Geography EE Grader
This page provides a comprehensive guide to understanding the assessment criteria for the IB Geography Extended Essay (EE). By breaking down each criterion, offering annotated examples, and explaining grade boundaries, you'll gain clarity on how your work is evaluated. Additionally, a free embedded grader is available to help you self-assess your essay efficiently.
Quick Start Checklist
Before using the grader, ensure you have the following:
- Final Draft of Your Essay: Complete with all sections, including introduction, body, conclusion, and bibliography.
- Word Count: Verify that your essay does not exceed the 4,000-word limit.
- Data Tables and Visuals: Include all relevant maps, graphs, and tables.
- Citations: Ensure all sources are properly cited using a consistent referencing style.
- Reflection Notes: Prepare your Reflections on Planning and Progress Form (RPPF).
Rubric Breakdown (Paraphrased & Plain English)
The IB Geography EE is assessed using five criteria, totaling 34 marks. Here's a breakdown:
Criterion A: Framework for the Essay (6 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to formulate a clear research question, select appropriate methods, and structure your essay logically.
Performance Levels:
- High: A well-defined research question, appropriate methodology, and a coherent structure.
- Medium: Some clarity in the research question and structure, but with minor inconsistencies.
- Low: Unclear research question, inappropriate methods, and a disorganized structure.
Common Mistakes:
- Vague or overly broad research questions.
- Inadequate explanation of chosen methods.
- Lack of logical flow between sections.
Mark Band Descriptors:
| Mark Band | Description | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| 5-6 | Clear research question, appropriate methods, and logical structure. | Explicitly stated question, justified methodology, and well-organized sections. |
| 3-4 | Some clarity in question and methods; structure has minor issues. | Question stated but may lack focus; methods mentioned but not fully justified; structure somewhat clear. |
| 1-2 | Unclear question, inappropriate methods, and poor structure. | Question vague or missing; methods inappropriate or absent; structure disorganized. |
Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)
What It Tests: Your grasp of the geographical context and integration of subject-specific concepts.
Performance Levels:
- High: Demonstrates deep understanding with relevant geographical theories applied.
- Medium: Shows general understanding with some application of theories.
- Low: Limited understanding with minimal application of geographical concepts.
Common Mistakes:
- Superficial treatment of geographical theories.
- Failure to connect findings to geographical context.
Mark Band Descriptors:
| Mark Band | Description | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| 5-6 | Comprehensive understanding with effective application of concepts. | Accurate use of geographical terminology and integration of relevant theories. |
| 3-4 | General understanding with some application of concepts. | Use of geographical terms with occasional inaccuracies; some integration of theories. |
| 1-2 | Limited understanding with minimal application of concepts. | Inaccurate or missing geographical terminology; little to no integration of theories. |
Criterion C: Analysis and Line of Argument (6 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to critically analyze data and construct a coherent argument.
Performance Levels:
- High: Insightful analysis with a well-supported argument.
- Medium: Adequate analysis with a somewhat supported argument.
- Low: Superficial analysis with a weak or unsupported argument.
Common Mistakes:
- Over-reliance on description rather than analysis.
- Lack of clear argument or thesis.
Mark Band Descriptors:
| Mark Band | Description | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| 5-6 | Thorough analysis with a clear, well-supported argument. | Critical evaluation of data; logical progression of ideas; strong evidence supporting conclusions. |
| 3-4 | Adequate analysis with a somewhat supported argument. | Some evaluation of data; argument present but may lack depth; evidence partially supports conclusions. |
| 1-2 | Superficial analysis with a weak or unsupported argument. | Minimal evaluation of data; unclear argument; little to no evidence supporting conclusions. |
Criterion D: Discussion and Evaluation (8 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to interpret findings, discuss their significance, and evaluate the research process.
Performance Levels:
- High: Comprehensive discussion with critical evaluation of findings and methods.
- Medium: General discussion with some evaluation of findings and methods.
- Low: Limited discussion with little to no evaluation of findings and methods.
Common Mistakes:
- Failure to address limitations of the study.
- Lack of reflection on the research process.
Mark Band Descriptors:
| Mark Band | Description | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| 7-8 | In-depth discussion with critical evaluation of findings and methods. | Thorough interpretation of results; identification of study limitations; reflection on research process. |
| 5-6 | General discussion with some evaluation of findings and methods. | Interpretation of results; acknowledgment of some limitations; limited reflection on research process. |
| 3-4 | Limited discussion with little evaluation of findings and methods. | Basic interpretation of results; minimal acknowledgment of limitations; little reflection on research process. |
Criterion E: Reflection (4 marks)
What It Tests: Your ability to reflect on your learning journey throughout the research process.
Performance Levels:
- High: Insightful reflection demonstrating personal and academic growth.
- Medium: General reflection with some evidence of growth.
- Low: Superficial reflection with little evidence of growth.
Common Mistakes:
- Providing a narrative of events without reflection.
- Lack of insight into personal development.
Mark Band Descriptors:
| Mark Band | Description | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| 3-4 | Insightful reflection showing significant personal and academic growth. | Detailed reflection on challenges faced, skills developed, and lessons learned. |
| 2 | General reflection with some evidence of growth. | Reflection on challenges and skills developed, but lacks depth. |
| 1 | Superficial reflection with little evidence of growth. | Minimal reflection on challenges and skills; lacks insight. |
How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool
The embedded grader provides a score out of 34, corresponding to the IB grading scale:
- A (27–34): Excellent
- B (21–26): Good
- C (14–20): Satisfactory
- D (7–13): Mediocre
- E (0–6): Elementary
If You're Between Bands or Uncertain:
- Review Feedback: Focus on criteria where marks were lost.
- Seek Clarification: Discuss with your supervisor for detailed insights.
Improvement Actions:
- Criterion A: Refine your research question and ensure a logical structure.
- Criterion B: Deepen your understanding of geographical concepts.
- Criterion C: Enhance your analytical skills and strengthen your argument.
- Criterion D: Critically evaluate your findings and research process.
- **
