Back To Computer Science

EE Playbook

Computer Science EE Criteria Guide

Use a focused research question and clear methodology so the essay stays technical and evidence-led.

This guide follows the EE criteria for computer science: focus and method, knowledge and understanding, critical thinking, presentation, and engagement. It keeps the essay technical by tying every section back to the research question.

Computer Science 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 Computer Science 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 Computer Science 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

Scope the research question

Pick a question that is narrow enough to support depth, but technical enough to reward computer science analysis.

Step 2

Use accurate terminology

Show subject knowledge by using concepts, methods, and vocabulary precisely and consistently.

Step 3

Build a real argument

Move beyond description by comparing approaches, weighing evidence, and explaining the reasoning behind your conclusion.

Step 4

Keep the structure clear

Make the essay easy to follow so the argument, presentation, and engagement notes all support the same line of inquiry.

Submission Checklist

  • The question is focused and computer-science specific.
  • Technical terminology is accurate and purposeful.
  • Evidence and analysis support the conclusion.
  • The essay stays coherent from introduction to ending.

Quick Wins

  • Define scope early so the project stays technical.
  • Explain algorithms or tools in terms of why they matter to the question.
  • Tie every conclusion sentence back to the research question.

Did You Know?

Use Rubric Feedback Before You Submit Your EE

Upload your computer science EE draft to Marksy and get targeted feedback on scope, terminology, reasoning, and the strength of your technical argument. 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 EE DraftSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My EE Draft