German B Extended Essay Exemplar: "Inwiefern spiegeln Struwwelpeter… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB German B SL Extended Essay Example

"Inwiefern spiegeln Struwwelpeter und Max und Moritz die Einstellung der Gesellschaft gegenüber der Gewalt als Erziehungsmittel im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhunderts wider und wie verhält sich die heutige Gesellschaft in Bezug auf dieses Thema?"SL

Official IB Result

24/30

Criteria A: Framework for the Essay

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question

Good

A.2Research methods

Good

A.3Structure

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The research question is clear, relevant, and recognizably focused on a workable literary comparison.
The essay is organized logically, with headings and progression that help communicate the inquiry.
The student makes some purposeful use of comparison and historical framing to guide the reader through the argument.

The scope is still too broad for the word limit because it reaches from the nineteenth century to a very general claim about today’s society.
The methods are not explained in enough detail, especially the survey design and how evidence was selected and compared.
Some sections signal the direction of the argument but do not always make the methodological route explicit.

1.1·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

This question is still too broad for 4,000 words because it asks about both an entire nineteenth-century society and “the heutige Gesellschaft.” Narrowing the contemporary part to a specific audience, age group, or reception context would make the student's argument more precise and easier to prove.

1.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student has a clear, relevant research question that names both texts, the historical frame, and the modern comparison. That focus gives the essay a workable direction and helps the reader immediately understand the scope of their investigation.

1.3·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The student's contents page shows that they have planned the essay in advance and organized the investigation into clear thematic sections. That structure helps the reader follow the progression of their argument.

1.4·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

This section heading is well chosen because it mirrors the research question and signals a logical first stage of the investigation. Matching section titles to the line of inquiry makes the essay easier to navigate and keeps the argument focused.

1.5·Suggestion

Page 6• Click to view

The student could consider stating, in one explicit sentence, how this section will define and test “Kritik” before they develop it. A short methodological signpost here would make the essay’s route through the comparison more transparent.

1.6·Question

Page 13• Click to view

What exactly counts as “heute” in the student's argument here: current German readers, their survey respondents, or a broader cultural attitude? Defining that term more precisely would strengthen the focus of the whole essay.

1.7·Weakness

Page 14• Click to view

The student refers to their survey here, but they do not explain how respondents were selected, what questions were asked, or why this method is suitable for answering their research question. Adding that methodological detail would make the design more credible.

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Knowledge

Good

B.2Understanding (Terminology)

Good

B.3Understanding (Concepts)

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student uses relevant terminology accurately in many places, especially when discussing violence, authority, satire, and reception.
The primary texts and contextual materials show real familiarity with the subject matter.
The student demonstrates some conceptual understanding by connecting the works to discipline, social control, and changing responses to violence.

The terminology is not always precise enough, and some historical or legal references need tighter accuracy.
The research base is relevant but not comprehensive enough for the highest band, especially for stronger historical claims.
Several concepts are presented as conclusions before they have been fully tested against the texts and scholarship.

2.1·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

The student establishes essential context clearly and accurately by identifying the work, author, and publication date. This gives the reader a solid factual base before they move into interpretation.

2.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

This comparison shows accurate subject knowledge because the student identifies a shared formal feature that matters to their argument. Recognizing genre similarity helps them compare how each work presents violence rather than treating them as unrelated texts.

2.3·Strength

Page 5• Click to view

The student uses secondary context to connect the texts to broader nineteenth-century ideas about discipline and upbringing. That is effective knowledge use because it situates the works within a real pedagogical discourse instead of isolating them from history.

2.4·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

This source is not closely tied to the student's nineteenth-century discussion, so it risks weakening the historical relevance of the paragraph. They should use context that directly illuminates Hoffmann and Busch, or explain clearly why a later source is being used for comparison.

2.5·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

This sentence overstates what the texts can prove. The works may reflect or stage contemporary norms, but they do not on their own demonstrate how the whole nineteenth-century society “empfunden” hat. The student needs more cautious wording and stronger external evidence.

2.6·Weakness

Page 13• Click to view

There is a factual problem here: “BGB” is not the correct abbreviation for the ministry, and the statement needs to be more precise about the legal source. The student should check the exact institutional name and the law they want to cite so their modern context is accurate.

2.7·Suggestion

Page 15• Click to view

The student already has useful scholarship here; they could consider adding one short sentence explaining how Pape’s view differs from, or reinforces, their own reading. That would show stronger command of the material and make the source work harder for their argument.

Criteria C: Analysis and Line of Argument

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Analysis

Good

C.2Line of argument

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student moves beyond summary in several places by interpreting violence as both literal and symbolic.
The student's comparison between the two texts produces relevant findings about tone, authority, and punishment.
The essay has a recognizable line of argument that returns to the research question and the conclusion.

Large parts of the essay still drift into description or broad inference rather than close analysis.
Some conclusions are too sweeping for the evidence provided, especially when historical claims are drawn from limited textual support or a small survey.
The argument is only partially sustained because it sometimes shifts between literary analysis and historical proof without enough qualification.

3.1·Strength

Page 5• Click to view

This is a strong analytical move because the student distinguishes between physical and symbolic violence rather than simply describing the scene. That layered reading helps them move from plot summary to interpretation.

3.2·Strength

Page 6• Click to view

The student develops the analysis well by showing how the punishment functions metaphorically as well as literally. This kind of interpretation is effective because it explains how meaning is constructed in the text, not just what happens in the story.

3.3·Strength

Page 8• Click to view

This is a clear analytical claim that gives the section a conceptual focus. Using adults as a symbol of power helps the student connect individual episodes to the wider social structure they are discussing.

3.4·Weakness

Page 10• Click to view

This is too general to count as analysis on its own. Instead of saying the episode is “interessanter,” explain how the absent parents change the meaning of the punishment and what that implies about authority in the text.

3.5·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

This sentence makes a very large interpretive leap from the narrative to moral certainty. The student needs to separate what the text shows from their own judgment, and then support the stronger claim with close reference to language, narrative voice, or scholarship.

3.6·Suggestion

Page 12• Click to view

Consider adding one more step of explanation here: which details in the episode specifically create that impression? A brief link back to narrative tone or wording would make the inference more persuasive.

3.7·Strength

Page 16• Click to view

The student does well to acknowledge the limited statistical value of their survey, which shows awareness of evidential boundaries. That honesty strengthens their argument because it signals that they understand what their data can and cannot support.

3.8·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

This is too sweeping because it treats both authors as if their intentions were directly knowable and identical. The student needs to distinguish between evidence, interpretation, and speculation, especially when discussing authorial intention.

3.9·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

This conclusion sounds definitive, but the sample is too small to support a broad causal claim about age and willingness. The student should present this as a tendency within their respondents, not as a general social pattern.

3.10·Question

Page 18• Click to view

How far can a 30-person survey really tell the student what society at the time of Busch and Hoffmann “gesellschaftlich akzeptiert” found acceptable? Thinking about the limits of their evidence here would help them separate historical inference from modern perception.

Criteria D: Discussion and Evaluation

4/8

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Discussion

Good

D.2Evaluation

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The discussion is generally balanced and recognizes differences between the two authors’ tones and possible intentions.
The student uses evidence from the texts and some secondary material to support the discussion.
There is some evaluative awareness of the limits of authorial intention and the survey data.

The discussion does not always stay tightly anchored in evidence when making broader claims about society.
The limitations of the survey are acknowledged, but their impact on the validity of the conclusions is not fully explained.
Alternative interpretations are sometimes noted but not developed far enough to strengthen the evaluation.

4.1·Strength

Page 6• Click to view

The student makes a balanced comparison here by distinguishing tone and effect rather than assuming both texts use violence in the same way. That comparison gives the discussion real nuance.

4.2·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

This is a well-supported evaluative point because the student weighs a strength of Busch’s method against its harsh outcome. The balance between comic tone and fatal ending helps the discussion avoid one-sided judgment.

4.3·Strength

Page 14• Click to view

The student shows good evaluative awareness here by acknowledging the limits of reconstructing intention. That matters because it prevents their later judgments from sounding overly absolute.

4.4·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

This moves quickly from interpretation to a very strong historical conclusion. The student should evaluate alternative readings here and explain why their interpretation is more convincing than other possibilities.

4.5·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

The student acknowledges the sample is small, but they do not yet evaluate how that limitation affects the reliability of their claims. A stronger evaluation would state exactly what the survey can indicate and what it cannot support.

4.6·Question

Page 17• Click to view

What would change in the student's interpretation if the age differences in their sample reflected reading experience rather than age itself? Considering that possibility would make their evaluation more rigorous.

4.7·Strength

Page 18• Click to view

The student's conclusion usefully summarizes the main findings and returns to the research question. The phrasing is measured and shows that they are trying to synthesize evidence rather than simply repeat earlier points.

Criteria F: Formatting

Criteria StrandsPro

F.1The student provides a word count at the beginning of the document

F.2The title of the essay is stated at the start

F.3The work does not surpass the maximum word limit of 4000 words

F.4The pages are numbered

Criteria Feedback

The title is stated at the start of the document.
The word count is provided and remains within the limit.
The pages are numbered, and the submission is organized like a formal essay.

The bibliography appears to contain at least one incomplete entry, which weakens the presentation of the research base.
Source formatting is not fully consistent across the document.
A cleaner final check would improve the professionalism of the submission.

5.1·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student meets the word-count requirement, which shows careful planning and helps the essay stay within the task limits.

5.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The submission includes the required identifying information at the front, which helps with organization and submission control. Keeping the opening details complete makes the document easy to process.

5.3·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student states the essay’s topic clearly at the start, so the reader immediately knows the literary works and central line of inquiry. That clarity helps the whole submission feel purposeful from the outset.

5.4·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The student provides a bibliography and separates it clearly from the main essay, which is an important academic convention. This makes the source base visible and supports the credibility of their research.

5.5·Suggestion

Page 20• Click to view

Consider checking that every source listed here is actually cited in the essay and that each entry follows one consistent style. A cleaner, more consistent bibliography would make the research process easier to verify.

5.6·Weakness

Page 20• Click to view

This bibliography entry is incomplete and cut off, so the source cannot be checked properly. The student should make sure the survey source is fully and consistently documented, including title, access details, and a complete link if they want it to count as a reliable research item.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

24/30

Criteria A: Framework for the Essay

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question

Good

A.2Research methods

Good

A.3Structure

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The research question is clear, relevant, and recognizably focused on a workable literary comparison.
The essay is organized logically, with headings and progression that help communicate the inquiry.
The student makes some purposeful use of comparison and historical framing to guide the reader through the argument.

The scope is still too broad for the word limit because it reaches from the nineteenth century to a very general claim about today’s society.
The methods are not explained in enough detail, especially the survey design and how evidence was selected and compared.
Some sections signal the direction of the argument but do not always make the methodological route explicit.

1.1·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

1.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

1.3·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

1.4·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

1.5·Suggestion

Page 6• Click to view

1.6·Question

Page 13• Click to view

1.7·Weakness

Page 14• Click to view

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Knowledge

Good

B.2Understanding (Terminology)

Good

B.3Understanding (Concepts)

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student uses relevant terminology accurately in many places, especially when discussing violence, authority, satire, and reception.
The primary texts and contextual materials show real familiarity with the subject matter.
The student demonstrates some conceptual understanding by connecting the works to discipline, social control, and changing responses to violence.

The terminology is not always precise enough, and some historical or legal references need tighter accuracy.
The research base is relevant but not comprehensive enough for the highest band, especially for stronger historical claims.
Several concepts are presented as conclusions before they have been fully tested against the texts and scholarship.

2.1·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

2.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

2.3·Strength

Page 5• Click to view

2.4·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

2.5·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

2.6·Weakness

Page 13• Click to view

2.7·Suggestion

Page 15• Click to view

Criteria C: Analysis and Line of Argument

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Analysis

Good

C.2Line of argument

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student moves beyond summary in several places by interpreting violence as both literal and symbolic.
The student's comparison between the two texts produces relevant findings about tone, authority, and punishment.
The essay has a recognizable line of argument that returns to the research question and the conclusion.

Large parts of the essay still drift into description or broad inference rather than close analysis.
Some conclusions are too sweeping for the evidence provided, especially when historical claims are drawn from limited textual support or a small survey.
The argument is only partially sustained because it sometimes shifts between literary analysis and historical proof without enough qualification.

3.1·Strength

Page 5• Click to view

3.2·Strength

Page 6• Click to view

3.3·Strength

Page 8• Click to view

3.4·Weakness

Page 10• Click to view

3.5·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

3.6·Suggestion

Page 12• Click to view

3.7·Strength

Page 16• Click to view

3.8·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

3.9·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

3.10·Question

Page 18• Click to view

Criteria D: Discussion and Evaluation

4/8

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Discussion

Good

D.2Evaluation

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The discussion is generally balanced and recognizes differences between the two authors’ tones and possible intentions.
The student uses evidence from the texts and some secondary material to support the discussion.
There is some evaluative awareness of the limits of authorial intention and the survey data.

The discussion does not always stay tightly anchored in evidence when making broader claims about society.
The limitations of the survey are acknowledged, but their impact on the validity of the conclusions is not fully explained.
Alternative interpretations are sometimes noted but not developed far enough to strengthen the evaluation.

4.1·Strength

Page 6• Click to view

The student makes a balanced comparison here by distinguishing tone and effect rather than assuming both texts use violence in the same way. That comparison gives the discussion real nuance.

4.2·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

4.3·Strength

Page 14• Click to view

The student shows good evaluative awareness here by acknowledging the limits of reconstructing intention. That matters because it prevents their later judgments from sounding overly absolute.

4.4·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

4.5·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

4.6·Question

Page 17• Click to view

4.7·Strength

Page 18• Click to view

Criteria F: Formatting

Criteria StrandsPro

F.1The student provides a word count at the beginning of the document

F.2The title of the essay is stated at the start

F.3The work does not surpass the maximum word limit of 4000 words

F.4The pages are numbered

Criteria Feedback

The title is stated at the start of the document.
The word count is provided and remains within the limit.
The pages are numbered, and the submission is organized like a formal essay.

The bibliography appears to contain at least one incomplete entry, which weakens the presentation of the research base.
Source formatting is not fully consistent across the document.
A cleaner final check would improve the professionalism of the submission.

5.1·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The student meets the word-count requirement, which shows careful planning and helps the essay stay within the task limits.

5.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

5.3·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

5.4·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

5.5·Suggestion

Page 20• Click to view

5.6·Weakness

Page 20• Click to view