IB Biology IA Criteria

Review the IA marking criteria for the IB Biology internal assessment. Read the rubric carefully so you understand the IA format and how examiners mark IB Biology IAs.

Quick Jump on Page

Criterion A: Research Design

Weighting: 6/24

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question. A research question with context should contain reference to the dependent and independent variables or two correlated variables, include a concise description of the system in which the research question is embedded, and include background theory of direct relevance.

Marks	Level Descriptor
0	The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 – 2	The research question is stated without context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.
3 – 4	The research question is outlined within a broad context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are described. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.
5 – 6	The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.

Criterion B: Data Analysis

Weighting: 6/24

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question. Data refers to quantitative data or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data.

Marks	Level Descriptor
0	The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 – 2	The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
3 – 4	The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise. The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
5 – 6	The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.

Criterion C: Conclusion

Weighting: 6/24

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context. A conclusion that is fully consistent requires the interpretation of processed data including associated uncertainties.

Marks	Level Descriptor
0	The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 – 2	A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
3 – 4	A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented. A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
5 – 6	A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Criterion D: Evaluation

Weighting: 6/24

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.

Marks	Level Descriptor
0	The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 – 2	The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.
3 – 4	The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.
5 – 6	The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.