IBDP Extended Essay Grade Descriptors

 

Grade A

Demonstrates effective research skills resulting in a well-focused and appropriate research question that can be explored within the scope of the chosen topic; effective engagement with relevant research areas, methods and sources; excellent knowledge and understanding of the topic in the wider context of the relevant discipline; the effective application of source material and correct use of subject-specific terminology and/or concepts further supporting this; consistent and relevant conclusions that are proficiently analyzed; sustained reasoned argumentation supported effectively by evidence; critically evaluated research; excellent presentation of the essay, whereby coherence and consistency further supports the reading of the essay; and present and correctly applied structural and layout elements

 

Engagement with the process is conceptual and personal, key decision-making during the research process is documented, and personal reflections are evidenced, including those that are forward-thinking.

​

Grade B

Demonstrates appropriate research skills resulting in a research question that can be explored within the scope of the chosen topic; reasonably effective engagement with relevant research areas, methods and sources; good knowledge and understanding of the topic in the wider context of the relevant discipline; a reasonably effective application of source material and use of subject-specific terminology and/or concepts; consistent conclusions that are accurately analyzed; reasoned argumentation often supported by evidence; research that at times evidences critical evaluation; and a clear presentation of all structural and layout elements, which further supports the reading of the essay.

 

Engagement with the process is generally evidenced by the reflections and key decision-making during the research process is documented.

​

Grade C

Demonstrates evidence of research undertaken, which has led to a research question that is not necessarily expressed in a way that can be explored within the scope of the chosen topic; partially effective engagement with mostly appropriate research areas, methods and sources—however, there are some discrepancies in those processes, although these do not interfere with the planning and approach; some knowledge and understanding of the topic in the wider context of the discipline, which is mostly relevant; the attempted application of source material and appropriate terminology and/or concepts; an attempted synthesis of research results with partially relevant analysis; conclusions partly supported by the evidence; discussion that is descriptive rather than analytical; attempted evaluation; satisfactory presentation of the essay, with weaknesses that do not hinder the reading of the essay; and some structural and layout elements that are missing or are incorrectly applied.

 

Engagement with the process is evidenced but shows mostly factual information, with personal reflection mostly limited to procedural issues.

 

Grade D

Demonstrates a lack of research, resulting in unsatisfactory focus and a research question that is not answerable within the scope of the chosen topic; at times engagement with appropriate research, methods and sources, but discrepancies in those processes that occasionally interfere with the planning and approach; some relevant knowledge and understanding of the topic in the wider context of the discipline, which are at times irrelevant; the attempted application of source material, but with inaccuracies in the use of, or underuse of, terminology and/or concepts; irrelevant analysis and inconsistent conclusions as a result of a descriptive discussion; a lack of evaluation; presentation of the essay that at times is illogical and hinders the reading; and structural and layout elements that are missing.

 

Engagement with the process is evidenced but is superficial, with personal reflections that are solely narrative and concerned with procedural elements.

 

Grade E

Demonstrates an unclear nature of the essay; a generally unsystematic approach and resulting unfocused research question; limited engagement with limited research and sources; generally limited and only partially accurate knowledge and understanding of the topic in the wider context of the relevant discipline; ineffective connections in the application of source material and inaccuracies in the terminology and/or concepts used; a summarizing of results of research with inconsistent analysis; an attempted outline of an argument, but one that is generally descriptive in nature; and a layout that generally lacks or incorrectly applies several layout and structural elements.

 

Engagement with the process is limited, with limited factual or decision-making information and no personal reflection on the process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EE Comments Exemplars

 

Student #1

In my professional opinion, the work is the student’s own. The candidate chose an engaging and personal topic, connected to an undiscovered aspect of her family lineage, that allowed her to persevere through multiple iterations of her work.  Initially, she stumbled with secondary source work used to support her contemporary text selection but forged ahead through interviews and literary analysis to try and make connections. Her constant reflections regarding the investigation and planning of her work were evaluative and allowed her to make informed decisions, specifically about the structure of her paper. She had a balanced approach to her essay and was able to engage with the work on both an intellectual and personal level. In her Viva Voce, she was able to verbally reflect on the gaps in her prior knowledge that were filled through the study of the text and express her personal delight with taking on a more contemporary text that allowed her to make literary judgments without the assistance of prior critical analysis.

 

Student #2

In my professional opinion, the work is the student’s own. The engagement in the topic on the part of the candidate was excellent. She chose two contemporary pieces that reflect aspects of her personal heritage that she is no longer in touch with due to her current location and would like to reconnect with. The candidate’s reflections on the analysis and evaluation of her work were thorough and reflected a sincere response to the challenges that she faced, specifically in regards to the analysis of multiple lyrics, secondary sources and their integration. The candidate’s work ethic was exemplary; she was thoughtful in her preparation for meetings, coming prepared with specific questions for guidance and inquisitive about broadening her access to the material. The reflections and Viva Voce communicated a high degree of intellectual and personal engagement with her research question, organization of ideas and selected literary devices.

 

Student #3

In my professional opinion, the work is the student’s own. The candidates’ engagement with the topic was very high, provoked by a desire to connect with two subjects of personal interest and exploring a topic of high relevance and of a controversial nature to the country in which she resides. After grappling with various challenges surrounding the balance of her World Studies subject matter, she persevered and ultimately reflected on how to overcome those challenges. The challenges prompted significant revision, but she considered appropriate actions that could be taken and ultimately decided on one supported by her primary and secondary research. Her decision-making and planning were analytical and evaluative and showed good skill development. In her Viva Voce, the candidate was passionate about her evaluation and hopeful that it would light on the taboo topic. Her work was authentic and showed significant initiative.

 

Student #4

In my professional opinion, the work is the student’s own. The candidate was completely disengaged from the process. She did not meet with the Supervisor or Coordinator unless pressed to do so, and when meetings were arranged often elected to not attend or engage. The research question that was selected for the final Extended Essay was an iteration of the approved research question and when given feedback that it may not provide the specificity or depth required, the candidate was non-receptive. No RPPF has been submitted showing no degree of personal engagement with the research focus or process. The candidate did attend the Viva Voce, but skirted around the pressing questions and was not reflective about possible adjustments that could have been made to provide a more well-rounded response to the research question.