Back To Chemistry

EE Playbook

Chemistry EE Criteria Guide

Shape a focused chemistry question, show subject knowledge clearly, and argue from evidence with control and precision.

Use this guide to keep the Chemistry Extended Essay disciplined around a specific question, accurate chemical terminology, coherent analysis, and a conclusion that is explicitly grounded in the science you present.

Chemistry EE

Assessment criteria

See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.

This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

How clearly the Chemistry essay defines a focused research question and uses a suitable research method.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address focus and method, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

How accurately the essay uses Chemistry knowledge, concepts, terminology, and research context.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address knowledge and understanding, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

How effectively the essay selects evidence, develops analysis, evaluates material, and builds a reasoned answer.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address critical thinking, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

How well the essay's structure, academic conventions, citations, and visual material support the research.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address presentation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

How specifically the reflections show decision-making, adaptation, and learning during the research process.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address engagement, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for focus and method.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address focus and method, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for knowledge and understanding.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address knowledge and understanding, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for critical thinking.
1-3Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address critical thinking, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
4-6Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
7-9The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
10-12The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for presentation.
1Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address presentation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
2Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
3The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
4The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for engagement.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address engagement, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Build Sequence

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

Step 1

Refine the question early

Pick a chemistry topic narrow enough to support sustained investigation and direct evidence.

Step 2

Use chemistry correctly

Keep terminology, mechanisms, and theory accurate so the essay reads as specialist writing.

Step 3

Build a line of reasoning

Use evidence, comparison, and analysis to answer the question rather than summarizing sources one by one.

Step 4

Finish with a controlled draft

Make presentation, citations, and overall structure clean enough that the argument stays at the center of the reading experience.

Submission Checklist

  • Question is focused and suitable for chemistry.
  • Subject language is accurate and consistent.
  • Evidence is analyzed, not just reported.
  • Structure and engagement support the argument.

Quick Wins

  • Write the best-supported answer to your question before expanding to full draft length.
  • Use one paragraph to compare findings to accepted chemistry context.
  • Keep the final section tightly aligned with the evidence you have already built.

Did You Know?

Get Rubric Feedback On Your Chemistry EE

Upload your Chemistry Extended Essay draft to Marksy and get independently written feedback on focus, evidence, reasoning, and evaluation. Every criterion mark is an estimate, not an official result. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.

1. Upload your EE draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get an estimated mark and feedback for every EE criterion.
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 criterion feedback highlights

Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback

See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.

Marksy list of fixes for an IB draft

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.

Grade My Chemistry EESee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Chemistry EE