IB Extended Essay Topics 2026: Topic Selection & Rubric Mapping Guide
- Pick Your Subject — Browse our topic selection matrix (Groups 1–6) with 2–3 feasible research questions per group, plus cross-disciplinary options.
- Grade Distribution — Roughly 26% of 2026 students achieve an A, 39% a B, and 11% a D or E. Knowing those odds changes how you prepare.
- Rubric-to-Grade Mapping — A new table showing exactly what each A–E grade “feels like” to write, based on the Criterion A–E mark ranges.
- The 2026 “Last Cohort” — You’re the final cohort under the 34-mark system. Use that advantage strategically.
- Discipline-Specific Tips — Concrete “do this / avoid that” bullets for every subject group.
Introduction
Here’s the truth about the IB Extended Essay: most students know the basics but don’t know how to pick a topic that actually works, and even fewer understand what each grade actually means in practice.
This article fills those gaps. You’ll find a topic selection matrix covering all 6 IB subject groups with real research question examples, a rubric-to-grade mapping table that translates Criterion scores into letter grades with practical descriptions of what each level requires, and fresh 2026 grade distribution data to ground your preparation in reality.
If you’re looking for the full writing guide (timeline, word count rules, presentation checklist), that’s in our companion post. This article picks up where that guide ends and adds the practical tools examiners use to grade your work.
The 2026 “Last Cohort” Advantage
Students writing their EE in May 2026 are the last cohort assessed under the old 34-mark system. Starting in May 2027, students face a fundamentally rebuilt EE (30 marks, single RPF, Criterion D becomes the highest-weighted at 8 marks).
Your advantage: the old system rewards sustained critical thinking (Criterion C at 12 marks) and rewards strong RPPF engagement (Criterion E at 6 marks). You get three separate reflection entries instead of one, which means you can spread your reflection effort across the process instead of cramming everything into a single 500-word statement.
What we recommend: lean into the Criterion C opportunity. Under the old rules, 12 of your 34 marks come from critical thinking alone — that’s 34% of your score. Mastering analytical writing now is a stronger investment than under the new system, where Criterion D (evaluation) takes that weight.
Grade Distribution: What the Numbers Actually Mean
The grade distribution under the 34-mark system gives you concrete context for what to expect:
| Grade | Approximate Share | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| A (30–34 marks) | ~26% | Outstanding work. Sustained analysis, original argument, minimal descriptive padding. |
| B (22–29 marks) | ~39% | Strong work. Good analysis with minor gaps in depth or consistency. Most students aiming for bonus points target this range. |
| C (15–21 marks) | ~24% | Adequate work. Descriptive writing mixed with some analysis, but argument doesn’t sustain throughout. |
| D or E (0–14 marks) | ~11% | Failing condition. Primarily descriptive, weak or absent critical thinking. A Grade E means you don’t receive your IB Diploma. |
That D or E slice matters. A Grade E is a “failing condition” — you won’t receive your IB Diploma if you fail the EE, regardless of your other subject scores. That’s the real stakes of this assignment.
The data comes from Leading Tuition’s analysis of IB grading trends, which also confirms that an A in the EE plus an A in TOK earns you 3 bonus points toward your Diploma. Leading Tuition’s guide provides the clearest breakdown of mark allocation per criterion.
The Topic Selection Matrix: Pick Your Subject, See What Works
This is the single most useful planning tool for any IB student. Below is a structured matrix showing each IB subject group with 2–3 feasible research question examples and notes on what makes them work.
Group 1: Language and Literature
| Research Question | Why It Works | Subject Convention |
|---|---|---|
| “To what extent does the use of unreliable narration in Kazuo Ishigiro’s The Remorseful Day serve as a mechanism for moral evasion?” | Specific literary device + specific text + analytical framing | Close textual analysis of passages, not biographical |
| “How does the juxtaposition of present-day narrative voice with historical flashbacks shape the reader’s understanding of trauma in Toni Morrison’s Beloved?” | Multi-text analysis with clear theoretical lens | Must apply literary frameworks, not plot summary |
What to avoid: Writing a general essay about themes across multiple novels without close analysis of specific passages. You need paragraph-level textual evidence.
Group 2: Language Acquisition
| Research Question | Why It Works | Subject Convention |
|---|---|---|
| “How does code-switching between French and English in Quebecois film dialogue reflect identity negotiation in post-1995 cinema?” | Uses discourse analysis framework with specific corpus | Comparative linguistic analysis, not cultural commentary |
| “What discourse markers do Mandarin-speaking L2 learners of English use when expressing uncertainty, and how does proficiency level correlate with their frequency?” | Uses systemic functional linguistics with measurable data | Must apply linguistic frameworks, not opinion |
What to avoid: Descriptive essays about a culture’s language. The EE must apply a linguistic framework to analyze data.
Group 3: Individuals and Societies
| Research Question | Why It Works | Subject Convention |
|---|---|---|
| “To what extent did the Marshall Plan (1948–1951) contribute to West Germany’s post-war economic recovery compared to domestic policy measures?” | Specific time period, place, and comparative framework | Thesis-driven argumentative structure |
| “How far did social media campaigning influence voter turnout in the 2016 US presidential election, based on survey data from five college campuses?” | Uses primary data with theoretical framework | Combines primary/secondary data with theory |
What to avoid: Writing a social commentary about climate change when the EE expects a thesis-driven argument with competing perspectives.
Group 4: Sciences
| Research Question | Why It Works | Subject Convention |
|---|---|---|
| “To what extent does the concentration of sodium bicarbonate affect the rate of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide catalysed by potato catalase?” | Primary experimental data with clear variables | Lab-method report with methodology, data, and error analysis |
| “How does UV exposure affect the germination rate and early growth of Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings over a 14-day period?” | Controlled experiment with measurable outcomes | Must address precision, errors, and limitations |
What to avoid: Social or medical commentary about a scientific topic. The EE expects a lab-method report with primary data.
Group 5: Mathematics
| Research Question | Why It Works | Subject Convention |
|---|---|---|
| “How do Fibonacci sequences model the structure of natural patterns in sunflower heads, and how accurately do these models predict spiral counts?” | Genuine mathematical exploration with real data | Original mathematical reasoning, not textbook results |
| “What is the relationship between the golden ratio and the optimal packing of circles in bounded 2D spaces, and how does this scale to 3D?” | Original reasoning with proofs or derivations | Requires genuine exploration, not a survey of knowledge |
What examiners look for: Original mathematical reasoning, not collecting results from textbooks.
Group 6: Arts
| Research Question | Why It Works | Subject Convention |
|---|---|---|
| “To what extent does the use of chiaroscuro in Caravaggio’s The Calling of Saint Matthew (1599–1600) establish narrative tension rather than merely providing illumination?” | Specific work, specific technique, analytical framework | Must apply analytical frameworks, not descriptive |
| “How does the integration of traditional Indian textile motifs in Zandra Rhodes’ 1970s fashion collections challenge Western design conventions?” | Comparative analysis with cultural framework | Investigate specific works/practitioners through analytical lens |
What to avoid: A descriptive essay about an artist’s biography or a general survey of an art movement.
Cross-Disciplinary Options
Many IB students excel at topics that bridge subject boundaries. Here are 3 cross-disciplinary options that examiners approve of:
| Topic Area | Research Question | Subjects Involved |
|---|---|---|
| Mathematics + Psychology | “How does the number of simultaneous decisions in the Multi-Choice Decision Task correlate with reaction time across different age groups (16–25 years)?” | Math AI + Psychology |
| Economics + Biology | “To what extent does access to healthcare services affect life expectancy in rural Kenya between 2000 and 2020?” | Economics + Geography |
| Literature + History | “How does the portrayal of the French Revolution in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables reflect or distort historical accounts of the 1832 June Rebellion?” | English Lit + History |
Cross-disciplinary EEs work when you anchor them in one primary subject and use the other as supporting context. The IB doesn’t reward “dual-subject” essays without clear primary focus.
Rubric-to-Grade Mapping: What Each Grade Feels Like
Here’s the table most students wish they had when they were writing their EE. It maps Criterion A–E scores to letter grades, with mark ranges and practical descriptions of what each grade requires.
| Grade | Total Marks | Criterion A (6) | Criterion B (6) | Criterion C (12) | Criterion D (4) | Criterion E (6) | What Each Grade Feels Like to Write |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 30–34 | 5–6 | 5–6 | 10–12 | 3–4 | 5–6 | Every paragraph pushes the argument forward. You’re engaging with counterclaims, not just stating them. Analysis never stops. |
| B | 22–29 | 4–5 | 4–5 | 7–9 | 2–3 | 4–5 | Strong analysis with occasional descriptive passages. Some counter-evidence addressed. Solid but not razor-sharp. |
| C | 15–21 | 2–3 | 2–3 | 4–6 | 2 | 3–4 | Mostly descriptive. You summarise sources but don’t sustain an original argument throughout. The analysis starts strong then fades. |
| D | 8–14 | 0–1 | 0–1 | 0–3 | 0–1 | 1–2 | Barely analytical. Paragraphs explain “what X is” rather than “what this evidence suggests.” Few or no counterclaims addressed. |
| E | 0–7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0–1 | Primarily descriptive or fragmented. No sustained argument. The RQ is either absent or too broad. |
Why This Matters
This table isn’t just a score calculator — it’s a self-assessment tool you can use at each stage of writing. After drafting a section, ask yourself: “Does this paragraph push the argument forward, or is it just describing something?”
If you’re writing mostly descriptive paragraphs, you’re aiming for a C. If you’re engaging with counter-evidence and sustaining original reasoning, you’re aiming for a B or A.
Criterion C: The Make-or-Break Criterion
Criterion C at 12 marks is not just “the highest-weighted” — it’s the make-or-break criterion. Most students lose marks here by describing rather than analysing.
Here’s the practical fix: after every factual statement, ask “So what does this evidence actually prove?” Then answer that question.
Example:
- Descriptive: “Bread prices rose in 1788.”
- Analytical: “While bread price inflation is often cited as the primary trigger, contemporary wage records suggest stagnant wages since 1785 — implying price shocks acted as catalysts for pre-existing grievances, not root cause.”
That second paragraph doesn’t just state a fact. It interprets the evidence, weighs competing explanations, and draws a conclusion. That’s what Criterion C rewards.
Discipline-Specific Writing Tips: Do This, Avoid That
Your subject dictates the format, structure, and what examiners expect. Following your subject’s conventions is non-negotiable — it affects both Criterion B and D. Read our subject methodology deep-dive for the full breakdown.
Group 4: Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, ESS)
Do this: Design a controlled experiment with clear independent and dependent variables. Record raw data, process it, and discuss limitations. Use APA or Harvard citation.
Avoid this: Writing a social commentary about a scientific topic when the EE expects a lab-method report. No methodology section = mark loss.
Group 3: Individuals and Societies (Economics, Business, Psychology, Geography)
Do this: Combine primary or secondary data with theoretical frameworks. Analyse competing perspectives. Use Chicago footnotes for History; APA or Harvard for Economics.
Avoid this: Failing to engage with competing interpretations of your data. Examiners expect you to weigh counterclaims, not just state a position.
Groups 1 & 2: Language and Literature / Language Acquisition
Do this: Apply a specific literary or linguistic framework (narratology, discourse analysis, pragmatics) to a specific text or corpus. Analyse passages at the paragraph level.
Avoid this: Biographical summaries or general cultural commentary. These aren’t history essays — they’re analytical exercises using frameworks.
Group 5: Mathematics (AA / AI)
Do this: Show original reasoning — proofs, derivations, or genuine exploration. Present mathematical arguments with clear notation.
Avoid this: Collecting textbook results or writing a survey of existing knowledge without your own mathematical contribution.
Group 6: Arts
Do this: Investigate specific works, practitioners, or movements through an analytical lens. Use formal analytical frameworks.
Avoid this: Descriptive essays about an artist’s biography or a general survey of a movement. You must apply an analytical framework.
The Funnel Method for Topic Selection (Updated)
The strongest topic selection follows a funnel — start broad and narrow down. This framework, confirmed across multiple authoritative sources, keeps your topic manageable and focused enough for 4,000 words.
- Start broad: Biology
- Get specific: Human health
- Make it researchable: “To what extent does 30-minute HIIT affect resting heart rate in 16–18-year-old males over 8 weeks?”
Save My Exams confirms this as the most reliable topic selection method.
Strong vs. Weak Research Questions
| Subject | Weak RQ | Strong RQ |
|---|---|---|
| Economics | “How does inflation affect growth?” | “To what extent did the ECB’s 2015–2018 QE programme achieve its inflation targets in Germany and France?” |
| History | “Did World War Two have economic consequences?” | “To what extent did the Lend-Lease Act (1941–45) determine the post-war economic recovery of the UK?” |
| Biology | “How does exercise affect the body?” | “To what extent does 30-minute HIIT affect resting heart rate in 16–18-year-old males over 8 weeks?” |
The weak questions are too broad, not arguable, and lack specific framing. The strong questions use evaluative language (“To what extent”), specify populations/timeframes, and are genuinely researchable.
Common Mistakes That Cost Grades (Quick Reference)
Examiners see the same errors repeatedly. Here’s a condensed checklist of what actually costs marks:
- Topic instead of question: Submitting “Effects of Climate Change” instead of a research question. You need a specific, arguable, researchable RQ.
- Descriptive writing: Paragraphs that explain “what X is” rather than “what this evidence suggests.”
- No counterarguments: Writing as an uninterrupted case for your thesis without engaging alternatives.
- Retrospective RPPF: Writing reflections in the final 48 hours. Generic entries like “I learned a lot” score 2–3/6. Specific entries score 5–6/6.
- Word count exceeded: Examiners stop reading at 4,000 words. Everything beyond earns zero marks.
- Citation chaos: Switching citation styles mid-essay. Pick ONE style (MLA, APA, Chicago) before writing.
- Padding with background: General context paragraphs that don’t serve the argument. Ask: “Could I delete this paragraph without weakening my argument?” If yes, delete it.
- No data access: Choosing a topic you can’t research (e.g., untranslated primary sources). Check feasibility before committing.
- Ignoring subject conventions: Science without methodology. History without historiography. English without close textual analysis.
- Academic honesty: Sloppy note-taking where paraphrase drifts close to original wording. This can result in a mark of zero.
For the full breakdown of each mistake with concrete fixes, read our complete examiner-penalty guide.
Presentation Checklist (Criterion D)
These 4 marks are essentially free if you check every box. Here’s what examiners look for:
- Title page with title, research question, subject, word count
- Consistent citation style throughout (MLA, APA, or Chicago)
- Complete bibliography matching in-text citations
- Correct formatting per subject conventions
- Table of contents and page numbers
- Clear tables and figures with labels
- Word count verified against official IB rules
The RPPF: Your Easiest 6 Marks (If You Start Day One)
Criterion E (Engagement) is worth 6 marks — and it’s the easiest criterion to mess up or nail, depending on your approach.
Under the old 34-mark system (2026 students), you complete three separate RRS entries across your EE process. The RPPF rewards genuine reflection at each stage, not retrospective form-filling.
What scores poorly (2–3/6): “I learned a lot about time management.”
What scores highly (5–6/6): “After my first round of interviews returned inconclusive results, I revised my sampling method to include…”
RevisionDojo provides a 5-line reflection template: What changed? Why did it change? What did you learn? What’s the next step? What still feels uncertain?
Examiners read thousands of EEs and can detect retrospective entries immediately. Starting your RPPF on day one costs five minutes per supervisor meeting and earns 6 marks with minimal extra effort.
Conclusion: Your Next Steps
Here’s the bottom line: the IB Extended Essay is a 4,000-word independent research paper that’s the single most important component of your IB Diploma. Getting it right means sustained critical thinking, disciplined topic selection, and honest reflection.
Your immediate next steps:
- Browse the topic selection matrix above and pick a subject group that matches your strengths.
- Use the funnel method to narrow your topic from broad to researchable.
- Draft a research question using evaluative framing (“To what extent,” “How far,” “In what ways”).
- Check the rubric-to-grade mapping table and identify what “A-level” writing looks like for your subject.
- Start your RPPF reflections now — five minutes per supervisor meeting.
If you need the full timeline, word count rules, or presentation checklist, our companion guide covers all of that. For additional IB writing tips and academic guidance, explore our blog.
This guide covers the essentials of selecting a topic and understanding the grading criteria under the current 34-mark system. Students in 2026 are writing under the old rules — use that advantage strategically. Read our blog for more IB writing tips and academic guidance.
