Upload your English B 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 structure keeps your EE focused, evidence-rich, and aligned to all five criteria from first draft to viva reflection.
Recommended Length
3,500-4,000 words
Build Timeline
12 weeks: proposal, reading, drafting, supervision cycle
Anchor Question
Does each chapter move your research question forward with explicit analytical purpose?
Want a full playbook format? Read English 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 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 primary literary text(s), critical 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 literary EE - Methodology is limited, with weak explanation of the selected literary text(s), editions, translations, or secondary sources
Examiner focus: Knowledge of the literary text(s), relevant context, and subject terminology
Top-band move: - Knowledge and understanding of the literary text(s), context, and chosen area of investigation are excellent - Literary terminology and concepts are used accurately, consistently, and with discernment
Common penalty: - Knowledge and understanding of the literary text(s) and context are limited - Literary terminology and concepts are unclear, inaccurate, or limited
Examiner focus: Research, close 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 literary technique, meaning, and effect - 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 reliant on plot summary - 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, or integration of quotations
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, or integration of quotations
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
Stress-test scope with one pilot paragraph before full drafting starts.
Step 2
Assign each section one analytical job and keep overlap intentionally low.
Step 3
Use quotation clusters that allow close reading rather than scattered references.
Step 4
Check interpretive depth in the essay and reflective depth in RPPF entries side by side.
Research question is visible and answered directly in the conclusion.
Counter-readings are acknowledged and evaluated.
Citation format is consistent across all sections.
RPPF reflections show decisions, not diary notes.
Write your conclusion before the final redraft to expose argument gaps.
Convert one descriptive paragraph into comparative analysis.
Add one sentence per section that links back to the research question.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for English B 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