Upload your World Religions 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 rationale, research question, findings, and evaluation aligned with the World Religions written analysis criteria from start to finish.
Recommended Length
1,800 words max
Build Timeline
3-4 weeks: rationale, research, findings, reflection
Anchor Question
Does each section clearly support the rationale, research question, and final reflection?
Want a full playbook format? Read World Religions IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: The rationale and focus for the investigative study, and whether an appropriate range of sources and supporting evidence have been used.
Top-band move: The investigative study has been thoroughly researched using a wide range of sources, and excellent supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated and well developed.
Common penalty: The rationale is stated with little evidence of research, or there is limited research but no rationale.
Examiner focus: The scope and a plan for the investigative study, the focus of the research question and the relationship between the research question and the scope and plan.
Top-band move: The scope and plan for the study are appropriate and focused. The research question is clearly focused and closely related to the scope and plan.
Common penalty: The scope and/or plan for the study are stated but not clearly focused. There is no research question.
Examiner focus: The significant findings from the investigation, the relationship between the research findings and the research question, and whether the rationale and plan of study relate to the significant findings.
Top-band move: Significant findings are clearly stated and well developed, and the relationship between the research question, rationale and plan for the study is fully demonstrated.
Common penalty: There is little indication of significant findings, and these are not related to the research question, rationale and plan for the study.
Examiner focus: The quality and analysis of the significant findings in relation to the research question and how the investigative study has deepened understanding of religious experience and/or beliefs.
Top-band move: Critical reflection is detailed and very well developed, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an excellent understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are developed and evaluated. There is a thorough evaluation of the research methods used and recognition of any underlying assumptions and/or bias. Conclusions and future research possibilities are considered.
Common penalty: Critical reflection is very limited, with no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There may be some recognition of one or more misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings, or limited but underdeveloped reference to research methods used.
Examiner focus: The extent to which the student meets the three formal requirements of writing, organizing and presenting the written analysis.
Top-band move: The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets the two other formal requirements.
Common penalty: The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit.
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 1-2
The rationale is stated with little evidence of research, or there is limited research but no rationale.
Points 3-4
The study has been researched, and some supporting evidence has been produced, though this may not be relevant. The rationale is stated.
Points 5-6
The study has been well researched using a range of sources, and supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated, with evidence of some development.
Points 7-8
The investigative study has been thoroughly researched using a wide range of sources, and excellent supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated and well developed.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The scope and/or plan for the study are stated but not clearly focused. There is no research question.
Points 2
The scope and plan for the study are generally appropriate and focused. The research question is stated and is related to the scope and plan.
Points 3
The scope and plan for the study are appropriate and focused. The research question is clearly focused and closely related to the scope and plan.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
There is little indication of significant findings, and these are not related to the research question, rationale and plan for the study.
Points 3-4
Significant findings are stated and are related to one or more aspects of the research question, rationale and plan for the study.
Points 5-6
Significant findings are clearly stated and well developed, and the relationship between the research question, rationale and plan for the study is fully demonstrated.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Critical reflection is very limited, with no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There may be some recognition of one or more misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings, or limited but underdeveloped reference to research methods used.
Points 3-4
There is an attempt at some critical reflection, with little or no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There is a basic recognition of some misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings. There is some limited reference to research methods used.
Points 5-6
There is evidence of sound critical reflection, demonstrating some understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an understanding of how far the research question informed most, if not all, of the significant findings. There is some recognition of any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings. There is some discussion of research methods chosen.
Points 7-8
Critical reflection is sound and well developed, demonstrating an understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is a good understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are identified. There is an evaluation of the research methods used. Conclusions and future possibilities may be outlined.
Points 9-10
Critical reflection is detailed and very well developed, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an excellent understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are developed and evaluated. There is a thorough evaluation of the research methods used and recognition of any underlying assumptions and/or bias. Conclusions and future research possibilities are considered.
Points 0
The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit.
Points 2
The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets one of the other formal requirements.
Points 3
The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets the two other formal requirements.
Step 1
State why the topic matters and show early evidence that the investigation has enough substance to support the final study.
Step 2
Define a research question that matches the plan and stays narrow enough to produce meaningful findings.
Step 3
Select the strongest evidence, summarize it cleanly, and keep every finding tied back to the research question.
Step 4
Evaluate how the research methods, assumptions, and any inconsistencies shaped what you learned.
The rationale is clearly stated and well supported.
The research question is focused and matches the plan for the study.
Significant findings are directly connected to the investigation.
Reflection shows what the study deepened about religious experience or belief.
Write the research question in a form that can be answered by evidence, not opinion.
Keep one note per criterion so you can see where each paragraph is earning marks.
Use the final reflection to explain how the research changed or refined your understanding.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for World Religions 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