Back To Geography

IA Playbook

Geography IA Criteria Guide

Turn a focused fieldwork question into evidence-rich analysis and evaluation.

Use this guide to keep the geographic context clear, the method justified, and the findings connected to the question.

Geography IA

Assessment criteria

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.

Criterion A: Fieldwork question and geographic context (3 marks)

How focused and geographical your fieldwork question is, how it links to theory, and how well your maps show the location.

Stronger evidence

A focused geographical question with a precise location, a described link to theory that allows hypotheses, and maps that follow conventions.

Early-stage evidence

The question is not a proper geographical question, is too broad, lacks a location, or cannot use primary data; the map is missing or unsuitable.

Criterion B: Method(s) of investigation (3 marks)

How well you describe your methods and explain why the data they collect is relevant, and whether you use them correctly.

Stronger evidence

Methods are described with a clear explanation of how the data fits the theory, question, or hypotheses; correct use of instruments and sampling gives reliable primary data.

Early-stage evidence

Methods are listed or vague, may not collect enough relevant data, and instruments or sampling are not used correctly.

Criterion C: Quality and treatment of information collected (6 marks)

How relevant and sufficient your data is, and how well you present it.

Stronger evidence

All data is relevant and sufficient for full analysis, the best presentation techniques are used, and conventions are followed.

Early-stage evidence

Much of the data is irrelevant or insufficient, presentation techniques do not suit it, and graphs or tables often break conventions.

Criterion D: Written analysis (8 marks)

How well your analysis explains the data and links it to the question, hypotheses, theory, location, and methods.

Stronger evidence

Suitable descriptive and statistical techniques (with confidence levels where relevant); trends, statistics, and anomalies are explained and linked to the question, theory, location, and methods; the question can be answered with at most minor gaps.

Early-stage evidence

Some descriptive techniques are unsuitable, data is outlined without linking it to the question, and only obvious trends are listed.

Criterion E: Conclusion (2 marks)

Whether you reach a clear conclusion to the fieldwork question that the analysis supports.

Stronger evidence

A clear conclusion is given, supported by the analysis.

Early-stage evidence

A conclusion is given, partly supported by the analysis.

Criterion F: Evaluation (3 marks)

How well you explain the strengths and weaknesses of your investigation and the likely impact of improvements.

Stronger evidence

The most relevant strengths and weaknesses of methods, question, data presentation, and location are explained, with improvements and their likely impact.

Early-stage evidence

Strengths, weaknesses, and improvements are listed but are mostly superficial or irrelevant.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Fieldwork question and geographic context (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1The question is not a proper geographical question, is too broad, lacks a location, or cannot use primary data; the map is missing or unsuitable.
2A geographical question linked to the syllabus or theory, with a specific location suitable for primary data; the map is copied or lacks conventions.
3A focused geographical question with a precise location, a described link to theory that allows hypotheses, and maps that follow conventions.

Criterion B: Method(s) of investigation (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1Methods are listed or vague, may not collect enough relevant data, and instruments or sampling are not used correctly.
2Methods are described with how the data relates to the question; instruments and sampling are used correctly, but the data may be minimal.
3Methods are described with a clear explanation of how the data fits the theory, question, or hypotheses; correct use of instruments and sampling gives reliable primary data.

Criterion C: Quality and treatment of information collected (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-2Much of the data is irrelevant or insufficient, presentation techniques do not suit it, and graphs or tables often break conventions.
3-4Most data is relevant and supports partial analysis, presentation suits the data type, and conventions are followed with occasional errors.
5-6All data is relevant and sufficient for full analysis, the best presentation techniques are used, and conventions are followed.

Criterion D: Written analysis (8 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-2Some descriptive techniques are unsuitable, data is outlined without linking it to the question, and only obvious trends are listed.
3-4Suitable descriptive techniques; any statistics are irrelevant or contain errors; trends are described and linked to the question, allowing a descriptive answer.
5-6Suitable descriptive and statistical techniques; trends and statistics are linked to the question; anomalies are listed; the question can be answered despite gaps in evidence.
7-8Suitable descriptive and statistical techniques (with confidence levels where relevant); trends, statistics, and anomalies are explained and linked to the question, theory, location, and methods; the question can be answered with at most minor gaps.

Criterion E: Conclusion (2 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1A conclusion is given, partly supported by the analysis.
2A clear conclusion is given, supported by the analysis.

Criterion F: Evaluation (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1Strengths, weaknesses, and improvements are listed but are mostly superficial or irrelevant.
2Strengths, weaknesses, and improvements are outlined and mostly relevant.
3The most relevant strengths and weaknesses of methods, question, data presentation, and location are explained, with improvements and their likely impact.

Build Sequence

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

Step 1

Formulate a precise question

Make sure the question is geographic, location-specific, and answerable with primary data.

Step 2

Justify the methods

Explain why the chosen collection methods and sampling choices are appropriate to the question.

Step 3

Present clean information

Use the most suitable graphs, tables, and figures so the data is easy to interpret and compare.

Step 4

Evaluate the investigation

Balance strengths, weaknesses, and improvements so the conclusion feels earned by the evidence.

Submission Checklist

  • The fieldwork question is specific and clearly linked to geographic theory.
  • The methods are described and justified with the data they produce in mind.
  • The analysis is explicit, descriptive where needed, and evidence-based.
  • The evaluation is specific and tied to the investigation choices you actually made.

Quick Wins

  • Write the geographic context paragraph before collecting data so the scope stays tight.
  • Check every figure for labels, titles, and usefulness before inserting it.
  • Add a short sentence after each result explaining how it answers the question.

Did You Know?

Turn Fieldwork Criteria Into A Strong Draft

Marksy grades your geography IA draft against IB criteria and helps you tighten the analysis, evaluation, and presentation. 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