Upload your Physics 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 the Physics Extended Essay disciplined around a specific physical phenomenon, accurate terminology, analytical depth, and a presentation that supports the argument rather than distracting from it.
Recommended Length
3,500-4,000 words
Build Timeline
8-12 weeks: question, reading, drafting, refinement
Anchor Question
Does each section help explain the physics behind the result more clearly?
Want a full playbook format? Read Physics 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 relevance of physics principles, and the appropriateness of the methodology.
Top-band move: The research question is clearly stated and focused. The methodology is well-justified and appropriate for addressing the research question, considering uncertainties and limitations. Relevant physics principles are identified, explained, and linked to the investigation with appropriate diagrams or sketches.
Common penalty: The topic is identified, but the research question lacks focus. The methodology is vaguely described and poorly justified. Physics principles are not clearly linked.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's understanding of relevant physics concepts, terminology, and the appropriate use of sources.
Top-band move: Demonstrates a clear and thorough understanding of the physics concepts relevant to the essay topic. Physics terminology is used accurately and consistently. All sources are appropriately referenced and integrated into the essay, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Necessary definitions are clearly stated. Reasoning is transparent.
Common penalty: Demonstrates limited understanding of relevant physics concepts. Terminology is used inconsistently. Sources are poorly integrated or referenced incorrectly.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's ability to analyze data, interpret results, evaluate limitations, and draw reasoned conclusions.
Top-band move: Data is thoroughly analyzed with a logical structure, and interpretation is insightful. Discussion is comprehensive and critical. Limitations of the investigation are clearly understood and discussed, including their impact on the conclusions reached. Mathematics and statistics are used appropriately to support the physics concepts. Error propagation is identified and analyzed where applicable.
Common penalty: Limited analysis of data. Discussion is superficial. Evaluation of limitations is weak or absent. Conclusions are poorly supported.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the clarity, organization, and overall presentation of the essay.
Top-band move: The essay is exceptionally well-presented, with a clear and logical structure that facilitates comprehension. All sections and graphical elements are appropriately labeled. Scientific and annotated diagrams are incorporated effectively. Referencing is accurate, consistent, and complete. A summary of essential procedural steps is provided in a scientific paper style.
Common penalty: The essay lacks clear organization. Referencing is inconsistent.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the student's engagement with the research process, as evidenced by the reflections on planning and progress.
Top-band move: The RPPF form demonstrates significant growth and engagement in the writing process. The student lists skills developed, describes challenges encountered and actions undertaken, and provides evidence of the personal significance of the work.
Common penalty: Reflections are submitted, but they are brief and lack depth. There is little evidence of personal engagement with the research process.
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 unclear, the research question is poorly defined, and the methodology is inappropriate or absent.
Points 1-2
The topic is identified, but the research question lacks focus. The methodology is vaguely described and poorly justified. Physics principles are not clearly linked.
Points 3-4
The research question is reasonably focused and relevant. The methodology is described, with some justification. Relevant physics principles are identified but may lack detailed explanation.
Points 5-6
The research question is clearly stated and focused. The methodology is well-justified and appropriate for addressing the research question, considering uncertainties and limitations. Relevant physics principles are identified, explained, and linked to the investigation with appropriate diagrams or sketches.
Points 0
Demonstrates little to no understanding of relevant physics concepts. Terminology is used inappropriately or not at all.
Points 1-2
Demonstrates limited understanding of relevant physics concepts. Terminology is used inconsistently. Sources are poorly integrated or referenced incorrectly.
Points 3-4
Demonstrates a reasonable understanding of relevant physics concepts. Terminology is generally used appropriately. Sources are referenced and integrated, but some weaknesses are present.
Points 5-6
Demonstrates a clear and thorough understanding of the physics concepts relevant to the essay topic. Physics terminology is used accurately and consistently. All sources are appropriately referenced and integrated into the essay, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Necessary definitions are clearly stated. Reasoning is transparent.
Points 0
No analysis, discussion, or evaluation is present. Conclusions are unsupported or absent.
Points 1-3
Limited analysis of data. Discussion is superficial. Evaluation of limitations is weak or absent. Conclusions are poorly supported.
Points 4-6
Some analysis of data is present, but the interpretation is limited. Discussion is partially developed. Evaluation of limitations is attempted but lacks depth. Conclusions are partially supported.
Points 7-9
Data is analyzed with a logical structure, and interpretation is generally sound. Discussion is well-developed. Limitations of the investigation are identified and discussed. Conclusions are reasonably supported by the evidence.
Points 10-12
Data is thoroughly analyzed with a logical structure, and interpretation is insightful. Discussion is comprehensive and critical. Limitations of the investigation are clearly understood and discussed, including their impact on the conclusions reached. Mathematics and statistics are used appropriately to support the physics concepts. Error propagation is identified and analyzed where applicable.
Points 0
The essay is poorly organized and difficult to follow. Referencing is absent or inadequate.
Points 1
The essay lacks clear organization. Referencing is inconsistent.
Points 2
The essay is reasonably well-organized, but some improvements are needed. Referencing is generally accurate.
Points 3
The essay is well-organized with a clear structure and layout, including a title page and table of contents. Sections and subsections are clearly defined. Referencing is accurate and consistent.
Points 4
The essay is exceptionally well-presented, with a clear and logical structure that facilitates comprehension. All sections and graphical elements are appropriately labeled. Scientific and annotated diagrams are incorporated effectively. Referencing is accurate, consistent, and complete. A summary of essential procedural steps is provided in a scientific paper style.
Points 0
No reflections are submitted, or the reflections are superficial and lack engagement.
Points 1-2
Reflections are submitted, but they are brief and lack depth. There is little evidence of personal engagement with the research process.
Points 3-4
Reflections demonstrate some engagement with the research process, including a discussion of challenges encountered and actions taken.
Points 5-6
The RPPF form demonstrates significant growth and engagement in the writing process. The student lists skills developed, describes challenges encountered and actions undertaken, and provides evidence of the personal significance of the work.
Step 1
Focus on one relationship, model, or effect that you can investigate with enough depth to sustain an essay.
Step 2
Use correct terminology, definitions, and theory so the essay reads like serious physics writing.
Step 3
Connect evidence, calculations, and interpretation into a coherent answer instead of a sequence of isolated facts.
Step 4
Make the structure, citations, and overall layout clear enough that the examiner can focus on the physics itself.
Research question is specific and appropriate for physics.
Theory and terminology are accurate throughout.
Analysis supports a clear line of argument.
The final draft is polished, structured, and easy to follow.
Write a one-paragraph physics explanation of your answer before expanding to full length.
Use one worked example to show your calculation logic clearly.
Check that every claim is supported by either data, theory, or both.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Physics 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