential statistics are applied. A correct graphing technique is chosen but the graph does not address the hypothesis. There is no clear statement of findings.
Points 3-4
Appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics are applied but there are errors. The graph addresses the hypothesis but contains errors. The statistical findings are stated but either not interpreted with regard to the data or not linked to the hypothesis.
Points 5-6
Descriptive and inferential statistics are appropriately and accurately applied. The graph is correctly presented and addresses the hypothesis. The statistical findings are interpreted with regard to the data and linked to the hypothesis.
Points 0
Does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The findings of the student's investigation are described without reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated but are not directly relevant to the hypothesis. One or more modifications are stated.
Points 3-4
The findings of the student’s investigation are described with reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated and described and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are described but not explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation.
Points 5-6
The findings of the student’s investigation are discussed with reference to the background theory or model. Strengths and limitations of the design, sample and procedure are stated and explained and relevant to the investigation. Modifications are explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation and fully justified.
Step 1
Make the theoretical basis, variables, and operationalized hypothesis explicit before moving into the method.
Step 2
Justify the sampling, participants, controls, and materials instead of listing them without context.
Step 3
Choose statistics and graphs that actually answer the hypothesis and make the findings easy to follow.
Step 4
Link each limitation and proposed modification directly to the hypothesis and observed findings.
The aim and theoretical basis are explicit.
Independent and dependent variables are operationalized.
Statistics and graphs are appropriate to the hypothesis.
Modifications clearly match the limitations you identified.
Write the null hypothesis before drafting the method.
Label variables in plain language and operationalize them.
Check that every graph answers the hypothesis directly.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Psychology 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