Reflection

Reflection is Criterion E – 4 marks out of 30. It is assessed on a single 500-word reflective statement written at the end of the process and recorded on the Reflection and Progress Form (RPF).

That statement is informed by:

Three mandatory formal reflection sessions with your supervisor.
Your own ongoing reflective practice in the Researcher’s Reflection Space (RRS).

The RPF holds two things: short comments your supervisor adds after each of the three reflection sessions, and – right at the end – your 500-word reflective statement. Only the 500-word statement is graded for Criterion E; the supervisor comments are there to authenticate the process.

Write your reflective statement in the same language as your essay. If the RPF is not submitted, is blank, or is in a different language from the essay, 0 marks are awarded for Criterion E.

The Researcher’s Reflection Space (RRS)

The RRS is your personal learning environment – a notebook, a folder, a digital document, whatever works for you. It is where you record:

Personal reflections on the research and writing process.
Reactions to articles, papers, datasets, code experiments, and class discussions.
Brainstorming notes and ideas in development.
Emerging questions you want to come back to.

Treat it as your voice in the EE process. Bring extracts to your reflection sessions; they are the raw material for your final reflective statement.

The RRS itself is not submitted and not directly graded. Do not pad it for the examiner – nobody reads it. Its only job is to give you something specific to draw on when you write the 500-word statement.

The three reflection sessions

Session 1: Initial reflection (early in the process)

Before the session, you should:

Read background material on a few potential topic areas.
Look at the relevant pages on this site (and any subject guidance your supervisor shares with you).
Brainstorm a few possible research proposals.
Note resource availability (datasets, libraries, hardware).
Record initial ideas in your RRS.

Questions to come prepared to discuss:

Why am I interested in this topic and why does it matter?
Is the topic genuinely CS, or does it belong in another subject?
What questions have emerged from my initial reading?
Are there ethical issues to consider?
What research methods could I use, and why would they be suitable?

Your supervisor will:

Discuss the requirements and assessment criteria.
Discuss ethical or legal implications. For CS topics this often means: data-collection consent (especially under GDPR or equivalent), licensing of any datasets and libraries you plan to use, and your acknowledgment policy for AI tools.
Help you focus your thinking and draft an initial RQ.
Outline next steps and recommend a timeline.

Session 2: Interim reflection (mid-process)

Before the session, you should:

Have drafted a focused, properly framed RQ.
Have done a substantial amount of research and recorded it in your RRS.
Be confident discussing your current methodology.
Be able to articulate the line of argument you intend to develop.
Have a working bibliography.

Questions to come prepared to discuss:

Does my RQ need amending?
What barriers am I hitting and how can I move past them?
Are there any new ethical issues since the first session?
Are my chosen research methods working effectively?
Do I have a clear RQ, a viable line of argument, a good range of resources, and a clear sense of next steps?

Your supervisor will:

Discuss a completed piece of your writing to check that you understand academic writing conventions.
Establish that you have critically evaluated an appropriate range of resources.
Advise on next steps and help you make progress manageable.
Suggest amendments to the RQ if needed.

Session 3: Final reflection / viva voce (after essay completion)

Before the session, you should:

Bring extracts from your RRS that show how you have grown.
Be willing to share both your successes and your challenges honestly.
Be able to discuss the skills and conceptual understandings you acquired.

Questions to come prepared to discuss:

Can I honestly say my essay is authentic and meets the IB Academic Integrity policy?
What skills and understandings have I developed? How could I transfer them to other contexts?
What challenges did I face and how did I overcome them?
What aspects of the EE experience did I most enjoy?

Your supervisor will:

Carry out a 20–30 minute interview (the viva voce).
Have read the final version of your essay before this session.

The 500-word reflective statement

Written at the end of the process on the RPF. This is what examiners assess for Criterion E. Keep these distinctions in mind:

Address these things

The main ideas discussed in the viva voce.
Specific learning skills you developed that you could use elsewhere.
Insights gained from researching and writing the essay.
Changes in your perspective on the topic.
The impact of choices you made during the process.
Experiences and insights that could shape your future thinking.

Examiners want to see

Reflection that is consistently evaluative – not just a description of what happened.
Specific examples – not vague generalisations like “I learned a lot about research.”
Evidence of growth – how you developed as a researcher, thinker, or writer.
Transfer of learning – how you would apply these skills in a different context.
CS-specific reflection – the way you understand a CS concept now that you did not at the start.

Common traps

Chronological narrative. “First I picked a topic, then I gathered sources, then I ran the experiments, then I wrote it up.” This is the single most common reason 2/4 reflections do not move higher.
Vague claims. “I learned a lot about research methods.” Tell the examiner what you learned and how it changed your approach.
Process-focused, not learning-focused. Time management and writing structure are valid, but they are not enough on their own. The reflection must address how your understanding of CS itself shifted.
No transferable skills named. A 4/4 reflection makes at least one statement of the form: “The [specific skill] I developed is applicable to [specific other context] because [reason].”
Exceeding 500 words. Examiners will not read past the limit.

A useful organising principle

Organise the statement around insights and growth, not events. Two prompts to keep in mind:

What do I understand about my CS topic now that I did not at the start?
Name one specific skill from this process I could use in a different context, and explain how.

Reflection sessions vs. check-ins

Reflection sessions	Check-ins
Three mandatory formal sessions	As needed, informal
Recorded on the RPF	Not recorded
20–30 minutes (especially the viva voce)	Often 10 minutes or less
Indirectly assessed (via the reflective statement)	Not assessed