IB Global Politics Internal Assessment guide

What this criterion assesses

The political issue explored through the engagement is clearly and explicitly identified, with a clear explanation of why this engagement and political issue are of interest to the student, and a clear link between the engagement and political issue on one hand and course content on the other.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion A: Explanation and justification (0–4):
• Does the report clearly identify and explain a political issue?
• Does the report explain why the candidate decided to conduct particular engagement activities?
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The report includes a limited explanation and justification of the engagement project.
  • A political issue is identified, but not clearly explained.
  • There is a limited explanation of the importance and suitability of the project.
  • The engagement activities are described, but their relevance is not justified.
- 3–4: The report includes an appropriate explanation and justification of the engagement project.
  • A political issue is identified and clearly explained.
  • There is a clear explanation of the importance and suitability of the project.
  • The engagement activities are explained, and their relevance is justified.
[Verbatim — Global politics guide, first assessment 2026.]

What this criterion assesses

The research process: complementary engagement (active, first-hand involvement) and research methods, with the choice of activities and of primary/secondary methods appropriate to the political issue and their use explained.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion B: Process (0–3):
• Does the report evidence a well-developed process of research and engagement?
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: The report evidences a limited research and engagement process.
- 2: The report evidences an adequate research and engagement process.
- 3: The report evidences a well-planned and integrated research and engagement process.
[Verbatim — Global politics guide, first assessment 2026.]

What this criterion assesses

The political issue explored in depth using the key concepts of the course where relevant, with clear critical analysis in which the main points are justified, and the experiences from the engagement synthesized with the researched perspectives of stakeholders rather than reported side by side.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion C: Analysis and synthesis (0–8):
• To what extent is the political issue analysed, with reference to the specific context of the engagement?
• To what extent does the report capture and synthesize diverse perspectives of sources and engaged stakeholders?
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The report is mostly descriptive.
  • There is a vague reference to relevant course concepts and content.
  • The political issue is identified, but not analysed.
  • There is no synthesis of perspectives.
- 3–4: The report presents limited analysis and synthesis of the political issue.
  • The analysis demonstrates a limited understanding of relevant course concepts and content.
  • Analysis of the political issue is limited.
  • There is limited synthesis of the perspectives of stakeholders and sources.
- 5–6: The report presents an adequate analysis and synthesis of the political issue.
  • The analysis demonstrates an adequate understanding of relevant course concepts and content.
  • The political issue is partially analysed.
  • Perspectives of stakeholders and sources are partially synthesized, but not always clear.
- 7–8: The report presents an effective analysis and synthesis of the political issue.
  • The analysis demonstrates a good understanding and application of relevant course concepts and content.
  • The political issue is clearly analysed.
  • There is an effective synthesis of the perspectives of involved stakeholders and sources.
[Verbatim — Global politics guide, first assessment 2026.]

What this criterion assesses

An evaluation of the research process — the strengths and limitations of the engagement and methods used, including possible personal bias — and reflection on how the engagement shaped or changed the student's understanding of the political issue.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion D: Evaluation and reflection (0–6):
• Is there an evaluation of the selected sources and the conducted engagement activities?
• Does the report evidence the candidate's critical reflection about the project as a learning experience?
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The report demonstrates limited evaluation and reflection.
  • The research and engagement activities are not evaluated.
  • Personal positions and biases related to the political issue are not identified.
  • There is limited reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
- 3–4: The report demonstrates an adequate evaluation and reflection.
  • The research and engagement activities are partially evaluated.
  • Some personal positions and biases related to the political issue are identified.
  • There is adequate reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
- 5–6: The report evidences a critical evaluation and reflection.
  • The research and engagement activities are critically evaluated.
  • Personal positions and biases related to the political issue are explained.
  • There is an in-depth reflection on the engagement project as a learning experience.
[Verbatim — Global politics guide, first assessment 2026.]

What this criterion assesses

The report is well organized, clear and concise, with a structure that supports the argument, consistent referencing, and the 2,000-word limit respected.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion E: Communication (0–3):
• Are the information and points presented in the report communicated clearly?
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: Communication is limited.
  • The organization and clarity of the report are limited and do not support understanding.
- 2: Communication is adequate.
  • The report is adequately organized and supports understanding.
- 3: Communication is effective.
  • The report is well organized and coherently supports understanding.
[Verbatim — Global politics guide, first assessment 2026.]