IB Philosophy Internal Assessment guide

What this criterion assesses

The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus (a film, image, article, song…) clearly and explicitly identified, with a clear justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion A: Identification of issue and justification (0–3):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is implied but not explicitly identified. There is no justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
- 2: The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly identified. There is some justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.
- 3: The philosophical issue raised by the stimulus is clearly and explicitly identified. There is a clear justification of the connection between the stimulus and the philosophical issue identified.

What this criterion assesses

A well-structured, focused and effectively organized response that is clear and coherent throughout.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion B: Clarity (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: The response is poorly structured, or where there is a recognizable structure there is minimal focus on the task.
- 2: There is some attempt to follow a structured approach, although it is not always clear what the answer is trying to convey.
- 3: The response is structured and generally organized, and can be easily followed.
- 4: The response is well structured, focused and effectively organized. The response is clear and coherent.

What this criterion assesses

Relevant, accurate and detailed philosophical knowledge, a well-developed explanation of the philosophical issue, and appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion C: Knowledge and understanding (0–4):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1: There is little relevant knowledge. The explanation of the philosophical issue is minimal. Philosophical vocabulary is not used, or is consistently used inappropriately.
- 2: Some knowledge is demonstrated but this lacks accuracy and relevance. There is a basic explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
- 3: Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant. There is a satisfactory explanation of the philosophical issue. Philosophical vocabulary is used, sometimes appropriately.
- 4: The response contains relevant, accurate and detailed knowledge. There is a well-developed explanation of the philosophical issue. There is appropriate use of philosophical vocabulary throughout the response.

What this criterion assesses

Well-developed critical analysis rather than description, with well-chosen examples that support the argument, and counter-arguments identified and analysed in a convincing way.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion D: Analysis (0–8):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: The response is mostly descriptive. There is little analysis, and few or no examples are given.
- 3–4: There is limited analysis, but the response is more descriptive than analytical. Some appropriate examples are used.
- 5–6: The response contains analysis, but this analysis lacks development. Appropriate examples are used in support of the argument. Counter-arguments are identified.
- 7–8: The response contains well-developed critical analysis. The examples used are well chosen and lend support to the argument. Counter-arguments are identified and analysed in a convincing way.

What this criterion assesses

Clear evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view, with all or nearly all of the main points justified, arguing from a consistently held position to a clearly stated conclusion consistent with the argument.

Mark band descriptors

Criterion E: Evaluation (0–6):
- 0: The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
- 1–2: There is little evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. Some of the main points are justified. There is no conclusion, or the conclusion is not relevant.
- 3–4: There is some evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. Many of the main points are justified. The conclusion is stated but may not be entirely consistent with the argument.
- 5–6: There is clear evaluation of alternative interpretations or points of view. All, or nearly all, of the main points are justified. The response argues from a consistently held position. The conclusion is clearly stated and consistent with the argument.