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.

Environmental Systems and Societies 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: Identifying the context (CXT) (6 marks)

How clearly the environmental issue, research question, and relevant system context are established.

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 identifying the context (cxt), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Planning (PLA) (6 marks)

How well the method, variables, sampling, ethics, and risk are designed and justified.

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 planning (pla), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

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

How effectively evidence is processed, analyzed, and used to answer the research question.

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 results, analysis and conclusion (rac), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

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

How critically the investigation interprets results, limitations, and improvements.

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 discussion and evaluation (dev), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion E: Applications (APP) (3 marks)

How convincingly the investigation connects its findings to environmental responses or applications.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

Early-stage evidence

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

Criterion F: Communication (COM) (3 marks)

How clearly and consistently the report communicates its method, evidence, and reasoning.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

Early-stage evidence

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

Markband guide

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

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for identifying the context (cxt).
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address identifying the context (cxt), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion B: Planning (PLA) (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for planning (pla).
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address planning (pla), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

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

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for results, analysis and conclusion (rac).
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address results, analysis and conclusion (rac), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

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

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for discussion and evaluation (dev).
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address discussion and evaluation (dev), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion E: Applications (APP) (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for applications (app).
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address applications (app), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

Criterion F: Communication (COM) (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for communication (com).
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address communication (com), but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.

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 independently written, criterion-by-criterion feedback so you can tighten method, analysis, and evaluation. Every criterion mark is an estimate, not an official result. 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