Philosophy IA Grader
This page is designed to help you understand the assessment criteria for the IB Philosophy Internal Assessment (IA) and guide you in interpreting your grades. An embedded grader is available to assist you in self-evaluating your work efficiently.
Quick Start Checklist
Before you begin, ensure you have the following:
- Chosen Stimulus: A non-philosophical piece (e.g., novel excerpt, song lyrics, painting, film scene) for analysis.
- Word Count: Your analysis should be between 1,800 and 2,000 words.
- Citations: Properly referenced sources for both the stimulus and philosophical content.
- Outline: A structured plan addressing each assessment criterion.
- Drafts: Initial versions of your analysis for revision.
- Feedback: Comments from peers or instructors for improvement.
Rubric Breakdown (Paraphrased & Plain English)
The Philosophy IA is assessed using five criteria, totaling 25 marks:
Criterion A: Identification of Issue and Justification (3 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to clearly identify a philosophical issue within your chosen stimulus and justify its relevance.
Performance Levels:
- High (3 marks): Clearly identifies a significant philosophical issue and provides a strong justification linking it to the stimulus.
- Medium (2 marks): Identifies a philosophical issue with adequate justification.
- Low (1 mark): Identifies an issue with weak or unclear justification.
- Very Low (0 marks): Fails to identify a relevant philosophical issue.
Common Mistakes:
- Choosing a stimulus without clear philosophical implications.
- Providing superficial justifications.
Evidence to Show:
- Explicit identification of the philosophical issue.
- Clear explanation of how the stimulus raises this issue.
Criterion B: Clarity (4 marks)
What It Tests: The organization, focus, and coherence of your analysis.
Performance Levels:
- High (4 marks): Well-structured, focused, and coherent analysis.
- Medium (2–3 marks): Generally clear but may have minor organizational issues.
- Low (1 mark): Lacks clarity and organization.
- Very Low (0 marks): Disorganized and difficult to follow.
Common Mistakes:
- Lack of clear structure.
- Repetitive or unfocused content.
Evidence to Show:
- Logical flow of ideas.
- Clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
Criterion C: Knowledge and Understanding (4 marks)
What It Tests: Your grasp of relevant philosophical concepts and theories.
Performance Levels:
- High (4 marks): Demonstrates thorough understanding with accurate use of philosophical terminology.
- Medium (2–3 marks): Shows understanding but with minor inaccuracies.
- Low (1 mark): Limited understanding with significant inaccuracies.
- Very Low (0 marks): Fails to demonstrate understanding.
Common Mistakes:
- Misinterpreting philosophical concepts.
- Inaccurate use of terminology.
Evidence to Show:
- Accurate explanations of philosophical ideas.
- Correct application of terminology.
Criterion D: Analysis (8 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to critically examine the philosophical issue.
Performance Levels:
- High (7–8 marks): Provides in-depth analysis with well-chosen examples and consideration of counterarguments.
- Medium (4–6 marks): Offers analysis with some depth; examples and counterarguments may be less effective.
- Low (1–3 marks): Superficial analysis with limited examples and counterarguments.
- Very Low (0 marks): Lacks analytical depth.
Common Mistakes:
- Overly descriptive without critical examination.
- Ignoring counterarguments.
Evidence to Show:
- Critical discussion of the issue.
- Inclusion of relevant examples and counterarguments.
Criterion E: Evaluation (6 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to assess different viewpoints and justify your position.
Performance Levels:
- High (5–6 marks): Thorough evaluation of perspectives with well-justified conclusions.
- Medium (3–4 marks): Evaluates perspectives with some justification.
- Low (1–2 marks): Limited evaluation with weak justification.
- Very Low (0 marks): Fails to evaluate perspectives.
Common Mistakes:
- Presenting opinions without justification.
- Neglecting alternative viewpoints.
Evidence to Show:
- Assessment of different perspectives.
- Justified conclusions.
How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool
The embedded grader provides a score for each criterion, which maps to performance bands:
- Excellent: Top marks in the criterion.
- Good: Above-average performance.
- Satisfactory: Meets basic requirements.
- Needs Improvement: Below expectations.
If you're between bands or uncertain:
- Review Feedback: Focus on areas highlighted for improvement.
- Seek Clarification: Consult your instructor for guidance.
Improvement Actions:
- Criterion A: Ensure a clear link between the stimulus and the philosophical issue.
- Criterion B: Organize your analysis logically.
- Criterion C: Deepen your understanding of relevant concepts.
- Criterion D: Engage critically with the issue, considering multiple perspectives.
- Criterion E: Justify your evaluations with strong reasoning.
Annotated Examples
High-Band Excerpt:
"In examining the painting 'The Persistence of Memory' by Salvador Dalí, we encounter a profound exploration of time's fluidity. This aligns with Henri Bergson's concept of durée, emphasizing time as a continuous flow rather than discrete moments."
Why It Scores High:
- Clearly identifies the philosophical issue (nature of time).
- Links the stimulus to a relevant philosophical concept.
- Demonstrates deep understanding and analysis.
Mid/Low-Band Excerpt:
"Dalí's painting shows melting clocks, which might mean time is passing."
What's Missing:
- Lacks clear identification of a philosophical issue.
- Superficial analysis without depth.
- No connection to philosophical concepts or theories.
Grade Boundaries & Converting Your Mark
Grade boundaries can vary by session. It's essential to verify the latest figures with your instructor or official IB resources. The IA contributes 25% to your final Philosophy grade.
Common Mistakes & Fast Fixes
- Mistake: Choosing an inappropriate stimulus.
- Fix: Select a stimulus with clear philosophical implications.
- Mistake: Superficial analysis.
- Fix: Engage deeply with the issue, considering various perspectives.
- Mistake: Poor organization.
- Fix: Create a clear outline before writing.
Subject-Specific Tips
- Engage with Primary Texts: Reference original philosophical works to support your analysis.
- Use Precise Terminology: Employ accurate philosophical language throughout your essay.
- Critically Evaluate Sources: Assess the reliability and relevance of your references.
FAQs
Q: Can I analyze a song as my stimulus?
Yes, song lyrics are acceptable stimuli for the Philosophy IA.
**Q
