IA Playbook
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
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How well the essay knows and interprets the work, and supports its ideas with references.
Stronger evidence
Excellent knowledge and a persuasive interpretation; references are well chosen and effective.
Early-stage evidence
Little knowledge of the work; references are rare or poorly chosen.
How well the essay analyses and evaluates how language, technique, style, and authorial choices shape meaning.
Stronger evidence
Consistently insightful, convincing analysis and evaluation.
Early-stage evidence
Mostly description with little relevant analysis.
How well the essay is organized, develops its line of inquiry, and integrates examples.
Stronger evidence
Effectively organized and well developed; examples are well integrated.
Early-stage evidence
Little organization, no clear line of inquiry, and poorly integrated examples.
How clear, varied, and accurate the language is, and how appropriate the register and style are.
Stronger evidence
Very clear and precise with high accuracy; register and style are effective.
Early-stage evidence
Rarely clear, with frequent errors and little sense of register or style.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Little knowledge of the work; references are rare or poorly chosen. |
| 2 | Some knowledge; references are sometimes appropriate. |
| 3 | Satisfactory knowledge and interpretation; references are generally relevant. |
| 4 | Good knowledge and a sustained interpretation; references are relevant and support the argument. |
| 5 | Excellent knowledge and a persuasive interpretation; references are well chosen and effective. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Mostly description with little relevant analysis. |
| 2 | Some analysis, but it relies on description. |
| 3 | Generally appropriate analysis and evaluation of authorial choices. |
| 4 | Appropriate analysis that is at times insightful. |
| 5 | Consistently insightful, convincing analysis and evaluation. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Little organization, no clear line of inquiry, and poorly integrated examples. |
| 2 | Some organization but little development of the line of inquiry; examples rarely integrated. |
| 3 | Adequate organization and some development; examples sometimes integrated. |
| 4 | Well organized with adequate development; examples mostly well integrated. |
| 5 | Effectively organized and well developed; examples are well integrated. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Rarely clear, with frequent errors and little sense of register or style. |
| 2 | Sometimes clear and fairly accurate; register and style are somewhat appropriate. |
| 3 | Clear and careful with adequate accuracy; register and style are mostly appropriate. |
| 4 | Clear and careful with good accuracy; register and style are consistently appropriate. |
| 5 | Very clear and precise with high accuracy; register and style are effective. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Draft a thesis that can be defended in 3-4 analytical paragraphs rather than a broad thematic survey.
Step 2
Select short, high-value textual moments and assign each to one analytical objective.
Step 3
Write each paragraph as claim -> evidence -> analysis -> mini-conclusion.
Step 4
Revise explicitly against A-D wording so your improvements match the rubric directly.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your draft against IB criteria, gives you criterion-level feedback, and shows exactly what to improve before final 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.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.