Many IB students are told to write a “balanced evaluation” in their Internal Assessment. While this advice sounds sensible, it often leads to weaker evaluation and lower marks. The problem is not balance itself, but how students interpret it when writing their IA.
A common misunderstanding is that balanced evaluation means listing an equal number of strengths and weaknesses. Students often force positives and negatives into their evaluation even when they are not equally relevant. This results in vague praise and generic criticism that lacks depth. IB examiners do not reward symmetry—they reward insight.
Another issue is that students use “balance” as a way to avoid analysis. Instead of fully explaining the most significant limitations, they briefly mention several minor issues to appear fair. This dilutes the evaluation. Examiners would rather see a few important limitations explored in detail than a long list of shallow points.
Many evaluations also weaken because students overstate strengths to compensate for weaknesses. Statements like “the method was mostly effective” or “results were generally reliable” without evidence do not demonstrate critical thinking. Examiners expect evaluation to be justified using what actually happened in the investigation, not general reassurance.
Balanced evaluation can also lead to contradiction. Some students highlight serious flaws and then immediately dismiss them by claiming they had little impact. This confuses examiners and undermines academic control. If a limitation is worth mentioning, its impact should be clearly explained—not minimised to maintain “balance.”
Another way balance lowers marks is through cautious language. Students hedge their evaluation with phrases like “to some extent” or “partially affected,” without explaining what that extent actually is. This vagueness makes it difficult for examiners to award higher-level marks, which depend on clarity and precision.
IB evaluation is not about being neutral or fair-minded in a general sense. It is about accurately judging the quality of your investigation. That means prioritising the most significant issues, explaining their impact, and proposing meaningful improvements. Sometimes this results in evaluation that focuses more heavily on weaknesses—and that is perfectly acceptable.
High-scoring IAs often have evaluation that feels confident and selective. Students choose the most important points and analyse them thoroughly rather than trying to cover everything. This shows academic judgment, which is a key feature of the top markbands.
The RevisionDojo Coursework Guide explains why examiner-focused evaluation is about depth, not balance, and how students can write evaluation that demonstrates real critical thinking. When students stop aiming for “balance” and start aiming for relevance and impact, their IA scores improve.
