| Criterion and marks | What the criterion rewards |
|---|---|
| A: 4 marks | A strong response clearly explains the political issue and why it matters, then justifies why the chosen engagement activities are suitable for investigating it. |
| B: 3 marks | A strong response shows a purposeful process in which research and engagement inform one another. Planning, preparation and sensible adjustments should be evident rather than presented as disconnected tasks. |
| C: 8 marks |
| A strong response uses evidence from research and engagement together to analyse the issue in context. It applies relevant political concepts, compares perspectives, identifies relationships and reaches qualified judgments. |
| D: 6 marks | A strong response evaluates the evidence, the engagement process and the student’s own position. Reflection should explain how the inquiry changed, complicated or limited the student’s understanding of the issue. |
| E: 3 marks | A strong response communicates a coherent political argument. Ideas should be logically organised, evidence and engagement insights should be easy to trace, and all sources should be cited accurately. |
| F: 6 marks, HL only | A strong response proposes a focused recommendation for a named actor. The recommendation should follow from the analysis, suit the political context and address feasibility, possible consequences and limitations. |
| Current requirement | Details |
|---|---|
| Report | SL: Maximum 2,000 words; HL: Maximum 2,000 words |
| Recommendation | SL: Not assessed; HL: Separate maximum 400 words |
| Criteria | SL: A to E, 24 marks; HL: A to F, 30 marks |
| Internal assessment weighting | SL: 30%; HL: 20% |
| Expected teaching time | SL: About 25 hours; HL: About 35 hours |
| Level | Details |
|---|---|
| SL | Duration: 25 hours; Report: 2,000 words maximum; Maximum marks: 24; Weighting: 30% |
| HL | Duration: 35 hours; Report: 2,000 words plus a separate recommendation of 400 words maximum; Maximum marks: 30; Weighting: 20% |
| Non-negotiable | Details |
|---|---|
| Individual authorship | What the student must do: Write an individual report and generate individual primary evidence even if some preparation is collaborative; Failure prevented: Inauthentic or duplicated submission |
| Accurate evidence | What the student must do: Never invent or alter interviews, quotations, observations, citations or data; Failure prevented: Falsification and academic misconduct |
| References | What the student must do: Cite published material and make the basis of engagement claims clear; Failure prevented: Unsupported or untraceable claims |
| Word-count discipline | What the student must do: Keep definitions and quotations in the body within the applicable limit; use notes for references, not hidden analysis; Failure prevented: Examiners disregarding excess material |
| Appendices | What the student must do: Use appendices for transparency; keep essential argument and analysis in the report; Failure prevented: Marks depending on optional supporting material |
| Ethical practice | What the student must do: Use informed consent, proportionate anonymity, secure storage and deletion of online research data when complete; Failure prevented: Harm to participants or an unethical project |
| Assessment separation | What the student must do: Do not submit the same work for the engagement project and extended essay; keep any CAS activity clearly distinct; Failure prevented: Double use of assessed work |