Back To Sports, Exercise and Health Science

IA Playbook

Sports Science IA Criteria Guide

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.

Criteria Breakdown

Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.

Criterion A: Personal Engagement (2 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their own.

Top-Band Move

The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Common Penalty

The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Criterion B: Exploration (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student establishes the scientific context, states a clear research question, and uses appropriate concepts/techniques.

Top-Band Move

The topic is identified with a relevant and fully focused research question. Background information is entirely appropriate. Methodology is highly appropriate. Full awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.

Common Penalty

The topic is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but not focused. Background information is superficial. Methodology is only appropriate to a very limited extent. Limited awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.

Criterion C: Analysis (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student selects, records, processes and interprets data relevant to the research question.

Top-Band Move

Sufficient relevant raw data. Appropriate and accurate data processing. Full consideration of measurement uncertainty. Correct and detailed interpretation.

Common Penalty

Insufficient relevant raw data. Basic data processing is too inaccurate/insufficient. Little consideration of measurement uncertainty. Incorrect/insufficient interpretation.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student evaluates the investigation and results with regard to the research question and scientific context.

Top-Band Move

Detailed, justified conclusion fully supported by data. Correct comparison to scientific context. Discusses methodological issues. Discusses realistic improvements.

Common Penalty

Conclusion is not relevant or not supported by data. Superficial comparison to scientific context. Outlines practical/procedural limitations. Outlines few improvements.

Criterion E: Communication (4 marks)

Examiner Focus

Whether the investigation is presented in a way that supports effective communication.

Top-Band Move

Clear presentation. Well-structured and coherent. Relevant and concise. Appropriate terminology with minor errors.

Common Penalty

Unclear presentation. Poor structure with missing/confusing information. Contains irrelevant information. Many errors in terminology.

Markbands

Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.

Criterion A: Personal Engagement (2 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1

The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Points 2

The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Criterion B: Exploration (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The topic is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but not focused. Background information is superficial. Methodology is only appropriate to a very limited extent. Limited awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.

Points 3-4

The topic is identified with a relevant but not fully focused research question. Background information is mainly appropriate. Methodology is mainly appropriate but has limitations. Some awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.

Points 5-6

The topic is identified with a relevant and fully focused research question. Background information is entirely appropriate. Methodology is highly appropriate. Full awareness of safety/ethical/environmental issues.

Criterion C: Analysis (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

Insufficient relevant raw data. Basic data processing is too inaccurate/insufficient. Little consideration of measurement uncertainty. Incorrect/insufficient interpretation.

Points 3-4

Relevant but incomplete raw data. Appropriate but inconsistent data processing. Some consideration of measurement uncertainty. Broadly valid but incomplete interpretation.

Points 5-6

Sufficient relevant raw data. Appropriate and accurate data processing. Full consideration of measurement uncertainty. Correct and detailed interpretation.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

Conclusion is not relevant or not supported by data. Superficial comparison to scientific context. Outlines practical/procedural limitations. Outlines few improvements.

Points 3-4

Relevant conclusion supported by data. Some relevant comparison to scientific context. Describes methodological limitations. Describes some realistic improvements.

Points 5-6

Detailed, justified conclusion fully supported by data. Correct comparison to scientific context. Discusses methodological issues. Discusses realistic improvements.

Criterion E: Communication (4 marks)

Points 0

The student's report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

Unclear presentation. Poor structure with missing/confusing information. Contains irrelevant information. Many errors in terminology.

Points 3-4

Clear presentation. Well-structured and coherent. Relevant and concise. Appropriate terminology with minor errors.

Build Sequence

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

Step 1

Lock a focused research question

Choose a question that is narrow enough to test, but important enough to justify the time and effort of a full investigation.

Step 2

Design an appropriate exploration

Explain your variables, sampling, and controls clearly so the investigation is reproducible and methodologically sound.

Step 3

Process data carefully

Show the maths, statistics, and uncertainty handling that make your results credible and relevant to the hypothesis.

Step 4

Evaluate the evidence

Conclude clearly, compare with the scientific context, and suggest improvements that genuinely address the weaknesses you found.

Submission Checklist

  • The question is specific, measurable, and grounded in SEHS content.
  • Variables, controls, and safety/ethics are addressed where appropriate.
  • Data processing is accurate and presented in a way the reader can follow.
  • The conclusion, context, and improvements all connect back to the original question.

Quick Wins

  • State the hypothesis in a way that names the independent and dependent variables.
  • Annotate graphs so their takeaway is obvious without extra narration.
  • Use the evaluation to explain the impact of limitations instead of just listing them.

Did You Know?

Check Your SEHS IA Against The Markscheme

Marksy helps you spot weak method, weak analysis, and weak evaluation before they turn into lost marks. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get criterion-by-criterion feedback fast.
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 criteria-wise feedback highlights

Criterion-Level Feedback

Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.

Marksy actionable todo feedback list

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?
OverviewCriteriaMarkbandsBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Start IA Grading