Back To English Literature

IA Playbook

English Literature IA Criteria Guide

Build a sharp written argument around methodical textual analysis.

Use this guide to map evidence, tighten interpretation, and keep your line of argument visible in every paragraph.

English Literature IA

Assessment criteria

See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.

This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.

Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding and interpretation (5 marks)

How well the essay understands and interprets the chosen work or body of work in relation to its line of inquiry.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address knowledge, understanding and interpretation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)

How effectively the essay analyzes and evaluates authorial or creator choices.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis and evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion C: Focus, organization and development (5 marks)

How clearly the essay maintains its line of inquiry and develops a coherent argument.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address focus, organization and development, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Language (5 marks)

How clear, varied, accurate, and appropriate the written language is for a formal analytical essay.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address language, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding and interpretation (5 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for knowledge, understanding and interpretation.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address knowledge, understanding and interpretation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
5The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation (5 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for analysis and evaluation.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis and evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
5The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion C: Focus, organization and development (5 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for focus, organization and development.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address focus, organization and development, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
5The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion D: Language (5 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for language.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address language, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
5The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Scope the question

Draft a thesis that can be defended in 3-4 analytical paragraphs rather than a broad thematic survey.

Step 2

Build an evidence map

Select short, high-value textual moments and assign each to one analytical objective.

Step 3

Draft for argument flow

Write each paragraph as claim -> evidence -> analysis -> mini-conclusion.

Step 4

Redraft for criterion language

Revise explicitly against A-D wording so your improvements match the rubric directly.

Submission Checklist

  • Thesis appears in introduction and reappears in every body paragraph.
  • Every textual quote is followed by analysis, not summary.
  • Paragraph order creates clear argument progression.
  • Final paragraph synthesizes, not repeats.

Quick Wins

  • Replace generic verbs like "shows" with analytical verbs like "foregrounds" or "complicates."
  • Keep most quotations under one line and analyze immediately.
  • Read aloud once to catch vague wording and sentence drag.

Did You Know?

Turn IA Criteria Into A High-Scoring Draft

Marksy gives independently written feedback on your draft's analysis, evidence, and organization. Verify it against current school or authorized source materials before submission. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get an estimated mark and feedback for every IA criterion.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criterion feedback highlights

Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback

See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.

Marksy list of fixes for an IB draft

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.

Start IA GradingSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Start IA Grading