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.

This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.

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

How clearly the fieldwork question is situated in a relevant geographic context.

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 fieldwork question and geographic context, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

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

How appropriately fieldwork methods are selected, described, and justified.

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 method(s) of investigation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

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

How effectively fieldwork information is recorded, processed, and presented.

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 quality and treatment of information collected, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Written analysis (8 marks)

How thoroughly the report interprets evidence using geographic concepts and the fieldwork 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 written analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion E: Conclusion (2 marks)

How directly and convincingly the conclusion answers the fieldwork question.

Stronger evidence

Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.

Early-stage evidence

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

Criterion F: Evaluation (3 marks)

How effectively the report evaluates methods and proposes improvements or extensions.

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 evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

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

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for fieldwork question and geographic context.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address fieldwork question and geographic context, 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 B: Method(s) of investigation (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for method(s) of investigation.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address method(s) of investigation, 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 C: Quality and treatment of information collected (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for quality and treatment of information collected.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address quality and treatment of information collected, 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: Written analysis (8 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for written analysis.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address written analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3-4Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
5-6The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
7-8The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion E: Conclusion (2 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for conclusion.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address conclusion, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.

Criterion F: Evaluation (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, 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

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 gives independently written feedback on analysis, evaluation, and presentation. Verify it against current school or authorized source materials. 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