World Religions IA Grader
This page is designed to help you understand the assessment criteria for the IB World Religions Internal Assessment (IA) and guide you in evaluating your work. By breaking down the rubric and providing clear explanations, you'll be better equipped to assess your IA effectively.
Quick Start Checklist
Before you begin self-assessing your IA, ensure you have the following:
- Final Draft of Your IA: A complete version of your Internal Assessment.
- Research Question: Clearly stated and focused.
- Preliminary Research Notes: Documentation of your initial research and rationale.
- Study Plan: Outline of your research methodology and scope.
- Summary of Findings: Key results and insights from your investigation.
- Critical Reflection: Evaluation of your findings and research process.
- References: A comprehensive list of sources cited in your IA.
- Word Count Verification: Ensure your IA is within the 1,500–1,800 word limit.
Rubric Breakdown (Paraphrased & Plain English)
The IB World Religions IA is assessed using five criteria, totaling 30 marks. Below is a breakdown of each criterion, what it assesses, and how to achieve high marks.
Criterion A: Rationale and Preliminary Research (8 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to articulate a clear rationale for your study and demonstrate thorough preliminary research.
High Performance: A well-developed rationale supported by extensive research from a wide range of sources.
Common Mistakes: Superficial rationale, limited research, or reliance on a narrow range of sources.
| Mark Band | What It Means | Evidence You Must Show |
|---|---|---|
| 7–8 | Thorough research using a wide range of sources; well-developed rationale. | Extensive preliminary research; clear and detailed rationale. |
| 5–6 | Well-researched with a range of sources; clear rationale. | Adequate preliminary research; clear rationale. |
| 3–4 | Some research with supporting evidence; stated rationale. | Basic preliminary research; stated rationale. |
| 1–2 | Limited research or rationale. | Minimal preliminary research; unclear or missing rationale. |
| 0 | Does not meet the standard described by the descriptors. | No evidence of research or rationale. |
Criterion B: Plan for Study (3 marks)
What It Tests: The appropriateness and focus of your study plan and research question.
High Performance: A clear, focused plan with a well-defined research question closely related to the study's scope.
Common Mistakes: Vague or unfocused plan; research question not clearly stated or unrelated to the study's scope.
| Mark Band | What It Means | Evidence You Must Show |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Appropriate and focused plan; clearly focused research question. | Detailed study plan; well-defined research question. |
| 2 | Generally appropriate plan; stated research question related to the plan. | General study plan; research question related to the plan. |
| 1 | Stated scope and/or plan; no research question. | Basic study plan; missing research question. |
| 0 | Does not meet the standard described by the descriptors. | No evidence of a plan or research question. |
Criterion C: Summary of Significant Findings (6 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to summarize significant findings and relate them to your research question, rationale, and plan.
High Performance: Clearly stated and well-developed significant findings fully demonstrating the relationship between the research question, rationale, and plan.
Common Mistakes: Findings not clearly stated; weak connection to research question, rationale, or plan.
| Mark Band | What It Means | Evidence You Must Show |
|---|---|---|
| 5–6 | Clearly stated and well-developed findings; full demonstration of relationships. | Detailed summary of findings; strong connections to research question, rationale, and plan. |
| 3–4 | Stated findings related to one or more aspects of the research question, rationale, and plan. | General summary of findings; some connections to research question, rationale, and plan. |
| 1–2 | Little indication of significant findings; not related to research question, rationale, and plan. | Minimal summary of findings; weak or no connections to research question, rationale, and plan. |
| 0 | Does not meet the standard described by the descriptors. | No evidence of significant findings. |
Criterion D: Critical Reflection and Evaluation (10 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to critically reflect on your findings, demonstrate understanding of religious experience or belief, and evaluate your research methods.
High Performance: Detailed and well-developed critical reflection showing sophisticated understanding and thorough evaluation of research methods.
Common Mistakes: Limited reflection; lack of linkage between research question and findings; inadequate evaluation of research methods.
| Mark Band | What It Means | Evidence You Must Show |
|---|---|---|
| 9–10 | Detailed and well-developed reflection; sophisticated understanding; thorough evaluation. | Comprehensive critical reflection; deep understanding of religious experience or belief; thorough evaluation of research methods. |
| 7–8 | Sound and well-developed reflection; good understanding; evaluation of methods. | Strong critical reflection; good understanding of religious experience or belief; evaluation of research methods. |
| 5–6 | Sound reflection; some understanding; discussion of methods. | Adequate critical reflection; some understanding of religious experience or belief; discussion of research methods. |
| 3–4 | Attempt at reflection; basic recognition of misconceptions; limited reference to methods. | Basic critical reflection; limited understanding of religious experience or belief; minimal discussion of research methods. |
| 1–2 | Very limited reflection; no linkage between research question and findings; limited reference to methods. | Minimal critical reflection; little understanding of religious experience or belief; inadequate discussion of research methods. |
| 0 | Does not meet the standard described by the descriptors. | No evidence of critical reflection. |
Criterion E: References and Compliance with Format (3 marks)
What It Tests: Your adherence to formal requirements, including word limit, referencing, and format.
High Performance: Compliance with word limit; consistent referencing; correct format.
Common Mistakes: Exceeding word limit; inconsistent or incorrect referencing; improper format.
| Mark Band | What It Means | Evidence You Must Show |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Within word limit; meets all formal requirements. | IA is 1,500–1,800 words; consistent referencing; correct format. |
| 2 | Within word limit; meets one other formal requirement. | IA is 1,500–1,800 words; meets one of referencing or format requirements. |
| 1 | Within word limit. | IA is 1,500–1,800 words. |
| 0 | Does not meet the standard described by the descriptors. | IA exceeds word limit; does not meet formal requirements. |
How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool
The embedded grader provides a score for each criterion, which you can sum to determine your total IA score out of 30. Here's how to interpret your results:
- Total Score 27–30: Excellent performance; your IA meets the highest standards.
- Total Score 21–26: Good performance; your IA is strong but may have minor areas for improvement.
- Total Score 15–20: Satisfactory performance; your IA meets basic requirements but has notable areas for improvement.
- Total Score 9–14: Mediocre performance; your IA has significant weaknesses that need addressing.
- Total Score 0–8: Poor performance; your IA does not meet the required standards.
**If You're Between Bands