The evaluation section is one of the most misunderstood parts of an IB Internal Assessment. Many students assume that simply acknowledging limitations or stating what went wrong is enough to score well. In reality, this is exactly why so many IA evaluations are weak and lose marks.
One major issue is that evaluations are often generic. Students list common limitations such as small sample size, human error, or limited time without explaining how these issues actually affected their results. IB examiners do not award marks for naming problems alone. They reward explanation, relevance, and impact. If your evaluation could apply to almost any IA, it is probably too weak.
Another common problem is that evaluation is disconnected from the investigation itself. Strong evaluation must be rooted in what actually happened in your IA. Examiners expect you to refer back to your method, data, and findings. When evaluation reads like an afterthought rather than a continuation of the investigation, it signals weak academic control.
Many students also misunderstand what “critical evaluation” means. Being critical does not mean being negative or self-destructive. Some students believe pointing out as many flaws as possible shows honesty, but this often backfires. Overly harsh or exaggerated criticism can make the investigation seem poorly designed and limit the marks examiners are willing to award.
Another reason evaluations are weak is that improvements are vague. Statements like “use more trials next time” or “control variables better” do not demonstrate high-level thinking. IB examiners want to see how improvements would be implemented and why they would increase reliability or validity. Specific, realistic improvements are far more valuable than general suggestions.
Time pressure also plays a role. Many students rush the evaluation after spending most of their energy on earlier sections. This leads to shallow analysis, repetition, or bullet-point lists rather than well-developed explanation. Unfortunately, evaluation carries significant weight in the criteria, so a rushed section can cap the overall score.
Finally, some students confuse evaluation with conclusion. Evaluation is not about summarising results or restating findings. It is about reflecting on the quality of the investigation and the strength of the evidence. Mixing these purposes weakens both sections.
The RevisionDojo Coursework Guide explains how examiners judge evaluation and what distinguishes basic reflection from high-scoring critical thinking. When students treat evaluation as an analytical skill rather than a checklist, their IA marks improve dramatically.
👉 https://www.revisiondojo.com/coursework-guide
