Clastify logo
Clastify logo
Subjects
Features
Review
HOT
Tutoring
AI Grader Cover

Get Instant AI Feedback on Your
IB Biology EE

The most detailed and accurate AI coursework grader. Trained by real IB Examiners.

Select IB Coursework

IB Coursework Details

Upload Your IA File

Your file stays private and secure. It won't be shared or published anywhere. Uploading it to Clastify will not trigger plagiarism checkers

Drop or Select file

Drop files here or click to browse through your machine

The file must be in English. If you're doing IB in another language please translate it using ChatGPT.

How it Works

The Biology IA is assessed using four criteria, each worth 6 marks, totaling 24 marks.

Criterion A: Research Design (6 marks)
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The research design is well-developed, clear and appropriate.The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.
3–4The research design is adequate but with some ambiguities or omissions.The research question is outlined within a broad context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are described. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.
1–2The research design is limited and lacks sufficient detail.The research question is stated without context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.
0The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The data analysis is clear, precise and accurate.The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.
3–4The data analysis is adequate with some inconsistencies.The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise. The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
1–2The data analysis is limited, showing omissions or inaccuracies.The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
0The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The conclusion is fully justified and consistent.A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
3–4The conclusion is described but only partially consistent.A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented. A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
1–2The conclusion is stated but lacks sufficient support.A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
0The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The evaluation explains the impact of weaknesses and justifies improvements.The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.
3–4The evaluation describes specific weaknesses and relevant improvements.The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.
1–2The evaluation states generic weaknesses and improvements.The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.
0The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Avoid Common Mistakes in Biology IAs

Presenting conclusions that are not fully supported by the analysis, creating a disconnect between findings and the research question.

Ignoring ethical, safety, or environmental considerations in the methodology, which is crucial for a comprehensive evaluation.

Making superficial comparisons to the accepted scientific context without providing detailed citations or relevant literature.

Inadequately describing the methodology, resulting in ambiguity that prevents the investigation from being reproduced.

Neglecting to consider uncertainties in data recording and processing, which undermines the validity of conclusions drawn from the data.

Explore AI Grader for other subjects

IA

Math AA

Math AI

English A (Lang & Lit) HL Essay

EE

English A (Lang & Lit)

English A (Lit)

English B

TOK

TOK Exhibitions

TOK Essays

Free AI Grader
New

Get your feedback in minutes

AI-generated insights on structure, clarity, and IB criteria

Useful for quick iterations before the final submission

Important:

AI feedback is fast and helpful, but not a replacement for a human review. For an in-depth, more accurate evaluation by an IB Examiner, choose Examiner Review. Go to IB Examiner Review.

Unlock Your Free Review

Sign up for free to get instant AI feedback on your IA, EE, or TOK.

How it Works

The Biology IA is assessed using four criteria, each worth 6 marks, totaling 24 marks.

Criterion A: Research Design (6 marks)
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The research design is well-developed, clear and appropriate.The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.
3–4The research design is adequate but with some ambiguities or omissions.The research question is outlined within a broad context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are described. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.
1–2The research design is limited and lacks sufficient detail.The research question is stated without context. Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.
0The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The data analysis is clear, precise and accurate.The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.
3–4The data analysis is adequate with some inconsistencies.The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise. The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
1–2The data analysis is limited, showing omissions or inaccuracies.The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
0The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The conclusion is fully justified and consistent.A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
3–4The conclusion is described but only partially consistent.A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented. A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
1–2The conclusion is stated but lacks sufficient support.A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.
0The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Mark BandWhat it meansEvidence you must show
5–6The evaluation explains the impact of weaknesses and justifies improvements.The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.
3–4The evaluation describes specific weaknesses and relevant improvements.The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.
1–2The evaluation states generic weaknesses and improvements.The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.
0The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Avoid Common Mistakes in Biology IAs

Presenting conclusions that are not fully supported by the analysis, creating a disconnect between findings and the research question.

Ignoring ethical, safety, or environmental considerations in the methodology, which is crucial for a comprehensive evaluation.

Making superficial comparisons to the accepted scientific context without providing detailed citations or relevant literature.

Inadequately describing the methodology, resulting in ambiguity that prevents the investigation from being reproduced.

Neglecting to consider uncertainties in data recording and processing, which undermines the validity of conclusions drawn from the data.

Explore AI Grader for other subjects

IA

Math AA

Math AI

English A (Lang & Lit) HL Essay

EE

English A (Lang & Lit)

English A (Lit)

English B

TOK

TOK Exhibitions

TOK Essays

Frequently Asked Questions

The Coursework Grader gives you instant feedback on your IB coursework (IA, EE, or TOK). It is designed as a detailed grader trained with input from real IB examiners.

Choose your coursework type and details (subject, level, and session where relevant), upload your PDF, then submit for grading. Once processing starts, you will see a progress screen while your Coursework Grader report is generated.

Yes. Your file stays private and secure on Clastify. It is not shared or published, and uploading it will not trigger plagiarism checkers.

The Coursework Grader assesses your coursework against official IB criteria for the selected subject and category (IA, EE, or TOK). You receive criterion-by-criterion feedback, a predicted mark, and concrete suggestions for improvement.

The model is trained on examiner-marked IB exemplars and aligned with current assessment criteria. It is a strong draft-stage tool, but a human examiner review remains the best option for a final-grade prediction.

It looks for appropriate processing (means, uncertainty, justified tests/correlation) tied to your data. Missing processing with strong topics still tends to lower Analysis predictions.

Exploration quality: a clear biological research question, controlled variables, and a feasible ethical method. Vague “effect of X on plants” designs without measurable variables are commonly flagged.

Feedback usually targets biological validity issues—sample size, organism variability, measurement precision—and whether improvements would realistically strengthen the conclusion.