IA Rubric by Criterion

Criterion ARationale and preliminary research

This criterion assesses the rationale and focus for the investigative study, and whether an appropriate range of sources and supporting evidence have been used to inform the investigative study.

Marks	Level descriptor
0	The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2	The rationale is stated with little evidence of research, or there is limited research but no rationale.
3–4	The study has been researched, and some supporting evidence has been produced, though this may not be relevant. The rationale is stated.
5–6	The study has been well researched using a range of sources, and supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated, with evidence of some development.
7–8	The investigative study has been thoroughly researched using a wide range of sources, and excellent supporting evidence has been produced. The rationale is clearly stated and well developed.

Criterion BPlan for study

This criterion assesses the scope and a plan for the investigative study, the focus of the research question and the relationship between the research question and the scope and plan.

Marks	Level descriptor
0	The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1	The scope and/or plan for the study are stated but not clearly focused. There is no research question.
2	The scope and plan for the study are generally appropriate and focused. The research question is stated and is related to the scope and plan.
3	The scope and plan for the study are appropriate and focused. The research question is clearly focused and closely related to the scope and plan.

Criterion CSummary of significant findings

This criterion assesses the significant findings from the investigation, the relationship between the research findings and the research question, and whether the rationale and plan of study relate to the significant findings.

Marks	Level descriptor
0	The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2	There is little indication of significant findings, and these are not related to the research question, rationale and plan for the study.
3–4	Significant findings are stated and are related to one or more aspects of the research question, rationale and plan for the study.
5–6	Significant findings are clearly stated and well developed, and the relationship between the research question, rationale and plan for the study is fully demonstrated.

Criterion DCritical reflection and evaluation

This criterion assesses the quality and analysis of the significant findings in relation to the research question and how the investigative study has deepened understanding of religious experience and/or beliefs.

Marks	Level descriptor
0	The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2	Critical reflection is very limited, with no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There may be some recognition of one or more misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings, or limited but underdeveloped reference to research methods used.
3–4	There is an attempt at some critical reflection, with little or no linkage between the research question and significant findings. There is a basic recognition of some misconceptions and inconsistencies between the research and the findings. There is some limited reference to research methods used.
5–6	There is evidence of sound critical reflection, demonstrating some understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an understanding of how far the research question has informed most, if not all, of the significant findings. There is some recognition of any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings. There is some discussion of research methods used.
7–8	Critical reflection is sound and well developed, demonstrating an understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is a good understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are identified. There is an evaluation of the research methods used. Conclusions and future possibilities may be outlined.
9–10	Critical reflection is detailed and very well developed, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of religious experience and/or belief. There is an excellent understanding of how far the research question has informed the significant findings. Where appropriate, any misconceptions and/or inconsistencies between the research and the findings are developed and evaluated. There is a thorough evaluation of the research methods used and recognition of any underlying assumptions and/or bias. Conclusions and future research possibilities are considered.

Criterion EReferences and compliance with format

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student meets the three formal requirements of writing, organizing and presenting the written analysis.

• The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit.
• The list of references consistently follows a standard format.
• The format of the written analysis has been followed as described in the section “The written analysis”.

Marks	Level descriptor
0	The work does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
1	The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit.
2	The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets one of the other formal requirements.
3	The work is no more than the 1,800 word limit and meets the two other formal requirements.