EE Playbook
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
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How clearly the Computer Science essay introduces its topic, states a focused research question, and uses a suitable method.
Stronger evidence
The topic is explained accurately, the research question is clear and focused, and the method is complete, with sources or methods chosen for good reasons.
Early-stage evidence
The topic is unclear or incomplete, the research question is vague or too broad, and the method is limited.
How accurately the essay uses Computer Science knowledge, concepts, terminology, and sources.
Stronger evidence
Subject knowledge is excellent, and terminology and concepts are used accurately and consistently.
Early-stage evidence
Subject knowledge is limited, and terminology and concepts are used unclearly.
How well the essay researches, analyses, and evaluates its material to build a reasoned argument that answers the question.
Stronger evidence
Research and analysis are excellent, evaluation is critical, and the argument is coherent and well supported.
Early-stage evidence
Research, analysis, and evaluation are limited, and the argument is unclear.
How well the essay's structure and layout (title page, contents, headings, figures, references) support the reader.
Stronger evidence
The structure clearly suits the subject and argument, and layout elements are used well enough to help the reader.
Early-stage evidence
The structure is broadly suitable, but some layout elements are missing or used incorrectly; these weaknesses do not seriously affect reading.
How your RPPF reflections show decision-making, responses to setbacks, and personal engagement with the research.
Stronger evidence
The reflections evaluate decisions, show how you responded to setbacks, and show clear intellectual initiative and personal voice.
Early-stage evidence
The reflections mostly describe what happened and show little personal engagement.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | The topic is unclear or incomplete, the research question is vague or too broad, and the method is limited. |
| 3-4 | The topic is explained adequately, the research question is clear but only partly focused, and the method is mostly complete. |
| 5-6 | The topic is explained accurately, the research question is clear and focused, and the method is complete, with sources or methods chosen for good reasons. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Subject knowledge is limited, and terminology and concepts are used unclearly. |
| 3-4 | Subject knowledge is good, and terminology and concepts are used adequately. |
| 5-6 | Subject knowledge is excellent, and terminology and concepts are used accurately and consistently. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-3 | Research, analysis, and evaluation are limited, and the argument is unclear. |
| 4-6 | Research and analysis are adequate, evaluation is partial, and the argument has inconsistencies. |
| 7-9 | Research and analysis are good, evaluation is partly critical, and the argument is effective and well structured. |
| 10-12 | Research and analysis are excellent, evaluation is critical, and the argument is coherent and well supported. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | The structure is broadly suitable, but some layout elements are missing or used incorrectly; these weaknesses do not seriously affect reading. |
| 3-4 | The structure clearly suits the subject and argument, and layout elements are used well enough to help the reader. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | The reflections mostly describe what happened and show little personal engagement. |
| 3-4 | The reflections analyse decisions and mention skills or understanding gained, showing some personal engagement. |
| 5-6 | The reflections evaluate decisions, show how you responded to setbacks, and show clear intellectual initiative and personal voice. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Pick a question that is narrow enough to support depth, but technical enough to reward computer science analysis.
Step 2
Show subject knowledge by using concepts, methods, and vocabulary precisely and consistently.
Step 3
Move beyond description by comparing approaches, weighing evidence, and explaining the reasoning behind your conclusion.
Step 4
Make the essay easy to follow so the argument, presentation, and engagement notes all support the same line of inquiry.
Did You Know?
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.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.