All Global Politics guides

Global Politics IA Criteria Guide

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

For assessment in 2026 and 2027. 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.

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: Explanation and justification (4 marks)

How clearly you explain the political issue and justify your engagement activities.

Stronger evidence
The issue is clearly explained, the importance and suitability of the project are clear, and the activities are explained and justified.
Early-stage evidence
The issue is identified but not clearly explained, the project's importance is barely explained, and the activities are described without justification.

Criterion B: Process (3 marks)

How well planned and integrated your research and engagement process is.

Stronger evidence
The process is well planned, with research and engagement integrated.
Early-stage evidence
The research and engagement process is limited.

Criterion C: Analysis and synthesis (8 marks)

How well you analyse the issue in the context of your engagement and synthesize different stakeholder and source perspectives.

Stronger evidence
Effective analysis using course concepts well, and an effective synthesis of stakeholder and source perspectives.
Early-stage evidence
Mostly descriptive, with vague reference to course concepts, no analysis of the issue, and no synthesis of perspectives.

Criterion D: Evaluation and reflection (6 marks)

How critically you evaluate your research and engagement, and reflect on your own positions and learning.

Stronger evidence
Activities are critically evaluated, personal positions and biases are explained, and reflection on learning is in depth.
Early-stage evidence
Research and engagement are not evaluated, personal biases are not identified, and reflection on learning is limited.

Criterion E: Communication (3 marks)

How clearly the report is organized and communicated.

Stronger evidence
The report is well organized and coherent.
Early-stage evidence
Organization and clarity are limited and do not support understanding.

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

    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.

  2. 2

    Map the engagement process

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

  3. 3

    Analyse multiple perspectives

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

  4. 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.

Before you submit

  • 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.

Check Your Global Politics Draft Against The Rubric

Marksy grades your Global Politics draft against criterion descriptors, highlights weak analysis, and shows you exactly where your engagement write-up can be sharper. The result includes a mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first.

Grade My IA DraftSee 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".