EE reflection: the three sessions, the 500-word statement and the viva voce

In the new Extended Essay, reflection is marked through one piece of writing: a reflective statement of up to 500 words on the Reflection and progress form (RPF), which replaces the old RPPF. It is the only thing criterion E (4 of the 30 marks) is marked on. You build it from three mandatory sessions with your supervisor: a first session, an interim session, and the viva voce, a short interview after you have handed in your final essay. Strong reflection explains the decisions you made, is honest about what went wrong, and shows how your thinking changed. A diary of events is not reflection.

What are the three reflection sessions?

The EE guide expects 3 to 5 hours of supervision in total, and these three sessions are part of that time. Attendance at each is recorded on the RPF. Your school sets the dates.

Between the interim session and the viva, your supervisor reads and comments on one complete draft. After the viva the essay cannot be changed, so the viva is never a chance to fix things; it is a chance to talk about them.

How is the reflective statement marked?

The facts first:

• Up to 500 words, on the RPF.
• It is the only evidence for criterion E, which is worth 4 marks.
• A blank or missing RPF scores 0 for criterion E. So does one written in a different language from the essay.
• Your supervisor initials and dates the form, and uploading it with the essay is part of how the work is authenticated.
• The new criterion centres on your growth as a researcher and on skills you can carry into other work.

Your school will tell you when to finalise the statement. Because it reflects on the whole process, it is usually finished at the end, so keep notes after every session, while the details are fresh. A Researcher's Reflection Space (a research log, kept however you like) is recommended by the IB and not assessed; it is where your raw material comes from.

What does good reflection sound like?

Three qualities separate a reflective statement that earns marks from one that doesn't.

It is about decisions

Not "I researched X" but "I chose X over Y because…, and this is what it cost". Examiners can only credit thinking they can see, and decisions are where thinking shows.

It is honest about setbacks

A failed pilot, a source that turned out to be unreliable, a question that had to change. These are the best material you have, as long as you explain what you did about them.

It shows intellectual growth

Something you now understand about research, your subject or yourself as a thinker that you didn't at the start, with the evidence for it.

Sample reflection extracts (illustrative)

Chemistry: when the data didn't cooperate

"I expected the vitamin C loss to follow first-order kinetics, and for the first 30 minutes it did. After that, the ln(concentration) graph flattened. My first instinct was to treat those points as anomalies. In the interim session my supervisor asked what would have to be true for them to be real, and I had no answer. Reading on oxygen-limited oxidation gave me one: the juice in my sealed tubes may have used up its dissolved oxygen. I could not test this in the time left, so my essay presents it as a hypothesis, not a finding. I now think the most important skill I developed was separating what my data showed from what I wanted it to show."

History: changing the question

"My original question asked whether the 1936 Olympics were a propaganda success. In my first session I realised I had no way of measuring success, so I tied the question to one audience, British and American newspapers. That decision shaped everything after it: which archives I searched, which articles counted as evidence, and why I eventually argued that the coverage was more mixed than the usual story suggests. Defining what would count as an answer before collecting evidence is the step I would now take first in any research task."

Interdisciplinary: holding two subjects together

"At the interim session my essay read as two essays: a pollination section and a cost–benefit section that never touched. I restructured it so each economic claim depended on a specific ecological finding, which meant cutting 600 words of background I was proud of. That was the hardest decision in the process and the most useful; it taught me that integrating two subjects means letting each one limit what the other can claim."

Each extract is under 130 words. Your statement has room for three or four moments like these; choose the decisions that changed the essay most.

What should you bring to each session?

First session

• Your draft research question, and one or two alternatives you rejected, with why.
• Three or four sources or a data set you have already looked at, so you can show evidence exists.
• A one-paragraph method outline, including any ethics or safety issues.
• Questions about your school's internal deadlines and when the draft is due.

Interim session

• Your results or key evidence so far, even if messy.
• A note of what has gone wrong or changed since the first session.
• A plan of the argument: the claim of each section in one line.
• The one thing you are least sure about. This is the most useful question to bring.

Viva voce

• Your final essay, which you have re-read in the last day or two.
• Your research log, to remind yourself of dates and decisions.
• Two or three moments you want to talk about: a decision, a setback, a change of mind.

What happens in the viva voce?

The viva voce is a short concluding conversation with your supervisor after you have handed in the final version. It has two jobs. It lets you reflect on the whole process with someone who watched it, and it helps your supervisor confirm, together with your final version, that the essay is your own work. Under the old model it typically lasted 10 to 15 minutes; your school will tell you how it runs.

Questions supervisors commonly ask, in some form:

• Why did you choose this topic, and how did the question change?
• What was the hardest decision you made, and would you make it again?
• Talk me through how you reached this conclusion. What is the strongest objection to it?
• Which source or result surprised you most?
• What would you do differently with another month?
• What did you learn about researching that you would use again?
• Can you explain this term, graph or step in more detail?

How to prepare: re-read the essay; pick the three moments you'll build your statement around; be ready to explain any technical step in your own words; and accept that "I'd do this part differently now" is a strong answer, not an admission of failure. If you used AI tools at any point, be ready to say how and to show where they are cited. Your supervisor isn't trying to catch you out, but they do need to be able to vouch for the work.

What should you avoid in EE reflection?

• Diary narration: what happened, in date order, with no decisions explained.
• Generic skills: "time management", "independence", "resilience" with no evidence of when and how.
• Retelling the essay: the examiner already has your findings. Reflect on how you got there.
• Thanking your supervisor: kind, but it earns nothing.
• A process with no problems: it reads as unreflective, not impressive.
• Writing it in one night at the end: without session notes, you will remember outcomes, not decisions.
• AI-written reflection: it is academic misconduct, and a statement about your own thinking is the easiest kind to spot as not yours. See AI rules in the IB.

Reflection is marked as criterion E alongside four essay criteria; see the EE criteria explained for how it fits, or the full Extended Essay guide for where the sessions fall in the timeline. If you are writing CAS reflections at the same time, the same decision-focused habits apply there (see the CAS guide).