Upload your Mathematics 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 keeps the extended essay tied to a focused mathematical question, a defensible method, and a conclusion that follows from the mathematics rather than from intuition alone.
Recommended Length
3,500-4,000 words
Build Timeline
8-12 weeks: question refinement, reading, outlining, drafting, and mathematical verification
Anchor Question
Does the essay use mathematics to answer the question, or just to decorate it?
Want a full playbook format? Read Mathematics: Analysis and Approaches 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 appropriateness of the methodology, and the justification for its selection.
Top-band move: The topic is clearly defined, the research question is precisely formulated, and the methodology is thoroughly described and justified. Sources are relevant, adequate in number, and contribute to the research focus.
Common penalty: The topic is vaguely defined, the research question is poorly formulated, and the methodology is described superficially with little justification.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's understanding of relevant mathematical concepts, terminology, and the appropriate use of source material.
Top-band move: Demonstrates a clear and thorough understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and terminology. Source material is used effectively and appropriately to support the essay's content. Mathematical reasoning is clearly communicated and explained, including all steps in the process.
Common penalty: Demonstrates limited understanding of relevant mathematical concepts or terminology. Source material is used minimally or inappropriately.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's ability to analyze, evaluate, and draw conclusions based on their research, demonstrating sound mathematical reasoning.
Top-band move: Excellent evidence of critical thinking, analysis, and evaluation. Conclusions are strongly supported by evidence, and the analysis demonstrates a deep and insightful understanding of the mathematics used. Data analysis includes appropriate mathematical transformations, statistical analysis, or graphical representation.
Common penalty: Limited evidence of critical thinking, analysis, or evaluation. Conclusions are superficial and weakly supported.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the structure, layout, and overall presentation of the essay, including the appropriate use of graphs, figures, and tables.
Top-band move: The essay has a clear and logical structure with effective organization. Graphs, figures, or tables are appropriately labeled, of good quality, and enhance the presentation of the essay. Includes a title page and table of contents.
Common penalty: The essay has a basic structure, but the organization is weak. Graphs, figures, or tables are poorly labeled or of poor quality.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's engagement with the research process, as evidenced by their reflections on the research focus, planning, and process.
Top-band move: Strong evidence of engagement with the research process. Reflections demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges, insights gained, and the personal significance of the work undertaken. The RPPF form showcases the individual's progress and active involvement in the writing process.
Common penalty: Limited evidence of engagement with the research process. Reflections are superficial and lack detail.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The topic is not clearly defined, the research question is absent or unclear, and the methodology is not described or justified.
Points 1-2
The topic is vaguely defined, the research question is poorly formulated, and the methodology is described superficially with little justification.
Points 3-4
The topic is generally defined, the research question is adequately formulated, and the methodology is described with some justification. Sources are limited or not always relevant.
Points 5-6
The topic is clearly defined, the research question is precisely formulated, and the methodology is thoroughly described and justified. Sources are relevant, adequate in number, and contribute to the research focus.
Points 0
Demonstrates no understanding of relevant mathematical concepts or terminology. Source material is not used or is used inappropriately.
Points 1-2
Demonstrates limited understanding of relevant mathematical concepts or terminology. Source material is used minimally or inappropriately.
Points 3-4
Demonstrates adequate understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and terminology. Source material is used appropriately to support the essay's content. Explanation of mathematical reasoning may be unclear.
Points 5-6
Demonstrates a clear and thorough understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and terminology. Source material is used effectively and appropriately to support the essay's content. Mathematical reasoning is clearly communicated and explained, including all steps in the process.
Points 0
No evidence of critical thinking, analysis, or evaluation. Conclusions are absent or unsupported.
Points 1-3
Limited evidence of critical thinking, analysis, or evaluation. Conclusions are superficial and weakly supported.
Points 4-6
Some evidence of critical thinking, analysis, and evaluation. Conclusions are generally supported by evidence, but the analysis may lack depth.
Points 7-9
Good evidence of critical thinking, analysis, and evaluation. Conclusions are well-supported by evidence, and the analysis demonstrates a good understanding of the mathematics used.
Points 10-12
Excellent evidence of critical thinking, analysis, and evaluation. Conclusions are strongly supported by evidence, and the analysis demonstrates a deep and insightful understanding of the mathematics used. Data analysis includes appropriate mathematical transformations, statistical analysis, or graphical representation.
Points 0
The essay lacks structure and organization. Graphs, figures, or tables are absent or inappropriately used.
Points 1
The essay has a basic structure, but the organization is weak. Graphs, figures, or tables are poorly labeled or of poor quality.
Points 2
The essay has a clear structure, but the organization could be improved. Graphs, figures, or tables are appropriately labeled and of acceptable quality.
Points 3-4
The essay has a clear and logical structure with effective organization. Graphs, figures, or tables are appropriately labeled, of good quality, and enhance the presentation of the essay. Includes a title page and table of contents.
Points 0
No evidence of engagement with the research process. RPPF is missing or incomplete.
Points 1-2
Limited evidence of engagement with the research process. Reflections are superficial and lack detail.
Points 3-4
Adequate evidence of engagement with the research process. Reflections demonstrate some understanding of the challenges and insights gained.
Points 5-6
Strong evidence of engagement with the research process. Reflections demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges, insights gained, and the personal significance of the work undertaken. The RPPF form showcases the individual's progress and active involvement in the writing process.
Step 1
Make sure the topic can be answered through mathematical reasoning that is deep enough for 4,000 words.
Step 2
Clarify assumptions, symbols, and methods so the argument does not become ambiguous later.
Step 3
Verify intermediate steps and explain why each result is relevant to the research question.
Step 4
State what the evidence proves, what it suggests, and what the investigation cannot legitimately claim.
The research question is mathematical and focused enough for an essay.
The argument stays coherent from introduction to conclusion.
Notation is precise and consistent throughout.
The conclusion is supported by the mathematics in the essay body.
Replace one broad descriptive paragraph with a proof, derivation, or calculation that actually advances the argument.
Check whether every section answers part of the research question explicitly.
Remove any result that is mathematically interesting but irrelevant to the thesis.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Mathematics 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