Back To World Religions

IA Playbook

World Religions IA Criteria Guide

Shape a tightly focused study with solid research, clear findings, and careful reflection.

Use this guide to keep your rationale, research question, findings, and evaluation aligned with the World Religions written analysis criteria from start to finish.

World Religions 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: Rationale and preliminary research (8 marks)

How clearly the study establishes its rationale, focus, sources, and religious context.

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 rationale and preliminary research, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Plan for study (3 marks)

How practical, ethical, and relevant the investigation plan is.

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 plan for study, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion C: Summary of significant findings (6 marks)

How clearly the most important evidence from the study is selected and presented.

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 summary of significant findings, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Critical reflection and evaluation (10 marks)

How deeply the study interprets findings, reflects on method, and evaluates religious perspectives and limitations.

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

Criterion E: References and compliance with format (3 marks)

How consistently the study follows required academic presentation and referencing conventions.

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 references and compliance with format, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Rationale and preliminary research (8 marks)

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

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for plan for study.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address plan for study, 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: Summary of significant findings (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for summary of significant findings.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address summary of significant findings, 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: Critical reflection and evaluation (10 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for critical reflection and evaluation.
1-3Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address critical reflection and evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
4-5Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
6-8The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
9-10The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion E: References and compliance with format (3 marks)

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

Set a defensible rationale

State why the topic matters and show early evidence that the investigation has enough substance to support the final study.

Step 2

Keep the scope manageable

Define a research question that matches the plan and stays narrow enough to produce meaningful findings.

Step 3

Present the findings clearly

Select the strongest evidence, summarize it cleanly, and keep every finding tied back to the research question.

Step 4

Reflect critically on the process

Evaluate how the research methods, assumptions, and any inconsistencies shaped what you learned.

Submission Checklist

  • The rationale is clearly stated and well supported.
  • The research question is focused and matches the plan for the study.
  • Significant findings are directly connected to the investigation.
  • Reflection shows what the study deepened about religious experience or belief.

Quick Wins

  • Write the research question in a form that can be answered by evidence, not opinion.
  • Keep one note per criterion so you can see where each paragraph is earning marks.
  • Use the final reflection to explain how the research changed or refined your understanding.

Did You Know?

Turn Your World Religions Draft Into A Stronger Submission

Marksy gives independently written feedback highlighting missing links in the analysis. 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 DraftSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Draft