Back To Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation

EE Playbook

Math EE Criteria Guide

Show a focused mathematical investigation with accurate reasoning and a convincing line of argument.

This guide keeps the extended essay tied to a focused mathematical question, a defensible method, and a conclusion that follows from the mathematics rather than from intuition alone.

Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation 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 Mathematics 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 Mathematics 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

Test the question early

Make sure the topic can be answered through mathematical reasoning that is deep enough for 4,000 words.

Step 2

Build the argument around definitions

Clarify assumptions, symbols, and methods so the argument does not become ambiguous later.

Step 3

Check every derivation

Verify intermediate steps and explain why each result is relevant to the research question.

Step 4

Conclude with mathematical judgement

State what the evidence proves, what it suggests, and what the investigation cannot legitimately claim.

Submission Checklist

  • The research question is mathematical and focused enough for an essay.
  • The argument stays coherent from introduction to conclusion.
  • Notation is precise and consistent throughout.
  • The conclusion is supported by the mathematics in the essay body.

Quick Wins

  • Replace one broad descriptive paragraph with a proof, derivation, or calculation that actually advances the argument.
  • Check whether every section answers part of the research question explicitly.
  • Remove any result that is mathematically interesting but irrelevant to the thesis.

Did You Know?

Pressure-Test Your Math EE Before Submission

Upload your Math EE draft to Marksy and get targeted feedback on focus, mathematical depth, and overall coherence. 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