Back To English Literature

EE Playbook

English Literature EE Criteria Guide

Show independent scholarship with a disciplined research method and sustained interpretation.

This structure keeps your EE focused, evidence-rich, and aligned to all five criteria from first draft to viva reflection.

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 for a literary investigation

Top-Band Move

- Topic is communicated accurately and effectively - Research question is clearly stated, sharply focused, and framed as a question - Methodology is complete, with evidence of informed selection of primary literary text(s), critical material, and an analytical approach appropriate to the research question

Common Penalty

- Topic is communicated unclearly or incompletely - Research question is stated but unclear, unfocused, or too broad for a literary EE - Methodology is limited, with weak explanation of the selected literary text(s), editions, translations, or secondary sources

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

Knowledge of the literary text(s), relevant context, and subject terminology

Top-Band Move

- Knowledge and understanding of the literary text(s), context, and chosen area of investigation are excellent - Literary terminology and concepts are used accurately, consistently, and with discernment

Common Penalty

- Knowledge and understanding of the literary text(s) and context are limited - Literary terminology and concepts are unclear, inaccurate, or limited

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

Examiner Focus

Research, close analysis, argument, discussion, and evaluation

Top-Band Move

- Research is excellent, focused, and effectively integrated - Analysis is excellent, detailed, and sustained, with close attention to literary technique, meaning, and effect - Discussion and evaluation are excellent, producing a coherent, persuasive, and critically engaged argument

Common Penalty

- Research is limited or only loosely connected to the research question - Analysis is limited, descriptive, or reliant on plot summary - Discussion and evaluation are limited *(Max 3 marks if the topic or research question is inappropriate for studies in language and literature)*

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

Examiner Focus

Structure, layout, referencing, and academic presentation

Top-Band Move

- Presentation is good, with a clear structure, appropriate academic layout, consistent referencing, and well-integrated supporting material

Common Penalty

- Presentation is acceptable but may contain weaknesses in structure, layout, citation practice, bibliography, or integration of quotations

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

Engagement with the research process as evidenced in the RPPF

Top-Band Move

- Engagement is good to excellent, showing thoughtful reflection on research decisions, intellectual initiative, challenges, and growth across the process

Common Penalty

- Engagement is limited, with mostly descriptive reflection or little evidence of decision-making

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 is communicated unclearly or incompletely - Research question is stated but unclear, unfocused, or too broad for a literary EE - Methodology is limited, with weak explanation of the selected literary text(s), editions, translations, or secondary sources

Points 3-4

- Topic is communicated adequately - Research question is clearly stated but only partially focused - Methodology is mostly complete, with generally relevant literary text(s) and research materials *(Max 4 marks if the topic or research question is inappropriate for studies in language and literature)*

Points 5-6

- Topic is communicated accurately and effectively - Research question is clearly stated, sharply focused, and framed as a question - Methodology is complete, with evidence of informed selection of primary literary text(s), critical material, and an analytical approach appropriate to the research question

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 of the literary text(s) and context are limited - Literary terminology and concepts are unclear, inaccurate, or limited

Points 3-4

- Knowledge and understanding of the literary text(s), context, and critical field are good - Literary terminology and concepts are generally adequate and relevant *(Max 4 marks if the topic or research question is inappropriate for studies in language and literature)*

Points 5-6

- Knowledge and understanding of the literary text(s), context, and chosen area of investigation are excellent - Literary terminology and concepts are used accurately, consistently, and with discernment

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

Points 0

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

Points 1-3

- Research is limited or only loosely connected to the research question - Analysis is limited, descriptive, or reliant on plot summary - Discussion and evaluation are limited *(Max 3 marks if the topic or research question is inappropriate for studies in language and literature)*

Points 4-6

- Research is adequate and mostly relevant - Analysis is adequate, though uneven or partly descriptive - Discussion and evaluation are adequate, with some line of argument

Points 7-9

- Research is good and consistently relevant to the question - Analysis is good, with effective close reading of literary methods and meaning - Discussion and evaluation are good, with a clear, generally sustained argument

Points 10-12

- Research is excellent, focused, and effectively integrated - Analysis is excellent, detailed, and sustained, with close attention to literary technique, meaning, and effect - Discussion and evaluation are excellent, producing a coherent, persuasive, and critically engaged argument

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

Points 0

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

Points 1-2

- Presentation is acceptable but may contain weaknesses in structure, layout, citation practice, bibliography, or integration of quotations

Points 3-4

- Presentation is good, with a clear structure, appropriate academic layout, consistent referencing, and well-integrated supporting material

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

Points 0

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

Points 1-2

- Engagement is limited, with mostly descriptive reflection or little evidence of decision-making

Points 3-4

- Engagement is adequate, showing some reflection on choices, challenges, and development of the research process

Points 5-6

- Engagement is good to excellent, showing thoughtful reflection on research decisions, intellectual initiative, challenges, and growth across the process

Build Sequence

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

Step 1

Lock a viable research question

Stress-test scope with one pilot paragraph before full drafting starts.

Step 2

Create a chapter architecture

Assign each section one analytical job and keep overlap intentionally low.

Step 3

Draft with evidence discipline

Use quotation clusters that allow close reading rather than scattered references.

Step 4

Audit against Criteria C and E

Check interpretive depth in the essay and reflective depth in RPPF entries side by side.

Submission Checklist

  • Research question is visible and answered directly in the conclusion.
  • Counter-readings are acknowledged and evaluated.
  • Citation format is consistent across all sections.
  • RPPF reflections show decisions, not diary notes.

Quick Wins

  • Write your conclusion before the final redraft to expose argument gaps.
  • Convert one descriptive paragraph into comparative analysis.
  • Add one sentence per section that links back to the research question.

Did You Know?

Get Rubric Feedback Before You Submit Your EE

Upload your Extended Essay draft to Marksy and get actionable feedback on argument depth, structure, and criteria alignment in minutes. 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.