How many marks is the IB Digital Society IA worth?

The IB Digital Society inquiry project is marked out of 24. Criterion A is worth 3 marks, Criterion B is worth 6, Criterion C is worth 6, Criterion D is worth 6, and Criterion E is worth 3. The same criteria and maximum marks apply to SL and HL students. The component contributes 30% at SL and 20% at HL. Your raw IA mark is combined with your examination results, so it should not be interpreted as a standalone grade out of 7.

What is the difference between the inquiry process document and the presentation?

The inquiry process document establishes how you focused and researched the project. Criterion A assesses the inquiry focus, while Criterion B examines your treatment of three sources, their claims, and their perspectives. The presentation is where you communicate your own analysis, evaluation, conclusion, and discussion of future developments. Criteria C, D, and E are applied to the presentation rather than the written document. This division matters because strong work in one component cannot replace missing evidence in the other.

Does the Digital Society IA require primary research?

The inquiry is designed as a student-led investigation involving first-hand research, but the method should fit the question rather than follow a standard formula. Possible approaches include stakeholder interviews, observations, surveys, or analysis of direct interactions with a digital system. The IB does not impose a universal minimum survey sample size in the assessment criteria. Small or biased datasets should not be presented as representative of an entire population. Explain what your evidence can establish, acknowledge its limitations, and combine it with credible secondary research where appropriate.

Do I need exactly three sources for Criterion B?

Criterion B specifically assesses your discussion of claims and perspectives from three sources. Those three should therefore be selected carefully for relevance, usefulness, and contrasting perspectives. You may use additional evidence elsewhere in the project, especially in the presentation, but adding more sources to the Criterion B discussion does not automatically increase the mark. A useful source contributes evidence or a perspective that helps answer the inquiry question. Three thoroughly discussed sources are stronger than a long list of sources summarized superficially.

What is the difference between analysis and evaluation in Criterion C?

Analysis explains relationships, causes, mechanisms, and consequences. For example, it might show how a recommendation algorithm changes information visibility and therefore shifts power among users, creators, and the platform. Evaluation goes further by judging the significance, benefits, harms, or acceptability of that change. A sound evaluation weighs evidence, stakeholder perspectives, trade-offs, and uncertainty before reaching a judgment. High-level Criterion C work sustains both processes instead of leaving evaluation for one sentence at the end.

Can polished slides earn full marks for Criterion E?

Polished slides alone do not guarantee 3/3 for Criterion E. The criterion rewards organization and coherent media use that supports audience understanding. A simple graph that clarifies evidence can be more effective than elaborate animation that distracts from the argument. Visuals, audio, text, and transitions should work together rather than duplicate or compete with one another. Full marks require the presentation as a whole to be well organized, readable, audible, and consistently easy to follow.

Back to all posts

IB Digital Society IA Criteria Explained

IB Digital Society Internal Assessment IB IA

• 29 Sept 2026•12

IB Digital Society IA Criteria Explained

Join 650k+ students breezing through the IBReady to breeze through the IB?

IB Digital Society IA Criteria Explained | RevisionDojo

Back to all posts

IB Digital Society IA Criteria Explained

IB Digital Society Internal Assessment IB IA

• 29 Sept 2026•12

The IB Digital Society IA criteria assess five connected qualities: inquiry focus, treatment of sources and perspectives, analysis of impacts, insight in the conclusion, and multimedia communication. The inquiry project is marked out of 24, with Criteria A and B applied to the inquiry process document and Criteria C, D, and E applied to the recorded presentation.

The requirements are the same at SL and HL. According to the official IB Digital Society subject brief, the IA contributes 30% of the final grade at SL and 20% at HL. Understanding where each criterion is assessed helps you place the right evidence in the right component.

Digital Society IA mark scheme at a glance

The inquiry project investigates the impacts and implications of a real-world digital system for people and communities. It includes an inquiry process document, a recorded multimedia presentation, and a list of references.

Criterion	Assessed component	Maximum marks	Central question
A: Inquiry focus	Inquiry process document	3	Is the inquiry specific, relevant, and connected to the course?
B: Claims and perspectives	Inquiry process document	6	Are three sources and their perspectives critically discussed?
C: Analysis and evaluation	Presentation	6	Are impacts and implications evaluated using evidence?
D: Conclusion	Presentation	6	Does the conclusion offer insight and examine future developments?
E: Communication	Presentation	3	Are ideas, evidence, and media communicated coherently?

The inquiry process document must not exceed 1,500 words, and the presentation must not exceed 10 minutes. The IB recommends approximately 30 hours for the project, although schools set their own internal deadlines. RevisionDojo's IB Digital Society IA guide explains the full process, while the Digital Society assessment overview distinguishes the IA from the examinations.

Criterion A: Inquiry focus, 3 marks

Criterion A asks whether you have designed a focused inquiry rather than selected a broad technological topic. Your question must connect to a specific, relevant real-world example and appropriate Digital Society concepts, content, and contexts.

At 1 mark, the focus is incomplete or unclear. At 2 marks, the question and example are relevant, but their relationship to the course is only partly explained. For 3/3, the inquiry is targeted and the connections among the question, example, concepts, content, and contexts are thoroughly explained.

“Artificial intelligence in education” is too broad. A stronger inquiry might ask: “To what extent has the use of a named AI tutoring system affected access to personalized feedback for students in a defined school community?” This identifies a system, affected people, an impact, and a manageable context.

Simply naming a concept such as power is insufficient. Explain who gains decision-making power, who loses control, and how that tension shapes the investigation. The guide to choosing a focused Digital Society IA topic provides practical scope tests.

Criterion B: Claims and perspectives, 6 marks

Criterion B assesses how you discuss claims and perspectives from three sources and justify each source's usefulness. It is not a bibliography exercise or three separate summaries.

Work in the 1-2 band is mainly descriptive, incomplete, or unsupported. The 3-4 band requires discussion of all three sources and some justification of usefulness. To reach 5-6, discuss the claims and perspectives thoroughly and explain clearly how every source helps answer the inquiry question.

A claim is what a source argues or presents as true. A perspective is the standpoint shaping that claim, such as the position of a company, regulator, researcher, worker, parent, or user. Sources can interpret the same evidence differently because their interests, methods, and values differ.

For each source, establish:

its central claim and supporting evidence
the perspective, purpose, or interests behind the claim
what it contributes that the other sources do not
why it is useful for answering the precise question
any limitation affecting how confidently it can be used

Do not substitute a mechanical OPVL checklist for discussion. Origin and purpose matter when you explain how they influence the source's claims or usefulness. A corporate transparency report, for example, may contain valuable system data while presenting company decisions favorably.

Criterion C: Analysis and evaluation, 6 marks

Criterion C assesses your sustained, evidence-supported analysis and evaluation of the system's impacts and implications for people and communities. Work in the 1-2 band remains largely descriptive. The 3-4 band contains relevant analysis but does not develop or support it consistently, while 5-6 requires effective and sustained reasoning.

Description explains what a system does. Analysis explains how and why it produces an effect. Evaluation makes a supported judgment about that effect's importance, extent, desirability, or consequences.

Consider an algorithm that prioritizes social media posts. Description identifies its recommendation function. Analysis traces how engagement signals affect visibility and users' exposure to information. Evaluation weighs increased relevance against concerns involving manipulation, autonomy, polarization, or unequal visibility.

A strong reasoning chain should:

Make a precise claim about an impact.
Support it with research or first-hand evidence.
Explain the mechanism linking the system to the impact.
Compare consequences for different stakeholders.
Evaluate significance, trade-offs, uncertainty, and limitations.
Connect the judgment to the inquiry question.

First-hand research should be purposeful and ethical, but there is no universal IB requirement for a particular survey sample size. A relevant stakeholder interview may be more useful than a large convenience survey. Marks depend on how effectively the evidence supports analysis, not on collecting the greatest quantity of data.

Criterion D: Conclusion, 6 marks

Criterion D is not awarded for repeating the presentation. The conclusion must provide further insight arising from the analysis and discuss emerging trends and future developments connected to the inquiry.

A 1-2 response offers little insight and merely mentions or omits future developments. A 3-4 response provides adequate insight and partial discussion. For 5-6, the conclusion must offer effective, well-supported insight and thoroughly substantiate relevant trends and developments.

Further insight could be a qualified answer, an unexpected stakeholder difference, or recognition that a benefit depends on regulation, digital literacy, transparency, or access. Predictions must be grounded in documented technological changes, policies, investments, adoption patterns, or credible forecasts.

For example, a conclusion might find that an AI recruitment system improves processing speed but cannot yet be judged equitable because its training data and operation remain insufficiently transparent. It could then evaluate whether emerging audit requirements may change that judgment. RevisionDojo's Criterion D conclusion guidance explains the difference between insight and summary.

Criterion E: Communication, 3 marks

Criterion E evaluates organization and the coherent use of media. Production complexity does not earn marks by itself. At 1 mark, organization and media use are limited; at 2 marks, they support understanding inconsistently; and at 3/3, the presentation is well organized and media are used coherently.

Useful media may include a labelled interface screenshot, interview extract, data graph, or diagram showing how information moves through a system. Decorative stock images, crowded slides, lengthy quotations, and unnecessary effects rarely clarify reasoning.

Use narration and visuals as complementary channels. If you explain change over time, show a readable graph rather than duplicating the commentary in a paragraph. Clear signposting should guide the audience from the question through analysis to the conclusion. The Criterion E communication guide offers further presentation advice.

How marks are awarded

Markers apply each criterion only to the component named in the rubric. Strong source evaluation in the process document cannot compensate directly for descriptive analysis in the presentation. Similarly, sophisticated analysis does not guarantee Criterion E marks if communication is difficult to follow.

For criteria with mark bands, the marker selects the descriptor that best fits the work and then decides where within that band the evidence belongs. The highest qualities must be sustained enough to characterize the project as a whole.

Use this criterion-specific final check:

A: Are the exact system, people, example, and course connections clear?
B: Are three sources discussed for claims, perspectives, usefulness, and limitations?
C: Does the presentation analyse mechanisms and evaluate consequences rather than recount background?
D: Does the conclusion add insight and substantiate future developments?
E: Does each media choice make the reasoning easier to understand?

Annotated Digital Society IA examples can show why an attractive project may still remain in a middle mark band.

Common marking misconceptions

A broad global topic is not automatically sophisticated. Precision allows deeper analysis.
Three credible sources do not guarantee high Criterion B marks. Their claims, perspectives, and usefulness must be discussed.
More statistics do not automatically strengthen Criterion C. Evidence must be interpreted and connected to stakeholders.
A prediction is not an emerging trend. Future discussion requires evidence that a development is occurring.
Visual attractiveness is not coherent communication. Media must support audience understanding.
The IA mark is not an IB grade boundary. The mark out of 24 is combined with externally assessed components using the applicable session boundaries.

Conclusion

The IB Digital Society IA criteria reward a coherent inquiry rather than five isolated tasks. A focused question supports better source selection, stronger sources support deeper analysis, and sustained analysis produces a more insightful conclusion.

Use the official descriptors during planning and revision, not only after finishing. RevisionDojo's IA guide, coursework examples, and Coursework Review tools can help identify descriptive reasoning, incomplete evidence, and weak connections to the criteria before submission.

Sources and referenced URLs

Add as a preferred source on Google