Back To Physics

IA Playbook

Physics IA Criteria Guide

Design a controlled investigation, treat uncertainty seriously, and turn results into a defensible physical explanation.

This guide keeps the Physics IA anchored to a focused question, a reproducible method, clean data processing, and a conclusion that matches both the evidence and accepted physics context.

Physics 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: Research Design (6 marks)

How clearly the investigation establishes its context, question, variables, and method.

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

Criterion B: Data Analysis (6 marks)

How accurately the submission records, processes, displays, and interprets evidence.

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

Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)

How well the conclusion answers the research question using the processed evidence and relevant subject knowledge.

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

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

How thoughtfully the submission judges the investigation and proposes realistic 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 evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Research Design (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for research design.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address research design, 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: Data Analysis (6 marks)

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

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

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, 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.

Build Sequence

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

Step 1

Frame a measurable relationship

Choose one physical quantity or law that can be explored with a narrow, testable question.

Step 2

Control the experiment

List variables, apparatus, and measurement strategy so the method is reproducible and the data is meaningful.

Step 3

Analyze with precision

Show graphs, calculations, and uncertainty handling clearly so the physics argument is visible in the processing.

Step 4

Evaluate the model and method

Compare the result to accepted physics and explain which limitations mattered most and why.

Submission Checklist

  • Question is narrow and physically testable.
  • Method can be replicated without guesswork.
  • Data processing includes units, uncertainty, and clear presentation.
  • Conclusion and evaluation are tied directly to the results.

Quick Wins

  • Sketch the setup and label measurements before drafting the report.
  • Track uncertainty in the raw data table instead of adding it later.
  • End each analysis section with a direct statement of what the graph or calculation shows.

Did You Know?

Turn Physics Results Into A Stronger IA

Marksy gives independently written feedback on weak analysis or 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.

Grade My Physics IASee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Physics IA