Upload your TOK Essay TOK 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.
Theory of Knowledge essay exploring knowledge questions and demonstrating understanding of knowledge concepts across different areas of knowledge.
Recommended Length
Use the official IB guidance for your subject and level.
Build Timeline
Plan time for research, drafting, feedback, and final edits.
Anchor Question
Does every section of your TOK clearly support the assessment objective?
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the extent to which the student identifies and understands relevant knowledge questions arising from the prescribed title.
Top-band move: The student identifies insightful and relevant knowledge questions and demonstrates a thorough understanding of their significance to the prescribed title. The knowledge questions are clearly and precisely formulated.
Common penalty: The student identifies knowledge questions, but demonstrates limited understanding of their relevance to the prescribed title. The knowledge questions may be superficial or poorly formulated.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the depth and breadth of the student's analysis of the knowledge questions.
Top-band move: The student provides a thorough and insightful analysis of the knowledge questions. The analysis demonstrates strong critical thinking, explores different perspectives in a balanced way, and develops a coherent argument.
Common penalty: The student provides limited analysis of the knowledge questions. The analysis is superficial, descriptive, and lacks critical thinking.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the extent to which the student justifies their claims and arguments with relevant and convincing evidence and examples.
Top-band move: The student provides strong and convincing justification for their claims and arguments. The evidence and examples are relevant, well-explained, and effectively support the student's reasoning.
Common penalty: The student provides limited justification for their claims or arguments. The evidence and examples are weak, irrelevant, or poorly explained.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the extent to which the student considers different perspectives and their implications for knowledge.
Top-band move: The student effectively considers different perspectives and analyzes their implications for knowledge in a thoughtful and insightful way.
Common penalty: The student considers different perspectives in a limited or superficial way.
Examiner focus: This criterion assesses the clarity, coherence, and organization of the essay.
Top-band move: The essay is clear, coherent, and well-organized. The argument is easy to follow and the essay demonstrates a logical flow of ideas.
Common penalty: The essay is somewhat structured, but there are significant issues with clarity and coherence.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The student does not identify or understand any relevant knowledge questions.
Points 1-2
The student identifies knowledge questions, but demonstrates limited understanding of their relevance to the prescribed title. The knowledge questions may be superficial or poorly formulated.
Points 3-4
The student identifies relevant knowledge questions and demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of their connection to the prescribed title. The knowledge questions are reasonably well-formulated.
Points 5-6
The student identifies insightful and relevant knowledge questions and demonstrates a thorough understanding of their significance to the prescribed title. The knowledge questions are clearly and precisely formulated.
Points 0
The student provides no analysis of the knowledge questions.
Points 1-2
The student provides limited analysis of the knowledge questions. The analysis is superficial, descriptive, and lacks critical thinking.
Points 3-4
The student provides a satisfactory analysis of the knowledge questions. The analysis demonstrates some critical thinking and explores different perspectives, but may lack depth or coherence.
Points 5-6
The student provides a thorough and insightful analysis of the knowledge questions. The analysis demonstrates strong critical thinking, explores different perspectives in a balanced way, and develops a coherent argument.
Points 0
The student provides no justification for their claims or arguments.
Points 1-2
The student provides limited justification for their claims or arguments. The evidence and examples are weak, irrelevant, or poorly explained.
Points 3-4
The student provides satisfactory justification for their claims and arguments. The evidence and examples are generally relevant and explained, but may lack depth or persuasiveness.
Points 5-6
The student provides strong and convincing justification for their claims and arguments. The evidence and examples are relevant, well-explained, and effectively support the student's reasoning.
Points 0
The student does not consider different perspectives.
Points 1
The student considers different perspectives in a limited or superficial way.
Points 2
The student considers different perspectives and acknowledges their implications for knowledge, but the discussion may lack depth or critical analysis.
Points 3-4
The student effectively considers different perspectives and analyzes their implications for knowledge in a thoughtful and insightful way.
Points 0
The essay is poorly structured and difficult to understand.
Points 1
The essay is somewhat structured, but there are significant issues with clarity and coherence.
Points 2
The essay is generally clear and organized, but there may be some areas for improvement in structure and coherence.
Points 3-4
The essay is clear, coherent, and well-organized. The argument is easy to follow and the essay demonstrates a logical flow of ideas.
Upload your draft to get a personalized checklist for this subject and rubric.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for TOK 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