• Design Technology (First Exam 2027)
• Digital Society (DS)
• Economics
• English A Lang & Lit
• English A Lit
• English B
• Environmental systems and societies (ESS)
• French A
• French ab initio
• French B

• Geography
• German A
• German ab initio
• German B
• Global Politics
• History
• Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA)
• Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI)
• Philosophy
• Physics

• Psychology
• Psychology (First Exam 2027)
• Spanish A
• Spanish ab initio
• Spanish B
• Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS)
• Theory of Knowledge (TOK)

Common Mistakes:

• Vague or overly broad research questions.
• Insufficient explanation of the geographic context.
• Missing or poorly constructed location maps.

Evidence to Show:

• A well-defined research question.
• Comprehensive explanation of the geographic context.
• Detailed and accurate location map.

Criterion B: Method(s) of Investigation (3 marks)

What it tests: Appropriateness and justification of your data collection methods.

Performance Levels:

• High (3 marks): Methods are clearly described and well-justified, directly addressing the research question.
• Medium (2 marks): Methods are described and justified but may lack detail or relevance.
• Low (1 mark): Methods are poorly described or lack justification.

Common Mistakes:

• Insufficient detail in method descriptions.
• Lack of justification for chosen methods.
• Methods not aligned with the research question.

Evidence to Show:

• Detailed description of data collection methods.
• Clear justification for each method.
• Alignment of methods with the research question.

Criterion C: Quality and Treatment of Information Collected (5 marks)

What it tests: Relevance, quantity, and quality of data collected, and effectiveness of data presentation.

Performance Levels:

• High (5 marks): Data is directly relevant, sufficient, and well-presented using appropriate techniques.
• Medium (3-4 marks): Data is relevant and sufficient but may lack quality or effective presentation.
• Low (1-2 marks): Data is irrelevant, insufficient, or poorly presented.

Common Mistakes:

• Collecting insufficient or irrelevant data.
• Poor data presentation techniques.
• Lack of variety in data presentation methods.

Evidence to Show:

• Comprehensive and relevant data collection.
• Effective use of graphs, charts, and maps.
• Clear labeling and referencing of data presentations.

Criterion D: Written Analysis (10 marks)

What it tests: Depth and clarity of analysis, including identification of patterns, trends, and anomalies.

Performance Levels:

• High (9-10 marks): In-depth analysis with clear identification and explanation of patterns, trends, and anomalies.
• Medium (5-8 marks): Adequate analysis with some identification of patterns and trends.
• Low (1-4 marks): Superficial analysis with little to no identification of patterns or trends.

Common Mistakes:

• Descriptive rather than analytical writing.
• Failure to identify or explain anomalies.
• Lack of connection between data and geographic theory.

Evidence to Show:

• Detailed analysis of data.
• Identification and explanation of patterns and anomalies.
• Linking analysis to geographic concepts.

Criterion E: Conclusion (2 marks)

What it tests: Ability to summarize findings and relate them to the research question.

Performance Levels:

• High (2 marks): Clear and concise conclusion directly addressing the research question.
• Low (1 mark): Conclusion is vague or does not fully address the research question.

Common Mistakes:

• Restating analysis without summarizing findings.
• Failure to directly address the research question.

Evidence to Show:

• Concise summary of findings.
• Direct relation to the research question.

Criterion F: Evaluation (3 marks)

What it tests: Reflection on the strengths and limitations of the investigation.

Performance Levels:

• High (3 marks): Comprehensive evaluation with clear identification of strengths, limitations, and suggestions for improvement.
• Medium (2 marks): Adequate evaluation with some identification of strengths and limitations.
• Low (1 mark): Superficial evaluation with little reflection on the investigation.

Common Mistakes:

• Lack of critical reflection.
• Failure to suggest improvements.
• Overlooking limitations of the study.

Evidence to Show:

• Identification of strengths and limitations.
• Suggestions for improvement.
• Reflection on the overall investigation process.

Criterion G: Formal Requirements (4 marks)

What it tests: Adherence to IB guidelines, including word count, structure, and referencing.

Performance Levels:

• High (4 marks): Report meets all formal requirements with no errors.
• Medium (2-3 marks): Report meets most formal requirements with minor errors.
• Low (1 mark): Report fails to meet several formal requirements.

Common Mistakes:

• Exceeding word count.
• Improper formatting.
• Inconsistent or missing references.

Evidence to Show:

• Adherence to word count.
• Proper formatting and structure.
• Consistent and accurate referencing.

How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool

The embedded grader provides a score for each criterion, which can be interpreted as follows:

• High Band: Excellent performance; minimal improvements needed.
• Medium Band: Good performance; some areas for improvement.
• Low Band: Needs significant improvement.

If you're between bands or uncertain, focus on the specific feedback provided for each criterion to guide your revisions.

Improvement Actions:

• Criterion A: Refine your research question for clarity and focus.
• Criterion B: Provide detailed descriptions and justifications for your methods.
• Criterion C: Ensure data is relevant and presented effectively.
• Criterion D: Deepen your analysis