Official IB Environmental Systems and Societies IA criteria
Read the official IB Environmental Systems and Societies Internal Assessment criteria with markbands, guiding questions, and notes. Use the selectors to switch subject, level, or component; the optional AI grading prompt stays at the bottom for self-review.
Step 1 — what are you working on?
Step 2 — narrow it down
Group
Subject
Level
Official criteria
Environmental Systems and Societies · All · Investigation
6 criteriaTotal 30 marks
Criterion A: Research question and inquiry
4 marks
0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The report:
describes a local or global environmental topic or issue but with errors or omissions showing a limited understanding
states a research question but there is a lack of focus or it is not linked to the chosen environmental topic or issue.
3–4
The report:
explains a local or global environmental topic or issue with sufficient background research to support the research question
states a focused research question that addresses the chosen environmental topic or issue.
Criterion B: Strategy
4 marks
0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The report:
states an existing or developing strategy that addresses an environmental issue linked to the research question
describes a tension between different perspectives (economic, social, cultural, political or environmental) that results from the strategy
3–4
The report:
describes an existing or developing strategy that addresses an environmental issue linked to the research question
explains a tension between different perspectives (economic, social, cultural, political or environmental) that results from the strategy
Criterion C: Method
4 marks
0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The report describes a method that is not repeatable.
The method does not allow for sufficient data to be collected to address the research question.
3–4
The report describes a repeatable method.
The method does allow for the collection of sufficient data to answer the research question.
Criterion D: Treatment of data
6 marks
0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The communication of raw and processed data is not clear.
The techniques used to process the raw data lead to findings that do not address the research question.
The raw data is processed with major errors.
3–4
The communication of raw and processed data is clear.
The techniques used to process the raw data lead to findings that do not fully address the research question.
The raw data is processed with some minor errors.
5–6
The communication of raw and processed data is clear and detailed.
The techniques used to process the raw data lead to findings that fully address the research question.
The raw data is processed correctly.
Criterion E: Analysis and conclusion
6 marks
0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The analysis identifies patterns or trends within the data that are relevant to the research question.
The conclusion either does not address the research question or is not supported by the analysis presented.
3–4
The analysis describes patterns or trends within the data that are relevant to the research question, including (some) measures of bias, reliability, validity and uncertainty.
The conclusion addresses the research question and is partially supported by the analysis presented.
5–6
The analysis explains all the patterns and trends within the data that are relevant to the research question, including measures of bias, reliability, validity and uncertainty.
The conclusion addresses the research question and is supported by the analysis presented.
Criterion F: Evaluation
6 marks
0
The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2
The evaluation:
states generic methodological limitations or weaknesses that impact the conclusion
states improvements to the method that address the identified limitations or weaknesses
states generic unresolved questions that arise from the investigation.
3–4
The evaluation:
describes methodological limitations or weaknesses that impact the conclusion
describes improvements to the method that address the identified limitations or weaknesses
outlines unresolved questions that arise from the investigation.
5–6
The evaluation:
evaluates specific methodological limitations or weaknesses that impact the conclusion
evaluates improvements to the method that address limitations or weaknesses
describes unresolved questions that arise from the investigation as they impact the conclusion.
Optional: AI grading prompt
For self-review only
A copyable prompt that embeds the criteria above and asks an AI to grade the work criterion by criterion. Use it as a draft sanity check — not a substitute for teacher or examiner feedback.
Common questions
Where do the criteria come from?
The criteria are stored locally in a structured database that mirrors the official IB descriptors. The page only displays them — descriptor wording is preserved as written, with no paraphrasing.
Why pick subject, level, and component?
The criteria differ by assessment type, subject, level, and component. The selectors at the top filter the database to the criteria set that applies to your specific submission.
What is the AI grading prompt at the bottom for?
It is an optional helper. The prompt embeds the same criteria you see above and asks an AI to evaluate the work criterion by criterion. Useful for a quick self-review before teacher feedback.
Is my work sent anywhere?
No. The page only loads criteria. If you choose to use the AI prompt, you copy it manually and paste it into the AI tool of your choice — nothing leaves this page.
More IB resources
Other tools that pair well with the official criteria.