Upload your Computer Science Extended Essay EE draft and get instant feedback aligned with official IB criteria.
Follow the same rubric-first flow students use to move from a raw draft to a submission-ready version.
Start by dropping in your coursework PDF. We built this flow to mirror how students prepare final submission drafts.
Drag and drop to upload
Limit 10 MB per file. Supported files: PDF
Sign in to start your first grading run.
Marksy maps your draft against the rubric so you can see where marks are gained or lost in each criterion.
Every important scoring decision is anchored to your writing so revision is evidence-based, not guesswork.
Get structured next actions so you can move from draft to stronger markband performance in the right order.
For class-wide workflows, the same logic extends to batch marking so feedback stays consistent across submissions.
Keep one grading system across IA, EE, TOK, and subject variants so your preparation process stays consistent.
This guide follows the EE criteria for computer science: focus and method, knowledge and understanding, critical thinking, presentation, and engagement. It keeps the essay technical by tying every section back to the research question.
Recommended Length
3,500-4,000 words
Build Timeline
10-12 weeks: question, reading, drafting, revision
Anchor Question
Does each section build a technical argument instead of just describing technology?
Want a full playbook format? Read Computer Science EE Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the clarity of the research question, the rationale for the topic's investigation, and the appropriateness of the chosen methodology.
Top-band move: The research question is sharply focused, accessible, and clearly related to computer science. The rationale for the topic is well-explained, the methodology is clearly described and justified, and authoritative sources are utilized.
Common penalty: The research question is present but lacks focus or is too broad. The rationale for the topic is weak, and the methodology is vaguely described.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's understanding of the subject matter, demonstrated through the use of terminology, explanations of information from sources, and personal comprehension.
Top-band move: The essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the subject matter. Terminology is used accurately and effectively, explanations of information from sources are clear and insightful, and personal comprehension is evident.
Common penalty: The essay demonstrates limited understanding of the subject matter. Terminology is used sparingly or inappropriately, and explanations of information from sources are superficial.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's ability to research, analyze, discuss, and evaluate information critically, leading to well-supported conclusions.
Top-band move: The essay demonstrates strong critical thinking. Research is thorough and relevant, analysis is insightful and well-supported, discussion is comprehensive, and evaluation is effective. Conclusions are justified and consider limitations and future research.
Common penalty: The essay demonstrates limited critical thinking. Research is basic, analysis is weak, discussion is superficial, and evaluation is minimal. Conclusions are unsupported.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the structure, layout, and adherence to academic standards, ensuring the essay is clear and easy to understand.
Top-band move: The essay is well-structured, organized, and adheres to academic standards. Referencing is accurate, complete, and consistent. The presentation enhances reader comprehension.
Common penalty: The essay demonstrates some structure, but organization is weak. Some academic standards are met, and referencing is attempted but may be incomplete or inaccurate.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's engagement with the research process, demonstrated through reflection on decision-making, planning, and the development of skills.
Top-band move: The essay includes insightful and critical reflection on the research process. Engagement with the topic and methodology is strong, demonstrating rationale, skills developed, and potential improvements for future research.
Common penalty: The essay includes limited reflection on the research process. Engagement with the topic and methodology is superficial.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The essay lacks a clear focus, the research question is absent or poorly defined, and the methodology is not described or is inappropriate.
Points 1-2
The research question is present but lacks focus or is too broad. The rationale for the topic is weak, and the methodology is vaguely described.
Points 3-4
The research question is reasonably focused and relevant to computer science. The rationale for the topic is explained, and the methodology is described, but may lack detail.
Points 5-6
The research question is sharply focused, accessible, and clearly related to computer science. The rationale for the topic is well-explained, the methodology is clearly described and justified, and authoritative sources are utilized.
Points 0
The essay demonstrates little to no understanding of the subject matter. Terminology is absent or misused, and information from sources is not explained.
Points 1-2
The essay demonstrates limited understanding of the subject matter. Terminology is used sparingly or inappropriately, and explanations of information from sources are superficial.
Points 3-4
The essay demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the subject matter. Terminology is used appropriately, and explanations of information from sources are provided, but may lack depth.
Points 5-6
The essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the subject matter. Terminology is used accurately and effectively, explanations of information from sources are clear and insightful, and personal comprehension is evident.
Points 0
The essay lacks critical thinking. Research is superficial, analysis is absent, discussion is limited, and evaluation is not present.
Points 1-4
The essay demonstrates limited critical thinking. Research is basic, analysis is weak, discussion is superficial, and evaluation is minimal. Conclusions are unsupported.
Points 5-8
The essay demonstrates reasonable critical thinking. Research is relevant, analysis is present but may lack depth, discussion is adequate, and evaluation is attempted. Conclusions are partially supported.
Points 9-12
The essay demonstrates strong critical thinking. Research is thorough and relevant, analysis is insightful and well-supported, discussion is comprehensive, and evaluation is effective. Conclusions are justified and consider limitations and future research.
Points 0
The essay lacks structure and organization. Academic standards are not met, and referencing is absent or inaccurate.
Points 1
The essay demonstrates some structure, but organization is weak. Some academic standards are met, and referencing is attempted but may be incomplete or inaccurate.
Points 2-3
The essay is generally well-structured and organized. Academic standards are mostly met, and referencing is generally accurate and complete.
Points 4
The essay is well-structured, organized, and adheres to academic standards. Referencing is accurate, complete, and consistent. The presentation enhances reader comprehension.
Points 0
The essay lacks reflection on the research process. There is no evidence of engagement with the topic or the methodology.
Points 1-2
The essay includes limited reflection on the research process. Engagement with the topic and methodology is superficial.
Points 3-4
The essay includes reasonable reflection on the research process. Engagement with the topic and methodology is evident, but may lack depth.
Points 5-6
The essay includes insightful and critical reflection on the research process. Engagement with the topic and methodology is strong, demonstrating rationale, skills developed, and potential improvements for future research.
Step 1
Pick a question that is narrow enough to support depth, but technical enough to reward computer science analysis.
Step 2
Show subject knowledge by using concepts, methods, and vocabulary precisely and consistently.
Step 3
Move beyond description by comparing approaches, weighing evidence, and explaining the reasoning behind your conclusion.
Step 4
Make the essay easy to follow so the argument, presentation, and engagement notes all support the same line of inquiry.
The question is focused and computer-science specific.
Technical terminology is accurate and purposeful.
Evidence and analysis support the conclusion.
The essay stays coherent from introduction to ending.
Define scope early so the project stays technical.
Explain algorithms or tools in terms of why they matter to the question.
Tie every conclusion sentence back to the research question.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Computer Science Extended Essay and returns criterion-level marks with actionable feedback.
Yes. Most students use draft grading to identify weak criteria, revise, and re-check before final submission.
Yes. Teachers can upload multiple files in one batch from the bulk grading route for faster class-wide feedback.
Absolutely. By default, nobody other than you can access your uploaded files, however you may make them shareable to others. Even then, you have full control to delete your files at any moment, and your files are not used to train AI models. More information here.
Upload a single submission and get criterion-by-criterion feedback aligned to IB descriptors.
Open Single GradingProcess up to 15 files in one run and keep feedback consistent across your class.
View Bulk Plan