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.

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: Rationale and preliminary research (8 marks)

Examiner Focus

The rationale and focus for the investigative study, and whether an appropriate range of sources and supporting evidence have been used.

Top-Band Move

The investigative study has been thoroughly researched using a wide range of sources, and excellent supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated and well developed.

Common Penalty

The rationale is stated with little evidence of research, or there is limited research but no rationale.

Criterion B: Plan for study (3 marks)

Examiner Focus

The scope and a plan for the investigative study, the focus of the research question and the relationship between the research question and the scope and plan.

Top-Band Move

The scope and plan for the study are appropriate and focused. The research question is clearly focused and closely related to the scope and plan.

Common Penalty

The scope and/or plan for the study are stated but not clearly focused. There is no research question.

Criterion C: Summary of significant findings (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The significant findings from the investigation, the relationship between the research findings and the research question, and whether the rationale and plan of study relate to the significant findings.

Top-Band Move

Significant findings are clearly stated and well developed, and the relationship between the research question, rationale and plan for the study is fully demonstrated.

Common Penalty

There is little indication of significant findings, and these are not related to the research question, rationale and plan for the study.

Criterion D: Critical reflection and evaluation (10 marks)

Examiner Focus

The quality and analysis of the significant findings in relation to the research question and how the investigative study has deepened understanding of religious experience and/or beliefs.

Top-Band Move

Critical reflection is detailed and very well developed, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an excellent understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are developed and evaluated. There is a thorough evaluation of the research methods used and recognition of any underlying assumptions and/or bias. Conclusions and future research possibilities are considered.

Common Penalty

Critical reflection is very limited, with no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There may be some recognition of one or more misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings, or limited but underdeveloped reference to research methods used.

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

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student meets the three formal requirements of writing, organizing and presenting the written analysis.

Top-Band Move

The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets the two other formal requirements.

Common Penalty

The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit.

Markbands

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

Criterion A: Rationale and preliminary research (8 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The rationale is stated with little evidence of research, or there is limited research but no rationale.

Points 3-4

The study has been researched, and some supporting evidence has been produced, though this may not be relevant. The rationale is stated.

Points 5-6

The study has been well researched using a range of sources, and supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated, with evidence of some development.

Points 7-8

The investigative study has been thoroughly researched using a wide range of sources, and excellent supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated and well developed.

Criterion B: Plan for study (3 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1

The scope and/or plan for the study are stated but not clearly focused. There is no research question.

Points 2

The scope and plan for the study are generally appropriate and focused. The research question is stated and is related to the scope and plan.

Points 3

The scope and plan for the study are appropriate and focused. The research question is clearly focused and closely related to the scope and plan.

Criterion C: Summary of significant findings (6 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

There is little indication of significant findings, and these are not related to the research question, rationale and plan for the study.

Points 3-4

Significant findings are stated and are related to one or more aspects of the research question, rationale and plan for the study.

Points 5-6

Significant findings are clearly stated and well developed, and the relationship between the research question, rationale and plan for the study is fully demonstrated.

Criterion D: Critical reflection and evaluation (10 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

Critical reflection is very limited, with no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There may be some recognition of one or more misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings, or limited but underdeveloped reference to research methods used.

Points 3-4

There is an attempt at some critical reflection, with little or no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There is a basic recognition of some misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings. There is some limited reference to research methods used.

Points 5-6

There is evidence of sound critical reflection, demonstrating some understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an understanding of how far the research question informed most, if not all, of the significant findings. There is some recognition of any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings. There is some discussion of research methods chosen.

Points 7-8

Critical reflection is sound and well developed, demonstrating an understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is a good understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are identified. There is an evaluation of the research methods used. Conclusions and future possibilities may be outlined.

Points 9-10

Critical reflection is detailed and very well developed, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an excellent understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are developed and evaluated. There is a thorough evaluation of the research methods used and recognition of any underlying assumptions and/or bias. Conclusions and future research possibilities are considered.

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

Points 0

The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1

The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit.

Points 2

The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets one of the other formal requirements.

Points 3

The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets the two other formal requirements.

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 grades your World Religions written analysis against the rubric, highlights missing links between criteria, and shows what to improve before submission. 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.

Grade My DraftSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaMarkbandsBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Draft