Upload your English A Language & Literature 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.
Use this guide to keep your research question precise, your corpus manageable, and your analysis grounded in language, context, audience, and purpose.
Recommended Length
3,500-4,000 words
Build Timeline
12 weeks: topic validation, corpus selection, drafting, supervision cycle
Anchor Question
Does each section prove something about how meaning is constructed in your selected text or corpus?
Want a full playbook format? Read English Language & Literature EE Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: Topic, research question, and methodology for a literary or language/textual investigation
Top-band move: - Topic is communicated accurately and effectively - Research question is clearly stated, sharply focused, and framed as a question - Methodology is complete, with evidence of informed selection of texts, corpus boundaries, contextual material, and an analytical approach appropriate to the research question
Common penalty: - Topic is communicated unclearly or incompletely - Research question is stated but unclear, unfocused, or too broad for a studies in language and literature EE - Methodology is limited, with weak explanation of selected texts, corpus, context, research materials, or analytical approach
Examiner focus: Knowledge of text(s), context, and terminology for literature, language, media, audience, and purpose
Top-band move: - Knowledge and understanding of the text(s), contexts, audiences, purposes, and chosen area of investigation are excellent - Subject-specific terminology and concepts are used accurately, consistently, and with discernment
Common penalty: - Knowledge and understanding of the text(s), context, and area of investigation are limited - Terminology and concepts are unclear, inaccurate, or limited
Examiner focus: Research, textual analysis, argument, discussion, and evaluation
Top-band move: - Research is excellent, focused, and effectively integrated - Analysis is excellent, detailed, and sustained, with close attention to how meaning is constructed in the selected text(s) - Discussion and evaluation are excellent, producing a coherent, persuasive, and critically engaged argument
Common penalty: - Research is limited or only loosely connected to the research question - Analysis is limited, descriptive, or mainly narrative - Discussion and evaluation are limited *(Max 3 marks if the topic or research question is inappropriate for studies in language and literature)*
Examiner focus: Structure, layout, referencing, and academic presentation
Top-band move: - Presentation is good, with a clear structure, appropriate academic layout, consistent referencing, and well-integrated supporting material
Common penalty: - Presentation is acceptable but may contain weaknesses in structure, layout, citation practice, bibliography, corpus documentation, or integration of supporting material
Examiner focus: Engagement with the research process as evidenced in the RPPF
Top-band move: - Engagement is good to excellent, showing thoughtful reflection on research decisions, intellectual initiative, challenges, and growth across the process
Common penalty: - Engagement is limited, with mostly descriptive reflection or little evidence of decision-making
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Points 3-4
Points 5-6
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
Points 3-4
Points 5-6
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
Points 4-6
Points 7-9
Points 10-12
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
- Presentation is acceptable but may contain weaknesses in structure, layout, citation practice, bibliography, corpus documentation, or integration of supporting material
Points 3-4
- Presentation is good, with a clear structure, appropriate academic layout, consistent referencing, and well-integrated supporting material
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
- Engagement is limited, with mostly descriptive reflection or little evidence of decision-making
Points 3-4
- Engagement is adequate, showing some reflection on choices, challenges, and development of the research process
Points 5-6
- Engagement is good to excellent, showing thoughtful reflection on research decisions, intellectual initiative, challenges, and growth across the process
Step 1
Decide whether the essay is literary, comparative literary, or category 3 language/textual analysis before drafting.
Step 2
Set clear boundaries for the text, campaign, media sample, or body of material you will analyze.
Step 3
Connect textual choices to audience, purpose, culture, context, and meaning rather than describing content.
Step 4
Check that each section advances the research question and does not drift into general commentary.
Research question is narrow enough for 4,000 words.
Corpus or primary text selection is explicit and justified.
Analysis focuses on language, form, context, audience, and purpose.
RPPF reflections show decisions and revisions, not just progress notes.
Replace broad social-issue claims with evidence from specific textual choices.
Add one sentence per section explaining why this material belongs in the corpus.
Use terminology only when it helps analysis, then explain its effect.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for English A Language & Literature 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