All Environmental Systems and Societies guides

Environmental Systems and Societies IA Criteria Guide

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

For assessment in 2026 and 2027. 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.

Assessment criteria

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.

Criterion A: Research question and inquiry (4 marks)

Explain the environmental issue behind a focused question.

Stronger evidence
Background research explains the issue well enough to support a narrow, relevant question.
Early-stage evidence
The issue has gaps or mistakes in its explanation. The question is too broad or its connection to that issue is unclear.

Criterion B: Strategy (4 marks)

Explain a response to an environmental issue and the disagreement it creates.

Stronger evidence
The strategy is described and the reasons for competing perspectives are explained.
Early-stage evidence
A strategy is named and a disagreement between perspectives is described.

Criterion C: Method (4 marks)

Describe how someone could repeat the investigation and collect enough relevant evidence.

Stronger evidence
Another person could follow the procedure and collect enough evidence to answer the question.
Early-stage evidence
The procedure cannot be repeated reliably or would not produce enough evidence to answer the question.

Criterion D: Treatment of data (6 marks)

Present and process the evidence accurately using suitable techniques.

Stronger evidence
The evidence is presented clearly and in detail. Correct processing directly addresses the whole question.
Early-stage evidence
The data are difficult to follow. Processing has serious mistakes or does not address the question.

Criterion E: Analysis and conclusion (6 marks)

Interpret the evidence and explain what answer it supports.

Stronger evidence
Relevant trends are explained, including bias, uncertainty and the quality of the evidence. The answer follows from that analysis.
Early-stage evidence
Relevant trends are identified, but the final answer is missing, unrelated or unsupported.

Criterion F: Evaluation (6 marks)

Judge weaknesses, proposed changes and questions that remain unanswered.

Stronger evidence
The effect of specific weaknesses and proposed changes is weighed carefully. Remaining questions are related to the final answer.
Early-stage evidence
General weaknesses, possible changes and remaining questions are listed.

Mark bands

Want to know where your IA sits in these bands? Upload your draft and get a mark for each criterion.

Grade my IA

How to build it

Most weak drafts fail on order, not on ideas.

  1. 1

    Explain a relevant strategy

    Describe a response to an environmental issue connected to your question. Explain why different perspectives create disagreement over that response.

  2. 2

    Define the environmental issue

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

  3. 3

    Design a workable method

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

  4. 4

    Collect and present relevant data

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

  5. 5

    Evaluate in context

    Explain the answer supported by the data. Evaluate specific weaknesses, useful improvements and what unresolved questions mean for the conclusion.

Before you submit

  • The focused question is supported by research into an environmental issue.
  • The strategy links to the question and explains tensions between perspectives. Sampling, risk and ethics are addressed where needed.
  • 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.

Check Your ESS IA Against The Rubric

Marksy gives criterion-by-criterion feedback so you can tighten method, analysis, and evaluation before submission. The result includes a mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first.

Start IA GradingSee Pricing
  1. 1

    Upload your IA draft as a PDF

  2. 2

    Get a mark and feedback for every IA criterion

  3. 3

    Revise and grade the new version

A mark for every criterion
A mark for every criterionSee where the draft is now, criterion by criterion.
Comments on your sentences
Comments on your sentencesEach comment points at the passage it is about.
What to fix first
What to fix firstConcrete next edits instead of "improve your analysis".