IA Playbook
Use the rubric to build a clear investigation, collect reliable data, and explain the results with confidence.
This guide helps you turn an athletic, physiological, or health question into an investigation that reads cleanly against the assessment criteria from first draft to final evaluation.
Sports, Exercise and Health Science IA
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.
How visibly the investigation reflects purposeful individual choices and initiative.
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 personal engagement, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How clearly the question, scientific context, variables, method, safety, and ethics are developed.
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 exploration, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How accurately evidence is processed, displayed, interpreted, and connected to uncertainty.
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, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How well the conclusion and evaluation judge the evidence, limitations, and 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.
How clearly the report uses structure, terminology, notation, figures, and citations.
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 communication, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for personal engagement. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address personal engagement, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for exploration. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address exploration, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for analysis. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for communication. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address communication, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 4 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Choose a question that is narrow enough to test, but important enough to justify the time and effort of a full investigation.
Step 2
Explain your variables, sampling, and controls clearly so the investigation is reproducible and methodologically sound.
Step 3
Show the maths, statistics, and uncertainty handling that make your results credible and relevant to the hypothesis.
Step 4
Conclude clearly, compare with the scientific context, and suggest improvements that genuinely address the weaknesses you found.
Did You Know?
Marksy helps you spot weak method, weak analysis, and weak evaluation before they turn into lost marks. 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.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.