Upload your Sports, Exercise and Health Science 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.
This guide helps you turn an athletic, physiological, or health question into an investigation that reads cleanly against the assessment criteria from first draft to final evaluation.
Recommended Length
2,000-2,500 words
Build Timeline
4-6 weeks: question, method, data, analysis, evaluation
Anchor Question
Can your method produce enough accurate data to answer the question without overcomplicating the investigation?
Want a full playbook format? Read Sports, Exercise and Health Science 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 engages with the exploration and makes it their own.
Top-band move: The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Common penalty: The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student establishes the scientific context, states a clear research question, and uses appropriate concepts/techniques.
Top-band move: The topic is identified with a relevant and fully focused research question. Background information is entirely appropriate. Methodology is highly appropriate. Full awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.
Common penalty: The topic is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but not focused. Background information is superficial. Methodology is only appropriate to a very limited extent. Limited awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student selects, records, processes and interprets data relevant to the research question.
Top-band move: Sufficient relevant raw data. Appropriate and accurate data processing. Full consideration of measurement uncertainty. Correct and detailed interpretation.
Common penalty: Insufficient relevant raw data. Basic data processing is too inaccurate/insufficient. Little consideration of measurement uncertainty. Incorrect/insufficient interpretation.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student evaluates the investigation and results with regard to the research question and scientific context.
Top-band move: Detailed, justified conclusion fully supported by data. Correct comparison to scientific context. Discusses methodological issues. Discusses realistic improvements.
Common penalty: Conclusion is not relevant or not supported by data. Superficial comparison to scientific context. Outlines practical/procedural limitations. Outlines few improvements.
Examiner focus: Whether the investigation is presented in a way that supports effective communication.
Top-band move: Clear presentation. Well-structured and coherent. Relevant and concise. Appropriate terminology with minor errors.
Common penalty: Unclear presentation. Poor structure with missing/confusing information. Contains irrelevant information. Many errors in terminology.
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 the descriptors below.
Points 1
The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Points 2
The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The topic is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but not focused. Background information is superficial. Methodology is only appropriate to a very limited extent. Limited awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.
Points 3-4
The topic is identified with a relevant but not fully focused research question. Background information is mainly appropriate. Methodology is mainly appropriate but has limitations. Some awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.
Points 5-6
The topic is identified with a relevant and fully focused research question. Background information is entirely appropriate. Methodology is highly appropriate. Full awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Insufficient relevant raw data. Basic data processing is too inaccurate/insufficient. Little consideration of measurement uncertainty. Incorrect/insufficient interpretation.
Points 3-4
Relevant but incomplete raw data. Appropriate but inconsistent data processing. Some consideration of measurement uncertainty. Broadly valid but incomplete interpretation.
Points 5-6
Sufficient relevant raw data. Appropriate and accurate data processing. Full consideration of measurement uncertainty. Correct and detailed interpretation.
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Conclusion is not relevant or not supported by data. Superficial comparison to scientific context. Outlines practical/procedural limitations. Outlines few improvements.
Points 3-4
Relevant conclusion supported by data. Some relevant comparison to scientific context. Describes methodological limitations. Describes some realistic improvements.
Points 5-6
Detailed, justified conclusion fully supported by data. Correct comparison to scientific context. Discusses methodological issues. Discusses realistic improvements.
Points 0
The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Unclear presentation. Poor structure with missing/confusing information. Contains irrelevant information. Many errors in terminology.
Points 3-4
Clear presentation. Well-structured and coherent. Relevant and concise. Appropriate terminology with minor errors.
Step 1
Choose a question that is narrow enough to test, but important enough to justify the time and effort of a full investigation.
Step 2
Explain your variables, sampling, and controls clearly so the investigation is reproducible and methodologically sound.
Step 3
Show the maths, statistics, and uncertainty handling that make your results credible and relevant to the hypothesis.
Step 4
Conclude clearly, compare with the scientific context, and suggest improvements that genuinely address the weaknesses you found.
The question is specific, measurable, and grounded in SEHS content.
Variables, controls, and safety/ethics are addressed where appropriate.
Data processing is accurate and presented in a way the reader can follow.
The conclusion, context, and improvements all connect back to the original question.
State the hypothesis in a way that names the independent and dependent variables.
Annotate graphs so their takeaway is obvious without extra narration.
Use the evaluation to explain the impact of limitations instead of just listing them.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Sports, Exercise and Health Science 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