Back To Biology

EE Playbook

Biology EE Criteria Guide

Develop an independent biological question with strong subject knowledge, sharp critical thinking, and disciplined structure.

Use this guide to keep the Biology Extended Essay focused on a precise question, accurate biological terminology, evidence-based analysis, and a polished presentation that supports your argument from start to finish.

Criteria Breakdown

Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

Topic, research question, and methodology

Top-Band Move

• Topic communicated accurately and effectively • Research question clearly stated and focused • Methodology complete with evidence of informed selection

Common Penalty

• Topic communicated unclearly and incompletely • Research question stated but not clearly expressed or too broad • Methodology of the research is limited

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

Subject area relevance and use of terminology/concepts

Top-Band Move

• Knowledge and understanding excellent • Use of terminology and concepts good and accurate

Common Penalty

• Knowledge and understanding limited • Use of terminology and concepts unclear and limited

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

Examiner Focus

Analysis and evaluation of research

Top-Band Move

• Research excellent • Analysis excellent • Discussion/evaluation excellent

Common Penalty

• Research limited • Analysis limited • Discussion/evaluation limited

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

Examiner Focus

Structure and layout

Top-Band Move

• Structure and layout adequate/good

Common Penalty

• Structure and layout limited

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

Process and research focus

Top-Band Move

• Engagement good/excellent

Common Penalty

• Engagement limited

Markbands

Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Topic communicated unclearly and incompletely • Research question stated but not clearly expressed or too broad • Methodology of the research is limited

Points 3-4

• Topic communicated adequately • Research question clearly stated but only partially focused • Methodology mostly complete

Points 5-6

• Topic communicated accurately and effectively • Research question clearly stated and focused • Methodology complete with evidence of informed selection

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Knowledge and understanding limited • Use of terminology and concepts unclear and limited

Points 3-4

• Knowledge and understanding good • Use of terminology and concepts adequate

Points 5-6

• Knowledge and understanding excellent • Use of terminology and concepts good and accurate

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

Points 1-3

• Research limited • Analysis limited • Discussion/evaluation limited

Points 4-6

• Research adequate • Analysis adequate • Discussion/evaluation adequate

Points 7-9

• Research good • Analysis good • Discussion/evaluation good

Points 10-12

• Research excellent • Analysis excellent • Discussion/evaluation excellent

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Structure and layout limited

Points 3-4

• Structure and layout adequate/good

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

Points 0

The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• Engagement limited

Points 3-4

• Engagement adequate

Points 5-6

• Engagement good/excellent

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Lock a narrow question

Choose a biological topic that is researchable, specific, and clearly linked to the subject.

Step 2

Build subject knowledge first

Use accurate terminology and relevant theory so the essay sounds like biology, not general science.

Step 3

Argue from evidence

Weave findings, comparisons, and evaluation into a coherent line of reasoning instead of stacking summary paragraphs.

Step 4

Finish with presentation discipline

Make the layout, citations, and reflective elements clean enough that the assessment can reward the thinking rather than be distracted by format issues.

Submission Checklist

  • Research question is specific, focused, and biologically valid.
  • Terminology and concepts are accurate throughout.
  • Evidence is interpreted rather than merely described.
  • Presentation and engagement are both visible in the final draft.

Quick Wins

  • Draft a one-sentence thesis that answers the question before expanding the essay.
  • Use source notes to separate biological fact, interpretation, and evaluation.
  • Check each paragraph for a clear link back to the research question.

Did You Know?

Get Rubric Feedback On Your Biology EE Draft

Upload your Biology Extended Essay draft to Marksy and get criterion-level feedback on focus, knowledge, critical thinking, presentation, and engagement. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.

1. Upload your EE draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get criterion-by-criterion feedback fast.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criteria-wise feedback highlights

Criterion-Level Feedback

Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.

Marksy actionable todo feedback list

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.