EE Playbook
Use a focused question, strong context, and disciplined evidence to build a defensible line of argument.
This guide follows the EE criteria for history: focus and method, knowledge and understanding, and critical thinking. It keeps the essay narrow enough to support real historical analysis rather than broad narrative.
Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.
Examiner Focus
Topic, research question, and methodology
Top-Band Move
- Topic communicated accurately and effectively - Research question clearly stated and focused - Methodology complete with evidence of informed selection
Common Penalty
- Topic communicated unclearly and incompletely - Research question stated but not clearly expressed or too broad - Methodology limited
Examiner Focus
Subject knowledge and use of terminology/concepts
Top-Band Move
- Excellent knowledge/understanding - Good use of terminology/concepts
Common Penalty
- Limited knowledge/understanding - Terminology/concepts unclear and limited
Examiner Focus
Research, analysis, discussion and evaluation
Top-Band Move
- Excellent research and analysis - Excellent discussion/evaluation
Common Penalty
- Limited research and analysis - Limited discussion/evaluation *(Max 3 marks if topic/RQ inappropriate for subject)*
Examiner Focus
Structure and layout (Note: Markband descriptors for Criterion D were not provided in the extracted content)*
Top-Band Move
The extracted rubric text does not include a point-band table for this criterion.
Common Penalty
Use the assessment focus and notes in the rubric to judge the lowest acceptable performance.
Examiner Focus
Process and research focus (Note: Markband descriptors for Criterion E were not provided in the extracted content)*
Top-Band Move
The extracted rubric text does not include a point-band table for this criterion.
Common Penalty
Use the assessment focus and notes in the rubric to judge the lowest acceptable performance.
Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
- Topic communicated unclearly and incompletely - Research question stated but not clearly expressed or too broad - Methodology limited
Points 3-4
- Topic communicated adequately - Research question clearly stated but only partially focused - Methodology mostly complete *(Max 4 marks if topic/RQ inappropriate for subject)*
Points 5-6
- Topic communicated accurately and effectively - Research question clearly stated and focused - Methodology complete with evidence of informed selection
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-2
- Limited knowledge/understanding - Terminology/concepts unclear and limited
Points 3-4
- Good knowledge/understanding - Adequate use of terminology/concepts *(Max 4 marks if topic/RQ inappropriate for subject)*
Points 5-6
- Excellent knowledge/understanding - Good use of terminology/concepts
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
- Limited research and analysis - Limited discussion/evaluation *(Max 3 marks if topic/RQ inappropriate for subject)*
Points 4-6
- Adequate research and analysis - Adequate discussion/evaluation
Points 7-9
- Good research and analysis - Good discussion/evaluation
Points 10-12
- Excellent research and analysis - Excellent discussion/evaluation
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Check that the question is historical, focused, and answerable with the evidence you can realistically access.
Step 2
Use sources that support more than one perspective so the argument can move beyond summary.
Step 3
Let each section make a claim, support it with evidence, and connect it back to the question.
Step 4
Make sure the conclusion follows the argument you actually built, not just the topic you chose.
Did You Know?
Upload your history EE draft to Marksy and get focused feedback on scope, evidence use, and the quality of your historical argument. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-Level Feedback
Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.
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.