WSEE Rubric with detailed

interpretation of criteria
Criterion A: Focus and method
This criterion focuses on the topic, the research question and the methodology. It assesses the
explanation of the focus of the research (this includes the topic and the research question), how
the research will be undertaken, and how the focus is maintained throughout the essay.

The student should identify an issue (topic) of global significance and examine it through one
or more local manifestations.
The significance and importance of the global issue must be established in the introduction
(this might take rather longer than in other subjects).
In this way the issue is accurately and effectively communicated.
The research question should appropriately connect the global issue to the local manifestation.

Early in the essay, students should:

● explain or justify their research question
● identify the IB academic disciplines and appropriate key concepts they are going to use
● explain why the research question requires an interdisciplinary approach and indicate
the benefits of an integrative approach
● highlight the materials, sources, data and evidence from the two subjects they will be
using, with some explanation of why they have been chosen.

Students must show clearly that they have chosen a suitable range of relevant sources. These
could be primary or secondary.
Primary sources include:
● works of art
● film
● music
● interviews
● self-generated survey data
● reports of experiments.

Secondary sources should be capable of conveying academic context or be susceptible to

academic evaluation, though journalistic, online and media sources are permitted.
Students’ sources must provide sufficient evidence to develop and support arguments that are
relevant to the research question.
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. This applies to WSEE
essays where the issue is not contemporary. (“Contemporary” is defined here as an issue that is
relevant during the student’s lifetime.)

Criterion A: Focus and method

Level Descriptor of strands and indicators

0 The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

1–2 The topic is communicated unclearly and incompletely.

● Identification and explanation of the topic is limited; the purpose and
focus of the research is unclear, or does not lend itself to a systematic
investigation in the subject for which it is registered.
The research question is stated but not clearly expressed or too broad.
● The research question is too broad in scope to be treated effectively
within the word limit and requirements of the task, or does not lend
itself to a systematic investigation in the subject for which it is
registered.
● The intent of the research question is understood but has not been
clearly expressed and/or the discussion of the essay is not focused on
the research question.
Methodology of the research is limited.
● The source(s) and/or method(s) to be used are limited in range given
the topic and research question.
● There is limited evidence that their selection was informed.

3–4 The topic is communicated.

● Identification and explanation of the research topic is communicated;
the purpose and focus of the research is adequately clear, but only
partially appropriate.
The research question is clearly stated but only partially focused.
● The research question is clear but the discussion in the essay is only
partially focused and connected to the research question.
Methodology of the research is mostly complete.
● Source(s) and/or method(s) to be used are generally relevant and
appropriate given the topic and research question.
● There is some evidence that their selection(s) was informed.
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.
5–6 The topic is communicated accurately and effectively.
● Identification and explanation of the research topic is effectively
communicated; the purpose and focus of the research is clear and
appropriate.
The research question is clearly stated and focused.
● The research question is clear and addresses an issue of research that is
appropriately connected to the discussion in the essay.
Methodology of the research is complete.
● An appropriate range of relevant source(s) and/or method(s) has been
selected in relation to the topic and research question.
● There is evidence of effective and informed selection of sources and/or
methods.

Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding

This criterion assesses the extent to which the research relates to the subject area/discipline
used to explore the research question, or in the case of the world studies extended essay, the
issue addressed and the two disciplinary perspectives applied, and additionally the way in
which this knowledge and understanding is demonstrated through the use of appropriate
terminology and concepts.

Students should select concepts, theories, perspectives, findings or examples from two
Diploma Programme subjects. They need to demonstrate a sound grasp of:
● the knowledge bases of the different subjects
● modes of understanding of the different subjects
● methods of communication of the different subjects.

Students should demonstrate familiarity with the terminology and usages of the subjects. They
should place the issue in academic context and where possible indicate the limitations of
individual subjects in terms of considering the issue.

The award of achievement levels of 2 or above requires evidence that two subjects have been
used in the essay. Higher levels (3 or 4) require increasingly explicit awareness of the strengths
and limitations of the individual subject concepts or ideas.

Students should show that they understand the conceptual framework of both subjects, even of
one they are not studying for the Diploma Programme. For example, if a student is using
history to explore an issue, they must use the skills of the historian such as establishing
causation, partiality, reliability of sources etc. Simple narrative is never enough.

Use of language must be effective and include terminology and concepts relevant to the issue
and subjects under study. Students should define contested or ambiguous terms when
necessary. The essay should be accessible and acceptable to audiences from the different
subjects being integrated.
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. This applies to WSEE
essays where the issue is not contemporary. (“Contemporary” is defined here as an issue that is
relevant during the student’s lifetime.)

Criterion B: Knowledge and understanding

Level Descriptor of strands and indicators

0 The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

1–2 Knowledge and understanding is limited.

● The application of source material has limited relevance and is only
partially appropriate to the research question.
● Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is anecdotal, unstructured
and mostly descriptive with sources not effectively being used.
Use of terminology and concepts is unclear and limited.
● Subject-specific terminology and/or concepts are either missing or
inaccurate, demonstrating limited knowledge and understanding.

3–4 Knowledge and understanding is good.

● The application of source material is mostly relevant and appropriate to
the research question.
● Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is clear; there is an
understanding of the sources used but their application is only partially
effective.
Use of terminology and concepts is adequate.
● The use of subject-specific terminology and concepts is mostly
accurate, demonstrating an appropriate level of knowledge and
understanding.
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.

5–6 Knowledge and understanding is excellent.

● The application of source materials is clearly relevant and appropriate
to the research question.
● Knowledge of the topic/discipline(s)/issue is clear and coherent and
sources are used effectively and with understanding.
Use of terminology and concepts is good.
● The use of subject-specific terminology and concepts is accurate and
consistent, demonstrating effective knowledge and understanding.
Criterion C: Critical thinking
This criterion assesses the extent to which critical-thinking skills have been used to analyse and
evaluate the research undertaken.

Research can incorporate the methodologies of the two subjects chosen, such as:
● experimental laboratory work
● library and online research
● generation of primary data through questionnaires
● or many others.

Research should be undertaken with the same integrity as within individual subjects. It must be
relevant to the research question. Students should address the value and limitations of research
materials.
Students should analyse and evaluate their evidence in a manner appropriate to the research
question and the Diploma Programme subjects employed in the essay.

Students should present their ideas in the form of a logical and coherent argument that is
relevant to the research question. The argument should be substantiated with evidence and
examples. Straightforward descriptive or narrative accounts that lack analysis do not usually
advance an argument and should be avoided.

Successful interdisciplinary essays require an integrative argument or explanation—that is, the

different subjects should be coherently brought together to address the question through, for
example:
● a complex causal explanation
● a leading metaphor
● a model
● an analogy.

At the highest level, students should demonstrate:

● effective and nuanced analysis and evaluation of information and findings
● evaluation of the success and limitations of their own integrative approach to the issue.

In a world studies EE there is an element of risk: it may be that evaluation of the findings of a
two-subject approach leads to new and original conclusions, or that conclusions are uncertain,
or that it is not possible to make conclusions. Failure to integrate the two subjects’ analyses
into the conclusion or to reach a firm conclusion will not prevent the award of high marks: no
news is still news so long as it is true to the research question. Indeed, such outcomes can be
used to review opportunities for further research and research lessons learned.

If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in which the essay is
registered, no more than three marks can be awarded for this criterion. This applies to WSEE
essays where the issue is not contemporary. (“Contemporary” is defined here as an issue that is
relevant during the student’s lifetime.)

Criterion C: Critical thinking

Level Descriptor of strands and indicators

0 The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

1–3 The research is limited.

● The research presented is limited and its application to support the
argument is not clearly relevant to the research question.
Analysis is limited.
● There is limited analysis.
● Where there are conclusions to individual points of analysis these are
limited and not consistent with the evidence.
Discussion/evaluation is limited.
● An argument is outlined but this is limited, incomplete, descriptive or
narrative in nature.
● The construction of an argument is unclear and/or incoherent in
structure hindering understanding.
● Where there is a final conclusion, it is limited and not consistent with
the arguments/evidence presented.
● There is an attempt to evaluate the research, but this is superficial.
If the topic or research question is deemed inappropriate for the subject in
which the essay is registered no more than three marks can be awarded for this
criterion.

4–6 The research is adequate.

● Some research presented is appropriate and its application to support
the argument is partially relevant to the research question.
Analysis is adequate.
● There is analysis but this is only partially relevant to the research
question; the inclusion of irrelevant research detracts from the quality of
the argument.
● Any conclusions to individual points of analysis are only partially
supported by the evidence.
Discussion/evaluation is adequate.
● An argument explains the research but the reasoning contains
inconsistencies.
● The argument may lack clarity and coherence but this does not
significantly hinder understanding.
● Where there is a final or summative conclusion, this is only partially
consistent with the arguments/evidence presented.
● The research has been evaluated but not critically.
7–9 The research is good.
● The majority of the research is appropriate and its application to
support the argument is clearly relevant to the research question.
Analysis is good.
● The research is analysed in a way that is clearly relevant to the research
question; the inclusion of less relevant research rarely detracts from the
quality of the overall analysis.
● Conclusions to individual points of analysis are supported by the
evidence but there are some minor inconsistencies.
Discussion/evaluation is good.
● An effective reasoned argument is developed from the research, with a
conclusion supported by the evidence presented.
● This reasoned argument is clearly structured and coherent and
supported by a final or summative conclusion; minor inconsistencies
may hinder the strength of the overall argument.
● The research has been evaluated, and this is partially critical.

10–12 The research is excellent.

● The research is appropriate to the research question and its application
to support the argument is consistently relevant.
Analysis is excellent.
● The research is analysed effectively and clearly focused on the research
question; the inclusion of less relevant research does not significantly
detract from the quality of the overall analysis.
● Conclusions to individual points of analysis are effectively supported by
the evidence.
Discussion/evaluation is excellent.
● An effective and focused reasoned argument is developed from the
research with a conclusion reflective of the evidence presented.
● This reasoned argument is well structured and coherent; any minor
inconsistencies do not hinder the strength of the overall argument or
the final or summative conclusion.
● The research has been critically evaluated.

Criterion D: Presentation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the presentation follows the standard format
expected for academic writing and the extent to which this aids effective communication.

Students may provide a section and subsection structure to their essays, with informative
headings, if appropriate to the topic of the essay. Subheadings should not distract from the
overall structure of the essay.
Use of charts, images and tables
Any charts, images or tables from literature sources included in the essay must be carefully
selected and labelled. They should only be used if they:
● are directly relevant to the research question
● contribute towards the understanding of the argument
● are of a good graphic quality.

Large tables of raw data collected by the student are best included in an appendix, where they
should be carefully labelled. It is not necessary to include all responses to questionnaires; a
single sample is sufficient. Tables of processed data should be designed to clearly display the
information in the most appropriate form. Graphs or charts drawn from the analysed data
should be selected to highlight only the most pertinent aspects related to the argument. Too
many graphs, charts and tables will detract from the overall quality of the communication.
Only processed data that is central to the argument of the essay should be included in the
body of the essay, as close as possible to its first reference. The inclusion of non-relevant or
superfluous material will not be rewarded and may actually detract from the argument.

Any tables should enhance a written explanation and should not themselves include significant
bodies of text. If they do, then these words must be included in the word count.

Students must take care in their use of appendices as examiners are not required to read them.
All information with direct relevance to the analysis, discussion and evaluation of the essay
must be contained in the main body of the essay.

A bibliography is an essential structural element, contributing as far as it is visually presented,

to criterion D, in addition to the other presentation requirements: title page, table of contents,
page numbers, and so on.

While there is no explicit penalty in criterion D for exceeding 4,000 words, students should be
aware that examiners will not read beyond the 4,000-word limit, therefore affecting the
application of multiple criteria. Criterion D specifically may be impacted if, in exceeding 4,000
words, one of the structural requirements of the essay (for example, the conclusion, or
important illustrative material) is unassessed by the examiner because he or she is not required
to read beyond 4,000 words.

Any material that is not original must be carefully acknowledged, with specific attention paid to
the acknowledgement and referencing of quotes and ideas. This acknowledgment and
referencing is applicable to audiovisual material, text, graphs and data published in print and
electronic sources. If the referencing does not meet the minimum standard as indicated in the
guide (name of author, date of publication, title of source and page numbers, as applicable),
and is not consistently applied, work will be considered as a case of possible academic
misconduct. Incomplete references and those that do not meet the minimum requirements as
detailed in the Effective citing and referencing document are not penalized in criterion D, but
examiners are required to alert the IB to candidates who overlook these minimum
requirements, for further investigation. Criterion D assesses references and bibliography purely
on how they are presented (for example, consistent, laid out in an appropriate academic
manner).

Criterion D: Presentation
Level Descriptor of strands and indicators

0 The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors below.

1–2 Presentation is acceptable.

● The structure of the essay is generally appropriate in terms of the
expected conventions for the topic, argument and subject in which the
essay is registered.
● Some layout considerations may be missing or applied incorrectly.
● Weaknesses in the structure and/or layout do not significantly impact
the reading, understanding or evaluation of the extended essay.

3–4 Presentation is good.

● The structure of the essay clearly is appropriate in terms of the
expected conventions for the topic, the argument and subject in which
the essay is registered.
● Layout considerations are present and applied correctly.
● The structure and layout support the reading, understanding and
evaluation of the extended essay.

Criterion E: Engagement
This criterion assesses the student’s engagement with their research focus and the research
process. It will be applied by the examiner at the end of the assessment of the essay, and is
based solely on the candidate’s reflections as detailed on the RPPF, with the supervisory
comments and extended essay itself as context. Only the first 500 words are assessable.

Students are expected to provide reflections on the decision-making and planning process
undertaken in completing the essay. Students must demonstrate how they arrived at a topic as
well as the methods and approach used. This criterion assesses the extent to which a student
has evidenced the rationale for decisions made throughout the planning process and the skills
and understandings developed.

For example, students may reflect on:

● the approach and strategies they chose, and their relative success
 ● the Approaches to learning skills they have developed and their effect on the student as
a learner
● how their conceptual understandings have developed or changed as a result of their
research
● challenges they faced in their research and how they overcame these
● questions that emerged as a result of their research
● what they would do differently if they were to undertake the research again.

Effective reflection highlights the journey the student has engaged in through the EE process.
Students must show evidence of critical and reflective thinking that goes beyond simply
describing the procedures that have been followed.

The reflections must provide the examiner with an insight into student thinking, creativity and
originality within the research process. The student voice must be clearly present and
demonstrate the learning that has taken place.

Criterion E: Engagement
Level Descriptor of strands and indicators

0 The work does not reach a standard outlined by the descriptors, an RPPF has
not been submitted, or the RPPF has been submitted in a language other than
that of the essay.

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.

5–6 Engagement is excellent.

● Reflections on decision-making and planning are evaluative and include
reference to the student’s capacity to consider actions and ideas in
response to challenges experienced in the research process.
● These reflections communicate a high degree of intellectual and
personal engagement with the research focus and process of research,
demonstrating authenticity, intellectual initiative and/or creative
approach in the student voice.