✓
Check Your Draft
You have a draft. Now mark it yourself before anyone else does. For each criterion, read across the row and find the level that best matches your work right now.
Work through all seven criteria. Be honest: the point is to find the gaps while you still have time to fix them, not to feel good about where you are. If you are between two levels, you are at the lower one. Click the circle in the row that matches your work to select your mark.
A: Integration of a key concept (out of 5)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below, or the key concept is not change, creativity, ethics, or sustainability. | Your cover page says "sustainability" but the word does not appear anywhere in your actual writing. Or your cover page says "growth" or "strategy," which are not valid concepts. | |
| 1 | The student demonstrates knowledge of the key concept. | You have a paragraph defining ethics or sustainability in general terms. The organization is not part of that discussion. The concept sits in isolation. | |
| 2 | The student describes the connection between the key concept and the organization under study. | You write "this company's decision relates to ethics because it involves right and wrong" or "this is an example of creativity in business." The connection is named but not explored. You might use concept-related vocabulary throughout, but never analyse what it means for the organization. | |
| 3 | The student analyses the connection between the key concept and the organization under study. | You explain how an ethical failure caused regulatory consequences and financial damage, or how a change in strategy created specific risks. The analysis is genuine, with cause-and-effect reasoning. But it is confined to one or two sections. In other sections, the concept disappears. | |
| 4 | The student partially integrates the analysis of the connection in the internal assessment. | Most of your sections connect back to the concept analytically, but one or two sections do not mention it or only mention it in passing. The concept is doing real work in most of the IA but not consistently throughout. | |
| 5 | The student effectively integrates the analysis of the connection throughout the internal assessment. | Your RQ is framed around the concept. Your tools were chosen because they help explore the concept. Every section of your analysis connects back to it. Your conclusion answers through the conceptual lens. If you removed the concept, the whole argument would fall apart. |
B: Supporting documents (out of 4)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below. | There are no attached documents, just a bibliography or list of URLs. | |
| 1 | There are only one or two, or more than five, supporting documents or they are of marginal relevance. | You submitted 2 SDs, or 6. Or your SDs are Wikipedia pages, textbook extracts, or pre-made SWOT analyses from the internet. Or your SDs are about a vaguely related topic but not about your organization or RQ. | |
| 2 | Three to five supporting documents that are generally relevant but some lack depth. | Two of your three SDs are about general industry trends ("the future of e-commerce") rather than about your specific company. Or one SD is a short news blurb without enough substance to draw on in your analysis. | |
| 3 | Three to five supporting documents that are relevant and sufficiently in-depth. | You have three solid SDs about your organization with real substance, but they are all external financial commentary from similar sources. There is no internal company perspective, no critical viewpoint, and no contrasting angle. | |
| 4 | Three to five supporting documents that are relevant, sufficiently in-depth and provide a range of ideas and views. | You have a mix: perhaps a company report (internal), a critical news article (external), and a financial analysis (quantitative). Or supportive and critical viewpoints. Or perspectives from different stakeholders. Someone looking at your SD list would say "these give you different angles." |
C: Selection and application of tools and theories (out of 4)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below. | Your IA is a general discussion with no frameworks, models, or formal business concepts applied. | |
| 1 | Limited selection and application of tools and theories, or they are not relevant to the research question. | You used a Gantt chart in an IA about ethical decision-making, or you applied one tool very superficially. The tools do not connect to the question you are trying to answer. | |
| 2 | Some tools and theories selected and applied. Their relevance to the research question is superficial. | You applied a SWOT and a STEEPLE analysis. Both are filled in correctly, but neither is specifically tailored to help answer your RQ. The same analysis could be used for a completely different IA topic. | |
| 3 | Tools and theories adequately selected and applied. Their relevance is not always clear. | You used three tools. Your Ansoff matrix is clearly relevant to your growth-strategy RQ, but your STEEPLE analysis feels like it was included because you know how to do it rather than because it helps answer the question. The selection is uneven. | |
| 4 | Tools and theories effectively selected and applied with clear relevance to the research question. | You used a stakeholder analysis and a CSR framework for an ethics IA, or a force field analysis for a change IA. Someone reading your IA can immediately see why you chose these specific tools for this specific question. You applied them to your organization with specific content, not as textbook exercises. Two well-chosen tools is enough. |
D: Analysis and evaluation (out of 5)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below. | Your analysis is entirely based on general knowledge or outside research. Your SDs are attached but never referenced. | |
| 1 | Limited selection and use of data from the supporting documents with no analysis and evaluation. | You write "SD1 says that the company's revenue grew by 15%" and move on. You report information but never explain what it means or why it matters for your RQ. | |
| 2 | Superficial selection and use of SD data, leading to limited analysis and evaluation. | You mention a few data points from your SDs but do not dig into them. You might make a brief evaluative comment ("this is a strength") without developing it. | |
| 3 | Adequate selection and use of SD data with some analysis and evaluation. | You analyse data from your SDs in some sections, but other sections rely on outside research or go off on tangents that do not connect to your RQ or concept. You make some evaluative judgments but do not weigh evidence for and against in a sustained way. Your ideas are not connected across sections. | |
| 4 | Sufficient selection and use of SD data, leading to mostly effective analysis and evaluation with some integration of ideas. | You use SD data throughout, explain what it means, and make evaluative judgments. Your sections build on each other. But you accept all evidence at face value. You do not challenge any claims or consider what might be wrong with the data or arguments. | |
| 5 | Effective selection and use of SD data, leading to thorough analysis and evaluation. Sustained integration of ideas with consideration of assumptions and implications. | You use SD evidence to argue against a claim the organization makes about itself, or you weigh conflicting evidence from different SDs and explain which is more convincing and why. You consider not just what happened but what it implies. Your concept works as a lens throughout the analysis. |
E: Conclusions (out of 3)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below. | The IA just ends, or the final section has nothing to do with the RQ. | |
| 1 | Conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence presented, or conclusions are superficial. | Your conclusion is two or three sentences. Or your analysis argues the company should change its strategy, but your conclusion says everything is fine. Or your conclusion was cut off because you went over 1,800 words. | |
| 2 | Some conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented. | Your RQ asks about profitability and market share, but your conclusion only addresses profitability. Or your RQ is "to what extent" and your conclusion says "to some extent" without specifying what extent or why. Or your RQ asks "will X lead to Y" and your conclusion cannot give a clear answer. | |
| 3 | Conclusions are consistent with the evidence presented and explicitly answer the research question. | You summarize your key findings, then give a clear, specific answer to the RQ. Every element of the question is addressed. Your concept is revisited. The answer is definitive, not hedged. If your RQ is a yes/no question, you say yes or no and explain why. |
F: Structure (out of 2)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below. | No sections, no headings, no logical flow. | |
| 1 | Limited structure. | Your main body is organized by SD (SD1 then SD2 then SD3), or it uses a generic template (SWOT then another tool then financials) that does not fit your specific question, or it has one heading ("Research and Analysis") covering many pages with no sub-sections. | |
| 2 | Appropriate structure. | Your sections are organized around your argument: for vs. against, internal vs. external impacts, or one tool per section where each addresses a different aspect of the RQ. Someone could read just your headings and understand the logic of your IA. |
G: Presentation (out of 2)
| Mark | Official descriptor | What this looks like in practice | Your mark |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described below. | No title page, no table of contents, no headings, no page numbers. | |
| 1 | One or more of the required elements is missing. | You are missing a title page, or your table of contents is missing or significantly inaccurate, or you have no headings in the main body, or your pages are not numbered. Page numbers are the most commonly forgotten element, especially after converting from Google Docs to PDF. | |
| 2 | All required elements are included. | All four are there: title page, accurate table of contents, headings and sub-headings, numbered pages. Nothing else matters here: not font, not spacing, not referencing style. Just these four things. |
Word count
Your IA must not exceed 1,800 words. The examiner stops reading at 1,800. If your conclusion is beyond that point, it will not be marked. If you are over, cut from the main body, not the conclusion.
Your score
A: -
B: -
C: -
D: -
E: -
F: -
G: -
- / 25
Select a mark for each criterion above to see your total.