<\/p>\nEvery IB student who\u2019s stared at an Internal Assessment (IA), Extended Essay (EE) or Theory of Knowledge (TOK) draft knows the same little sinking feeling: you read the rubric, you think you covered it, and then the comment comes back\u2014or you realize yourself\u2014that specific criterion evidence is missing. That moment is not failure; it\u2019s opportunity. The rubric isn\u2019t a punishment; it\u2019s a map. If you learn to read it like a map and to place clear landmarks in your draft where assessors expect them, you can turn a messy second draft into a focused, high-scoring final version.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Rubrics often feel intimidating because they name behaviours (explain, evaluate, justify) rather than showing sentences. The assessors are looking for evidence of those behaviours. Your job when revising is to make the behaviour visible on the page. That means replacing hints with explicit moments of evidence: show your method, present the data clearly, interpret specific results, acknowledge limitations, and tie everything back to the research question or knowledge question.<\/p>\n
Think of an assessor scanning your work for three things: a claim, the evidence that supports that claim, and the reasoning that links them. If any of those three is missing, the assessor can\u2019t award full credit for that criterion. Your edit checklist should therefore be built around restoring those three elements where they\u2019re missing.<\/p>\n
Before you start rewriting, do a cold read focused only on criteria. This is different from proofreading: you\u2019re not hunting commas; you\u2019re hunting evidence. Grab a printed rubric or a criterion checklist and for each criterion write an answer to: \u201cWhere in my draft is the evidence for this?\u201d If you can\u2019t point to a paragraph or sentence, mark that criterion as missing.<\/p>\n
Rubrics speak in verbs: identify, evaluate, justify, analyse, reflect. For each verb, write a tiny recipe that converts it into concrete sentences or pieces of evidence. Here are examples:<\/p>\n
When a criterion asks for justification, try a single sentence formula that directly addresses the rubric: \u201cThe method of X was chosen because [specific reason linked to research question or source reliability], which ensured [specific outcome such as control of a variable, relevance to theory, or validity].\u201d Replace bracketed text with project specifics\u2014never keep the template wholesale\u2014but the structure guarantees the assessor sees the justification.<\/p>\n
For analysis: \u201cThese results indicate [direct interpretation]. This supports\/contradicts [hypothesis or claim] because [explicit reasoning referencing data or source].\u201d Again, cite numbers or quotations immediately after the claim so evidence sits beside interpretation.<\/p>\n
| Criterion gap<\/th>\n | What assessors look for<\/th>\n | Concrete edit<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclear research question<\/td>\n | A focused, manageable question<\/td>\n | Refine to one measurable variable or one tightly framed knowledge question; place it in the introduction and repeat when stating conclusions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Insufficient method detail<\/td>\n | Enough detail for replication or clear logic<\/td>\n | Add numbered steps, describe controls or selection criteria, and explain why choices were made.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis without evidence<\/td>\n | Data or quotations tied to interpretation<\/td>\n | Insert specific data points, figures, or short quotes directly before interpretations; label charts or tables.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| No critical evaluation<\/td>\n | Discussion of limitations or alternative explanations<\/td>\n | Add a short limitations paragraph that quantifies uncertainty or presents a counter-interpretation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Poor referencing or academic presentation<\/td>\n | Consistent citation style and clear structure<\/td>\n | Standardize references, add captions to figures, and ensure the abstract, conclusion and bibliography reflect each other.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\nStep 3 \u2014 Repair the draft: focused rewriting strategies<\/h3>\nOnce you know what\u2019s missing, edit with surgical precision. Resist the urge to rewrite everything at once. Instead, tackle each missing criterion individually and close the loop: add the evidence, then immediately link to how it fulfills the criterion. Use inline signals so assessors don\u2019t have to hunt\u2014phrases like \u201cThis supports the research question because\u2026\u201d or \u201cThis demonstrates X, therefore\u2026\u201d are not academic crimes; they are clarity tools.<\/p>\n
|
<\/p>\n