Official IB Brazilian Social Studies IA criteria

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

The research question is established, but it does not relate coherently to the area of knowledge and the topic being investigated. The research method and scope are established, but they do not relate coherently to the area of knowledge and the topic being investigated.

The research question is clearly established and relates coherently to the area of knowledge and the topic being investigated. The research method and scope are clearly established and relate coherently to the area of knowledge and investigation.

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

The information identified relates superficially to the research question. The selected information is lacking in quantity and quality in relation to the scope of the investigation. Evaluation of sources or data is elementary; the strengths and limitations of sources or data are superficially assessed.

The information identified relates to the research question but is inconsistent. The quantity of selected information is sufficient in relation to the scope of the investigation but its quality is inconsistent. There is some justification of sources or data; either the strengths or limitations of sources or data is assessed well, but not both.

The information identified relates clearly to the research question. The quantity and quality of selected information is appropriate for the scope of the investigation. There is thorough justification of sources or data; the strengths and limitations of sources or data are fully assessed.

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

The investigation lacks organization. Analysis of sources or data is ineffective and not focused on the research question. Little understanding of relevant concepts and methodology is evident, and terminology specific to the area of study is seldom used. The range of sources or data is insufficient to support an argument. Different perspectives are not evaluated.

The investigation is organized but lacks clarity and coherence. Critical analysis of sources or data is limited, and focus on the research question is inconsistent. There is some understanding of relevant concepts and methodology, and terminology specific to the area of study is inconsistently used. A limited range of sources or data is used to support an inconsistent argument. Different perspectives are ineffectively evaluated.

The investigation is organized. Critical analysis of sources or data is evident, and this is focused on the research question. An understanding of relevant concepts and methodology is evident, and terminology specific to the area of study is used. Evidence from sources or data is used to support an argument. Different perspectives are evaluated.

The investigation is clearly and coherently organized. Critical analysis of sources or data is thorough and effective, and this is focused clearly on the research question. A very good understanding of relevant concepts and methodology is evident and the use of terminology specific to the area of study is accurate. Evidence from an appropriate range of sources or data is used effectively to support a coherent argument. Different perspectives are thoroughly evaluated.

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

The conclusion responds superficially to the research question and presents inconsistent arguments developed in the body of the work. The conclusion is descriptive and superficially reflects on the limits of the investigation. The conclusion does not include reflection on the challenges facing the historian or geographer or limitations of the methods used by the historian or geographer.

The conclusion responds to the research question and includes some synthesis of the argument developed in the body of the work. The conclusion demonstrates some critical thinking and partially reflects on the limits of the investigation. The conclusion includes some reflection on the challenges facing the historian or geographer and/or limitations of the methods used by the historian or geographer.

The conclusion clearly responds to the research question and synthesizes clear, coherent arguments developed in the body of the work. The conclusion demonstrates critical thinking and clearly includes reflection on the limits of the investigation. The conclusion reflects thoroughly on the challenges facing the historian or geographer and/or limitations of the methods used by the historian or geographer.