Official IB Art History IA criteria

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below

Lists characteristics of the selected works of art or architecture. No knowledge and understanding of the specific art history contexts for the selected works is evident. There is some use, but poor understanding of art historical terms relating to form.

Some knowledge and understanding of at least one of these specific contexts of the selected works of art or architecture is evident: social, political, cultural, economic. Some knowledge and understanding of the place of the selected artworks or architecture within the historical development of art forms is evident. Art historical terms relating to form are used, and some understanding of these terms is evident.

A good level of knowledge and understanding of at least one of these specific contexts of the selected works of art or architecture is evident: social, political, cultural, economic. A good level of knowledge and understanding of the place of the selected artworks or architecture within the historical development of art forms is evident. Art historical terms relating to form are used well, and clear understanding of these terms is evident.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below

The research question/hypothesis is poorly developed. There is very little engagement with sources. There is superficial discussion of the impact of the context of the artworks or architecture on forms. The investigation/essay is descriptive rather than analytical.

The research question/hypothesis is achievable and has been developed with some reference to appropriate sources. The investigation/essay demonstrates some engagement with appropriate sources. There is some relevant discussion of the impact of the context of the artworks or architecture on forms. The investigation/essay is largely descriptive, but does contain some analytical elements.

A clear, achievable research question/hypothesis has been developed with reference to appropriate sources. The investigation/essay is informed and supported by the application of knowledge from well chosen, appropriate sources. There is good discussion of the impact of the context of the artworks or architecture on forms. The investigation/essay demonstrates visual analysis of the selected works of art or architecture.

A clear, achievable research question/hypothesis has been developed with reference to appropriate sources. The investigation/essay is informed and supported by the application and interpretation of knowledge from well chosen, appropriate sources. There is excellent discussion of the impact of the context of the artworks or architecture on forms. The investigation/essay demonstrates excellent visual analysis of the selected works of art or architecture.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Similarities and, where appropriate, the differences between at least two works of art or architecture are mentioned. There is little appraisal of the research findings and no relevant connections made to the sources used. Any conclusions reached lack interpretive qualities and are descriptive in nature.

Some account is given of the similarities and, where appropriate, of the differences between at least two works of art or architecture. There is some appraisal of the research findings or the sources used. Conclusions demonstrate some interpretive qualities but are descriptive in parts.

An account is given of the similarities and, where appropriate, of the differences between at least two works of art or architecture, referring to both (all) works throughout. Research findings and sources used are appraised. Conclusions demonstrate some interpretive qualities and some analysis is evident.

A good account is given of the similarities and, where appropriate, of the differences between at least two works of art or architecture, referring to both (all) works throughout. Research findings and sources used are appraised, with strengths and limitations addressed clearly. Valid conclusions are independently interpreted and the product of analysis.

An excellent account is given of the similarities and, where appropriate, of the differences between at least two works of art or architecture, referring to both (all) works throughout. Research findings and sources used are thoughtfully and clearly appraised, with strengths and limitations addressed clearly. Valid conclusions are independently interpreted and the product of excellent analysis.

The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

The scope of the investigation is not clear. Research lacks a systematic approach. Presentation is disorganized and some elements (images, list of illustrations, citations, bibliography) are absent. Sources are not evident, or poorly selected.

The scope of the investigation is difficult to achieve within the parameters of the task. There is evidence of some systematic research. All elements (images, list of illustrations, citations, bibliography) of the investigation/essay are present, but some disorganization is evident. Sources are evident, but these number less than five and some are poorly selected. An attempt is made to compare at least two works of art or architecture.

The scope of the investigation is suitable for the parameters of the task, but has not been entirely achieved. The research is systematic. All elements (images, list of illustrations, citations, bibliography) of the investigation/essay are present, but quality is lacking in some areas. Sources are evident, including three initial and two subsequent sources, but quality is lacking in of some of the sources. At least two works of art or architecture are compared.

The scope of the investigation is suitable for the parameters of the task and has been achieved. The research is systematic and of good quality. All elements (images, list of illustrations, citations, bibliography) of the investigation/essay are present, integrated, and of good quality. Sources are evident, including three initial and two subsequent sources, and these are well selected. The comparison of at least two works of art or architecture is good.

The scope of the investigation is suitable for the parameters of the task and has been achieved in an exemplary manner. The research is systematic and excellent. All elements (images, list of illustrations, citations, bibliography) of the investigation/essay are present, integrated and of excellent quality. Sources are evident, including three initial and two subsequent sources, and these are well selected. The comparison of at least two works of art or architecture is excellent.