Back To Environmental Systems and Societies

IA Playbook

Environmental Systems and Societies IA Criteria Guide

Turn an environmental issue into a repeatable investigation with clear data, analysis, and evaluation.

Use this guide to frame a focused research question, plan reliable data collection, and connect your results back to the environmental context without losing sight of the rubric.

Criteria Breakdown

Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.

Criterion A: Identifying the context (CXT) (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student establishes and explores an environmental issue for an investigation and develops a relevant research question.

Top-Band Move

• States a relevant, coherent and focused research question • Discusses a relevant environmental issue that provides context • Explains the connections between issue and research question

Common Penalty

• States a research question, but lacks focus • Outlines an environmental issue linked to the research question • Lists connections between the issue and research question with significant omissions

Criterion B: Planning (PLA) (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student develops appropriate methods to gather data relevant to the research question.

Top-Band Move

• Designs a repeatable method allowing sufficient relevant data collection • Justifies sampling strategy • Describes risk assessment and ethical considerations

Common Penalty

• Designs an inappropriate method for data collection • Outlines sampling strategy with errors/omissions • Lists some risks and ethical considerations

Criterion C: Results, analysis and conclusion (RAC) (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student collects, records, processes and interprets data relevant to the research question.

Top-Band Move

• Constructs all relevant diagrams/charts appropriately • Analyzes data completely showing all patterns • Interprets trends for valid conclusion

Common Penalty

• Constructs diagrams/charts with significant errors/omissions • Analyzes data with significant errors/omissions • States unsupported conclusion

Criterion D: Discussion and evaluation (DEV) (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student discusses the conclusion in context and evaluates the investigation.

Top-Band Move

• Evaluates conclusion in context • Discusses method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests modifications addressing significant weaknesses

Common Penalty

• Describes some conclusion-aspect relationships to issue • Identifies some method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests superficial modifications/further research

Criterion E: Applications (APP) (3 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student identifies and evaluates an application of the investigation outcomes.

Top-Band Move

• Justifies one application/solution based on findings • Evaluates relevant solution strengths/weaknesses

Common Penalty

• States one potential application/solution • Describes some solution strengths/weaknesses

Criterion F: Communication (COM) (3 marks)

Examiner Focus

Whether the report supports effective communication in structure, coherence and clarity.

Top-Band Move

• Well structured and organized • Consistent appropriate terminology and concise • Logical and coherent

Common Penalty

• Limited structure/organization • Limited appropriate terminology use • Presentation limits understanding

Markbands

Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.

Criterion A: Identifying the context (CXT) (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• States a research question, but lacks focus • Outlines an environmental issue linked to the research question • Lists connections between the issue and research question with significant omissions

Points 3-4

• States a relevant research question • Outlines an environmental issue that provides context • Describes connections between issue and research question with some omissions

Points 5-6

• States a relevant, coherent and focused research question • Discusses a relevant environmental issue that provides context • Explains the connections between issue and research question

Criterion B: Planning (PLA) (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Designs an inappropriate method for data collection • Outlines sampling strategy with errors/omissions • Lists some risks and ethical considerations

Points 3-4

• Designs a repeatable method appropriate to research question but insufficient for data collection • Describes sampling strategy • Outlines risk assessment and ethical considerations

Points 5-6

• Designs a repeatable method allowing sufficient relevant data collection • Justifies sampling strategy • Describes risk assessment and ethical considerations

Criterion C: Results, analysis and conclusion (RAC) (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Constructs diagrams/charts with significant errors/omissions • Analyzes data with significant errors/omissions • States unsupported conclusion

Points 3-4

• Constructs appropriate diagrams/charts with some omissions • Analyzes data correctly but incompletely • Interprets some trends for partially valid conclusion

Points 5-6

• Constructs all relevant diagrams/charts appropriately • Analyzes data completely showing all patterns • Interprets trends for valid conclusion

Criterion D: Discussion and evaluation (DEV) (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Describes some conclusion-aspect relationships to issue • Identifies some method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests superficial modifications/further research

Points 3-4

• Evaluates conclusion in context with omissions • Describes some method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests modifications and further research

Points 5-6

• Evaluates conclusion in context • Discusses method strengths/weaknesses • Suggests modifications addressing significant weaknesses

Criterion E: Applications (APP) (3 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.

Points 1

• States one potential application/solution • Describes some solution strengths/weaknesses

Points 2

• Describes one application/solution with weak justification • Evaluates some solution strengths/weaknesses

Points 3

• Justifies one application/solution based on findings • Evaluates relevant solution strengths/weaknesses

Criterion F: Communication (COM) (3 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by any descriptors below.

Points 1

• Limited structure/organization • Limited appropriate terminology use • Presentation limits understanding

Points 2

• Structure/organization not sustained • Either appropriate terminology or concise • Mainly logical but difficult in parts

Points 3

• Well structured and organized • Consistent appropriate terminology and concise • Logical and coherent

Build Sequence

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

Step 1

Define the environmental issue

Choose a specific issue, location, and question that can be investigated with primary or clearly targeted secondary data.

Step 2

Design a workable method

Build repeatable sampling and data-collection steps that match the question and let another student reproduce your study.

Step 3

Collect and present relevant data

Use charts, tables, and diagrams that make patterns obvious and keep every figure directly tied to the question.

Step 4

Evaluate in context

Explain what the results mean for the issue, identify method strengths and weaknesses, and propose realistic improvements.

Submission Checklist

  • The research question is specific, geographic, and environmentally meaningful.
  • Sampling, risk, and ethics are addressed where they matter.
  • All visuals and statistics support the stated question.
  • The conclusion and evaluation stay grounded in the data actually collected.

Quick Wins

  • Write the research question so it names the issue, location, and measurable focus.
  • Annotate every graph with the exact insight it proves.
  • Make the evaluation section concrete by linking each improvement to a weakness in the method or data.

Did You Know?

Check Your ESS IA Against The Rubric

Marksy gives criterion-by-criterion feedback so you can tighten method, analysis, and evaluation before submission. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get criterion-by-criterion feedback fast.
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 criteria-wise feedback highlights

Criterion-Level Feedback

Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.

Marksy actionable todo feedback list

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?
OverviewCriteriaMarkbandsBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Start IA Grading