IB Geography Internal Assessment guide

What this criterion assesses

A geographical, focused fieldwork question identifying a precise location and answerable with primary data collected in the field; the link to the relevant syllabus topic or geographical theory described; and one or more locational maps following mapping conventions.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion A: Fieldwork question and geographic context (0–3):
- 0: The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: The fieldwork question is not formulated as a question or is not appropriately linked to the relevant syllabus topic or geographical theory. The fieldwork question does not allow for the collection of primary data, does not include a location or is too broad to address within the limits of the internal assessment. No locational map is included or the map is inappropriate for the fieldwork question.
- 2: The fieldwork question is geographical, identifying an appropriate link to the relevant syllabus topic, the syllabus or geographical theory. The fieldwork question identifies a specific location allowing for the collection of primary data and a question that can be addressed within the limits of an internal assessment. The locational map is a copy of an existing map (for example, internet or satellite map) with too many unnecessary details or lacking mapping conventions.
- 3: The link between the fieldwork question and the relevant syllabus topic, the syllabus or geographical theory is described. The link made to geographical theory allows for the possible formulation of hypotheses and predictions. The fieldwork question is geographical and focused, clearly identifying a precise location allowing for primary data collection within the limits of the internal assessment. One or more locational maps are presented and follow mapping conventions, providing clear information and details of the fieldwork location.

What this criterion assesses

The data-collection methods described and justified — technologies, sampling and surveying techniques, time, location and circumstances — used correctly and producing reliable, good-quality primary data sufficient for the analysis the question needs.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion B: Method(s) of investigation (0–3):
- 0: The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: The method(s) used for information and data collection are listed or outlined, but are too general or vague or do not allow for the collection of enough information and data that are relevant to address the question formulated or the hypotheses. Data collection technologies/instruments and sampling/surveying techniques are listed or outlined but are not correctly used.
- 2: The method(s) used for information and data collection are described, outlining how the data collected is relevant to the question formulated and hypotheses. The method(s), data collection instruments/technologies and sampling/surveying techniques are used correctly and allow for sufficient data for quantitative and/or qualitative analysis, but it may be minimal or only one or two variables are collected.
- 3: The method(s) used for information and data collection are described, explaining clearly and accurately how the combination of data collected is relevant to the theory, question formulated or the hypotheses for the internal assessment. They may describe statistical tests if appropriate. The method(s), data collection instruments/technologies and sampling/surveying techniques are used correctly, resulting in reliable and good quality primary data supporting a relevant quantitative and/or qualitative analysis.

What this criterion assesses

Information and data directly relevant to the question and sufficient in quantity and quality for analysis, presented with the most appropriate techniques (graphs, maps, statistical tests, annotated images…) following accepted conventions for numbering, labelling and annotation.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion C: Quality and treatment of the information collected (0–6):
- 0: The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The information and data collected is mostly not relevant, or not sufficient, to address the question or hypotheses formulated. The information and data have mostly been presented in such a way that is either not appropriate for what has been collected or does not allow for analysis of the question formulated. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations do not follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on) or contain frequent errors.
- 3–4: Most of the information and data collected is relevant to the question formulated or the hypotheses, allowing for partial analysis or answering of the question formulated. The information and data have been presented in ways appropriate for the data type. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on), with occasional errors.
- 5–6: The information and data collected is all directly relevant to the question formulated or the hypotheses, and is sufficient in quantity and quality to allow for analysis or answering of the question formulated. The most appropriate techniques have been used effectively for the presentation of information and data collected. The graphs, tables, diagrams or other illustrations follow conventions (labelling, titles, and so on).

What this criterion assesses

Interpretation and explanation of the information collected in relation to the fieldwork question: appropriate descriptive and statistical techniques, trends and spatial patterns explained and linked to the question, theory, location and methods, with outliers and anomalies identified and explained.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion D: Written analysis (0–8):
- 0: The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The written analysis includes descriptive techniques that are not all appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The data or information presented is outlined without explicit link to the question or hypotheses formulated. Obvious trends and patterns are listed.
- 3–4: The written analysis includes descriptive techniques that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. Any statistical techniques used either are not relevant to the question formulated or contain errors. The data and information, trends and patterns presented are described and linked explicitly to the question or hypotheses formulated. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated in a descriptive way.
- 5–6: The written analysis includes descriptive and statistical techniques (if appropriate to the question formulated) that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The data and information, trends, patterns and statistics are described and linked explicitly to the question or hypotheses formulated. Outliers and anomalies in the data, if present, are listed. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated, although there are gaps in the supporting evidence.
- 7–8: The written analysis includes descriptive and statistical techniques (with confidence levels if appropriate) that are appropriate to the data and the question formulated. The trends, patterns and statistics found, including outliers and anomalies if present, are explained and linked to the question formulated, hypotheses, geographical theory, the fieldwork location and methods used. The written analysis allows for answering the question formulated, with no or only minor gaps in the supporting evidence.

What this criterion assesses

A clear, concise conclusion answering the fieldwork question, supported by the analysis — it may legitimately state that the findings do not match the original prediction or hypothesis.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion E: Conclusion (0–2):
- 0: The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: A conclusion to the fieldwork question is formulated, which is partially supported by the analysis.
- 2: There is a clear conclusion to the fieldwork question, which is supported by the analysis.
Note: It is acceptable for the conclusion to state that the findings do not match the student's preliminary judgment or prediction.

What this criterion assesses

A review of the investigative methodology — the most relevant strengths and weaknesses of the methods, question formulation, data presentation and choice of location explained — with improvements suggested and the potential impact of those improvements explained.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion F: Evaluation (0–3):
- 0: The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: Strengths and/or weaknesses of the data collection methods and suggestions for improvement are listed, but these are mostly superficial, not appropriate, or not relevant to the study.
- 2: Strengths and/or weaknesses of the data collection methods and suggestions for improvement are outlined, and these are mostly appropriate and relevant to the study.
- 3: The most appropriate and relevant strengths and/or weaknesses are explained regarding the data collection methods, the formulation of the fieldwork research question, the presentation of data/information and the choice of location. Suggestions for improvement are outlined and the potential impact of these improvements is explained.