Business EE Rubric 2017
Business EE Rubric 2017
Business EE Rubric 2017
All extended essays are externally assessed by examiners appointed by the IBO. All extended essays are marked on a scale from 0 to
34. For each criterion, examiners are instructed to identify the level descriptor that is most appropriate (i.e. the best match) for the
extended essay under consideration.
If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is registered no more
than four marks can be awarded for this criterion.
Effective reflection highlights the journey the student has engaged in through the EE process. In order to demonstrate that engagement,
students must show evidence of critical and reflective thinking that goes beyond simply describing the procedures that have been
followed. Reflections must provide the examiner with an insight into student thinking, creativity and originality within the research
process. The studentvoice must be clearly present and demonstrate the learning that has taken place.
_____ 0 The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.
_____ 1-2 Engagement is limited.
Reflections on decision-making and planning are mostly descriptive.
These reflections communicate a limited degree of personal engagement with the research focus and/or
research process.
_____ 3-4 Engagement is good.
Reflections on decision-making and planning are analytical and include reference to conceptual
understanding and skill development.
These reflections communicate a moderate degree of personal engagement with the research focus and
process of research, demonstrating some intellectual initiative.
Grade descriptors
The extended essay is externally assessed, and as such, supervisors are not expected to mark the essays or arrive at a number to
translate into a grade. Predicted grades for all subjects should be based on the qualitative grade descriptors for the subject in
question. These descriptors are what will be used by senior examiners to set the boundaries for the extended essay in May 2018, and
so schools are advised to use them in the same way.
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
analysed; 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 analysed; 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.
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.