Pricing Schools

Jojo holding a cookie

This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

5.1 Marking Toolkit | RevisionDojo

1.1 Essentials of the EE 2.1 Criterion A: Framework for the essayPRO 2.2 Criterion B: Knowledge and UnderstandingPRO 2.3 Criterion C: Analysis and line of argumentPRO 2.4 Criterion D: Discussion and EvaluationPRO 2.5 Criterion E: ReflectionPRO 3.1 Examiners’ InsightsPRO 4.1 EE Checklist 4.2 Referencing and Citation GuidePRO 4.3 Academic Honesty and Plagiarism PreventionPRO 5.1 Marking Toolkit 6.1 EE Suggested Timeline 7.1 Student Planning Sheets

EE Guides
5.1 Marking Toolkit

5.1 Marking Toolkit

Global Politics

Purpose

Investigate a significant, contemporary global political issue through a Global Politics lens.
Produce a reasoned argument supported by research, not a narrative of events.

What makes a Global Politics EE distinctive

Focuses on power in social organization and world politics.
Uses subject-specific concepts and theories, commonly including power, sovereignty, legitimacy, human rights, development, sustainability, interdependence.
Integrates multiple perspectives:
1. Actors: states, NGOs, IGOs, communities, individuals.
2. Theoretical lenses: e.g., realism, liberalism, constructivism, critical approaches (as relevant to your RQ).

Topic rules

Must be contemporary: emphasis on events/issues within the student’s lifetime.
Historical background is allowed only when it clarifies the present.
Avoid future-focused questions that force speculation.

Assessment reality

The EE is externally assessed against Criteria A–E using a best-fit judgement.
A weakness in one criterion is not “offset” by strength in another.
Fastest failure modes:
1. Not clearly a political issue (power/authority/legitimacy missing).
2. Not contemporary.
3. Overly broad or descriptive RQ → narrative essay.
4. Claims without source evaluation in a contested topic.

Supervision constraints

Supervisors guide feasibility and research choices; they do not write, rewrite, or “fix” the essay.
Student owns proofreading and academic integrity.
Supervisor time is limited (typically a few hours across the process, including reflection sessions); confirm with the official IB EE Guide if numbers differ.

Criterion A: Framework for the essay

Criterion A focus
1. Rewards a clearly focused political issue, a sharply defined RQ, and a justified, workable method that sustains focus throughout.
Examiners look for
1. A topic that is unambiguously Global Politics
  1. Explicitly framed around power (distribution, contestation, legitimacy, outcomes)
  2. Connected to relevant actors/institutions (state policy, IGO governance, NGO advocacy, etc.)
2. A focused research question (RQ) that is:
  1. Analytical and debatable (not “What happened?”)
  2. Researchable within 4,000 words
  3. Preferably phrased as “to what extent / how / in what ways”
3. Scope controls visible in the RQ and intro:
  1. Actor(s), place(s), timeframe, and (if relevant) case selection logic
4. A method that fits the RQ and is explicitly defended:
  1. Approaches: case study, comparative study, discourse/content analysis
  2. Techniques: literature/media review, quantitative analysis, interviews (where feasible/ethical)
  3. “Theory + concepts” used as method: applying theoretical lenses and core concepts to interpret evidence
5. A source strategy that anticipates bias and contestation:
  1. Secondary sources often form the backbone; primary materials can supplement
  2. Built-in plan to evaluate reliability, positionality, interests, and limitations
High-level indicators
1. The RQ can be answered with a reasoned argument, not description
2. The method makes it obvious what evidence will count and how it will be interpreted
3. The essay design creates space for contrasting perspectives
Common weaknesses
1. RQ is too broad, multi-country/multi-issue without justification
2. Topic becomes policy summary or journalism without Global Politics concepts/theory
3. “Method” is only a list of sources; no plan for analysis + evaluation
4. Overreliance on popular/social media without critical source strategy

Tip

Map every section to the RQ: each subsection should deliver a concept-driven claim backed by evidence, not background

Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding

Criterion B focus
1. Rewards accurate, relevant Global Politics knowledge and consistent use of subject terminology and concepts to build understanding for analysis.
Examiners look for
1. Clear placement of the RQ in a broader Global Politics context
  1. Links to institutions, actors, and theoretical debates
2. Accurate, consistent use of terminology and concepts
  1. Core: power, sovereignty, legitimacy, human rights, development, sustainability, interdependence
  2. Use additional concepts only when they add explanatory value (avoid concept “name-dropping”)
3. Awareness that understandings are shaped by social/cultural contexts and biases
  1. Who benefits, whose framing dominates, which voices are excluded
High-level indicators
1. Context is selective and RQ-serving
2. Concepts are used to do explanatory work (define → apply → interpret evidence)
Common weaknesses
1. Long background sections that substitute for analysis
2. Vague concept use (“sovereignty”/“legitimacy” mentioned, not operationalized)
3. Theory appears only in the intro, then disappears

Common Mistake

If a paragraph cannot be tied to a specific concept and the RQ, cut or reframe it

Criterion C: Analysis and Line of Argument

Criterion C focus
1. Rewards analysis + evaluation that builds a coherent line of argument answering the RQ, supported by critically handled evidence.
Examiners look for
1. A sustained argument where:
  1. Claims are supported by specific evidence from research.
  2. Reasoning shows how evidence supports the claim (not just quotes/data drops).
2. Critical engagement with contested material:
  1. Balanced presentation of conflicting interpretations before judgement.
3. Evaluation embedded throughout:
  1. Value/limitations of key sources (bias, methodology, access, incentives).
  2. Strength/limits of chosen approach (e.g., case-study generalizability; discourse analysis subjectivity).
4. Use of concepts/theory to interpret, not decorate:
  1. Competing lenses may yield different explanations; the essay explains why.
High-level indicators
1. Each section produces a mini-conclusion that advances the argument.
2. Counter-arguments are treated as serious alternatives, not strawmen.
3. The final conclusion is consistent with the evidence and argument presented.
Common weaknesses
1. Narrative (“first… then…”) replacing analysis of power dynamics.
2. One-sided advocacy tone; limited engagement with opposing perspectives.
3. “Evaluation” saved for a final paragraph instead of integrated.

Tip

Quick test for every paragraph: What does this show about my RQ? If unclear, revise.

Criterion D: Discussion and Evaluation

Criterion D focus
1. Rewards a presentation that follows academic conventions and supports clear evaluation of the argument.
Examiners look for
1. Required structural elements are present and functional:
  1. Title page, contents, introduction, body, conclusion, references/bibliography.
2. Headings used intentionally to support focus and argument flow:
  1. Headings clearly signal purpose, scope, and progression of the argument (not decorative).
3. Visuals used only when they advance the argument:
  1. Charts/tables/images included only if they clarify a claim at that point.
  2. Every figure/table is properly referenced.
4. Appendices handled correctly:
  1. Include non-essential material only; examiners are not required to read appendices.
  2. Anything crucial to the argument must be in the main body.
5. Word limit respected:
  1. Maximum 4,000 words; examiners are not required to read beyond.
  2. Footnotes/endnotes used primarily for referencing; substantive extra argument risks word-count issues.
6. Academic integrity via referencing:
  1. Cite quotes, paraphrases, data, graphs, images, and digital material.
  2. Use one consistent style (e.g., APA is common in social sciences); IB does not mandate one style.
  3. Include what’s needed to locate digital sources (often URL + access date, depending on style).
Common weaknesses
1. Inconsistent citations; missing references for figures/data.
2. Using appendices to hide key analysis or evidence.
3. Exceeding 4,000 words, so the conclusion/critical material goes unassessed.

Common Mistake

If it is important, it must be in the body and referenced.

Criterion E: Reflection

Criterion E focus
1. Rewards evaluative reflection on your research focus and process, assessed through the RPPF (and supported by your RRS if used).
Examiners look for
1. Reflections that show decision-making and intellectual development, such as:
  1. Why you chose this issue and how your RQ evolved.
  2. Turning points: encountering conflicting perspectives; redefining concepts; changing case selection.
  3. How you revised your method/source strategy after discovering limitations.
2. Evidence of process authenticity:
  1. Planning → research → drafting → revision decisions are visible.
  2. Reflection is about thinking, not just scheduling.
High-level indicators
1. Reflections explain why choices were made and what changed in understanding.
2. Student voice shows initiative and critical self-correction.
Common weaknesses
1. Generic claims (“I learned a lot”) without concrete research decisions.
2. Reflection focused mainly on time management.
3. No discussion of how source bias/limits affected the investigation.

Note

Keep an RRS (notes, question shifts, source evaluations) so RPPF reflections can cite real turning points.

Applying the Best-Fit Model (for teachers)

Read the entire essay before deciding marks.
Start from the lowest descriptor and move upward to the best overall match.
Do not average “strands” mechanically; judge overall alignment within each criterion.
If between two levels:
1. Use the higher mark only if the essay meets the descriptor to a strong extent.

Teacher reflection prompts

Does the essay keep a clear Global Politics lens on power?
Is the RQ controlled by actor/place/timeframe/case logic?
Are theories and concepts used to interpret evidence, not decorate?
Are multiple perspectives engaged and weighed before judgement?
Is source handling consistently critical (bias, method, limitations)?
Do reflections show evaluative growth through the process?

View Exemplars

And thousands of other examples from high-scoring students.

"To what extent can Basque nationalism undermine political stability in Spain?"

What measures has Brazil applied in its foreign and domestic policies to address the Venezuelan migration crisis?

To what extent have the economic sanctions changed life in Russia?

Extended Essay

Global Politics

EE