Back To English Language & Literature

EE Playbook

English Language & Literature EE Criteria Guide

Turn a focused text or corpus question into sustained language-and-literature analysis.

Use this guide to keep your research question precise, your corpus manageable, and your analysis grounded in language, context, audience, and purpose.

English Language & Literature 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 English A Language and Literature 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 English A Language and Literature 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

Choose the category

Decide whether the essay is literary, comparative literary, or category 3 language/textual analysis before drafting.

Step 2

Define the corpus

Set clear boundaries for the text, campaign, media sample, or body of material you will analyze.

Step 3

Build an analytical lens

Connect textual choices to audience, purpose, culture, context, and meaning rather than describing content.

Step 4

Audit argument flow

Check that each section advances the research question and does not drift into general commentary.

Submission Checklist

  • Research question is narrow enough for 4,000 words.
  • Corpus or primary text selection is explicit and justified.
  • Analysis focuses on language, form, context, audience, and purpose.
  • RPPF reflections show decisions and revisions, not just progress notes.

Quick Wins

  • Replace broad social-issue claims with evidence from specific textual choices.
  • Add one sentence per section explaining why this material belongs in the corpus.
  • Use terminology only when it helps analysis, then explain its effect.

Did You Know?

Get Rubric Feedback Before You Submit Your EE

Upload your English A Language & Literature EE draft to Marksy and get independently written feedback on focus, textual analysis, structure, and engagement. 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 EE DraftSee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My EE Draft