Upload your English Literature IO IO 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 rubric-first framework to prepare your extracts, manage pacing, and keep interpretation precise during delivery.
Recommended Length
10 minutes speaking + 5 minutes follow-up
Build Timeline
2 weeks: extract prep, scripting, timed rehearsal
Anchor Question
Can a listener track your global issue argument without seeing your notes?
Want a full playbook format? Read English Literature IO Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: How well does the candidate demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the extracts, and of the works/texts from which they were taken? To what extent does the candidate make use of knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts to draw conclusions in relation to the global issue? How well are ideas supported by references to the extracts, and to the works/texts?
Top-band move: There is excellent knowledge and understanding of the extracts and of the works/texts and a persuasive interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are well chosen and effectively support the candidate’s ideas.
Common penalty: There is little knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are infrequent or are rarely appropriate.
Examiner focus: How well does the candidate use his or her knowledge and understanding of each of the extracts and their associated works/texts to analyse and evaluate the ways in which authorial choices present the global issue?
Top-band move: Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and insightful. There is a thorough and nuanced understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.
Common penalty: The oral is descriptive or contains no relevant analysis. Authorial choices are seldom identified and, if so, are poorly understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.
Examiner focus: How well does the candidate deliver a structured, well-balanced and focused oral? How well does the candidate connect ideas in a cohesive manner?
Top-band move: The oral maintains a clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is well balanced. The development of ideas is logical and convincing; ideas are connected in a cogent manner.
Common penalty: The oral rarely focuses on the task. There are few connections between ideas.
Examiner focus: How clear, accurate and effective is the language?
Top-band move: The language is clear, accurate and varied; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are varied and create effect. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and enhance the oral.
Common penalty: The language is rarely clear or accurate; errors often hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are imprecise and frequently inaccurate. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.
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 described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
There is little knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are infrequent or are rarely appropriate.
Points 3-4
There is some knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are at times appropriate.
Points 5-6
There is satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and an interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are generally relevant and mostly support the candidate’s ideas.
Points 7-8
There is good knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and a sustained interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are relevant and support the candidate’s ideas.
Points 9-10
There is excellent knowledge and understanding of the extracts and of the works/texts and a persuasive interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. References to the extracts and to the works/texts are well chosen and effectively support the candidate’s ideas.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The oral is descriptive or contains no relevant analysis. Authorial choices are seldom identified and, if so, are poorly understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.
Points 3-4
The oral contains some relevant analysis, but it is reliant on description. Authorial choices are identified, but are vaguely treated and/or only partially understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.
Points 5-6
The oral is analytical in nature, and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts is mostly relevant. Authorial choices are identified and reasonably understood in relation to the presentation of the global issue.
Points 7-8
Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and at times insightful. There is a good understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.
Points 9-10
Analysis and evaluation of the extracts and their works/texts are relevant and insightful. There is a thorough and nuanced understanding of how authorial choices are used to present the global issue.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The oral rarely focuses on the task. There are few connections between ideas.
Points 3-4
The oral only sometimes focuses on the task, and treatment of the extracts, and of the works/texts may be unbalanced. There are some connections between ideas, but these are not always coherent.
Points 5-6
The oral maintains a focus on the task, despite some lapses; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is mostly balanced. The development of ideas is mostly logical; ideas are generally connected in a cohesive manner.
Points 7-8
The oral maintains a mostly clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is balanced. The development of ideas is logical; ideas are cohesively connected in an effective manner.
Points 9-10
The oral maintains a clear and sustained focus on the task; treatment of the extracts and works/texts is well balanced. The development of ideas is logical and convincing; ideas are connected in a cogent manner.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
The language is rarely clear or accurate; errors often hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are imprecise and frequently inaccurate. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.
Points 3-4
The language is generally clear; errors sometimes hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are often imprecise with inaccuracies. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are often inappropriate to the task and detract from the oral.
Points 5-6
The language is clear; errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate to the task but simple and repetitive. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and neither enhance nor detract from the oral.
Points 7-8
The language is clear and accurate; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are appropriate and varied. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and somewhat enhance the oral.
Points 9-10
The language is clear, accurate and varied; occasional errors do not hinder communication. Vocabulary and syntax are varied and create effect. Elements of style (for example, register, tone and rhetorical devices) are appropriate to the task and enhance the oral.
Step 1
Pick a lens narrow enough to compare both works with precision in under 10 minutes.
Step 2
Prepare opening, two analytical movements, and closing synthesis with timing checkpoints.
Step 3
Practice cutting low-value lines so you stay coherent without rushing.
Step 4
Prepare two deeper interpretations per extract that you can deploy in discussion.
Global issue is explicit in the first 30 seconds.
Both works get balanced analytical depth.
Transitions are spoken and audible to the listener.
Ending synthesizes significance beyond the extracts.
Record one rehearsal and mark every filler word to reduce verbal clutter.
Keep one note card with only transitions and thesis reminders.
Pause for one beat before key analytical claims to improve clarity.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for English Literature IO 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