Back To Global Politics

EE Playbook

Global Politics EE Criteria Guide

Show focused research, precise political terminology, and a sustained argument built from evidence.

This guide keeps the essay anchored to a manageable research question, relevant political concepts, and a coherent evaluation of evidence.

Global Politics 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 Global Politics 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 Global Politics 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

Narrow the research question

Aim for a question that can be answered with political analysis, not a general survey of a broad issue.

Step 2

Build a concept-led outline

Organise sections around political concepts, actors, and context so the argument stays focused throughout.

Step 3

Interrogate your evidence

Use sources to test claims, expose trade-offs, and show why some interpretations are stronger than others.

Step 4

Conclude with judgement

End with a defensible answer to the research question and make clear what the evidence does and does not prove.

Submission Checklist

  • The research question is specific, political, and answerable in 4,000 words.
  • Evidence is analysed, not stacked as isolated background.
  • Terms and concepts are used accurately and consistently.
  • The final judgement follows from the argument already built in the body.

Quick Wins

  • Turn one descriptive paragraph into a comparison of competing political interpretations.
  • Check that every paragraph ends by linking back to the research question.
  • Flag any source that informs context but does not actually move the argument forward.

Did You Know?

Pressure-Test Your EE Before Submission

Upload your Global Politics EE draft to Marksy and get independently written feedback on focus, analysis, and evaluation. 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