Back To Global Politics

IA Playbook

Global Politics IA Criteria Guide

Build a persuasive engagement report that explains the issue, the process, and the political significance.

Use this guide to keep your engagement project focused on a clear issue, balanced stakeholder perspectives, and explicit reflection on what the process taught you.

Global Politics 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: Explanation and justification (4 marks)

How clearly the political issue and engagement are explained 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 explanation and justification, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Process (3 marks)

How purposefully the engagement and supporting research process are planned and carried out.

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

Criterion C: Analysis and synthesis (8 marks)

How effectively concepts, research, and engagement evidence are combined into political analysis.

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 analysis and synthesis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Evaluation and reflection (6 marks)

How critically the report evaluates perspectives, engagement, and the student's learning.

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

Criterion E: Communication (3 marks)

How clearly the report organizes and communicates its political investigation.

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

Markband guide

Criterion A: Explanation and justification (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for explanation and justification.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address explanation and justification, 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.
4The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion B: Process (3 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for process.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address process, 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: Analysis and synthesis (8 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for analysis and synthesis.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis and synthesis, 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 D: Evaluation and reflection (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation and reflection.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation and reflection, 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: Communication (3 marks)

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

Identify a political issue that is narrow enough to investigate through real engagement, but broad enough to show wider significance.

Step 2

Map the engagement process

Log what you researched, who you engaged with, and how each activity improved or challenged your original understanding.

Step 3

Analyse multiple perspectives

Move beyond description by comparing stakeholders, institutions, and sources against the context of the issue.

Step 4

Finish with explicit reflection

Show what changed in your thinking, where your original bias showed up, and how the project reshaped your view of the issue.

Submission Checklist

  • The political issue is introduced clearly and justified as worth investigating.
  • Engagement activities are tied to the issue instead of listed as a timeline only.
  • Stakeholder perspectives are synthesised, not just quoted separately.
  • Reflection explains learning, bias, and limitations of the process.

Quick Wins

  • Write one sentence in each section that names the political concept driving the analysis.
  • Pair every source with a note on why it matters to your question.
  • Use the conclusion to revisit the issue, not to introduce new evidence.

Did You Know?

Check Your Global Politics Draft Against The Rubric

Marksy gives independently written feedback highlighting weak analysis and places where your engagement write-up can be sharper. 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.

Grade My IA DraftSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My IA Draft