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.

English Literature EE

Assessment criteria

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.

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

How clearly the English A Literature 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.

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

How accurately the essay uses English A Literature 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.

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

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.

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

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.

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

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.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-2The topic is unclear or incomplete, the research question is vague or too broad, and the method is limited.
3-4The topic is explained adequately, the research question is clear but only partly focused, and the method is mostly complete.
5-6The topic is explained accurately, the research question is clear and focused, and the method is complete, with sources or methods chosen for good reasons.

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-2Subject knowledge is limited, and terminology and concepts are used unclearly.
3-4Subject knowledge is good, and terminology and concepts are used adequately.
5-6Subject knowledge is excellent, and terminology and concepts are used accurately and consistently.

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-3Research, analysis, and evaluation are limited, and the argument is unclear.
4-6Research and analysis are adequate, evaluation is partial, and the argument has inconsistencies.
7-9Research and analysis are good, evaluation is partly critical, and the argument is effective and well structured.
10-12Research and analysis are excellent, evaluation is critical, and the argument is coherent and well supported.

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-2The structure is broadly suitable, but some layout elements are missing or used incorrectly; these weaknesses do not seriously affect reading.
3-4The structure clearly suits the subject and argument, and layout elements are used well enough to help the reader.

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band.
1-2The reflections mostly describe what happened and show little personal engagement.
3-4The reflections analyse decisions and mention skills or understanding gained, showing some personal engagement.
5-6The reflections evaluate decisions, show how you responded to setbacks, and show clear intellectual initiative and personal voice.

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 useful feedback on argument depth, structure, and criteria alignment in minutes. 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.