EE reflection meetings and reflective statement
As a supervisor of a physics EE, you are going to have to meet the student quite often to help with practical work, the analysis of data and generally keeping them on track. These meetings are not reflection sessions. The IB calls them "check-in sessions".
Reflection sessions should be more formal and lead to a written reflection statement completed by the student. There are three reflection sessions. These are mandatory, and the dates should be recorded.
Up to November 2026, students would write a short statement per reflection session. Starting from May 2027 EE submissions, students write one combined statement, but they will likely benefit from following a similar process.
The first reflection should be quite early in the process.
This session should focus on:
- the subject and areas of interest
- testing the student's understanding of the topic
- exploring possible topics
- looking at the subject-specific guide
- appropriateness of the topic/question
- why is it interesting
- ethical issues
- research methods
- possible pitfalls
- timeline
- supervisor-supervisee relationship
As you can see, this is all "early days" stuff. I think it should take place soon after the student has decided that they will write their essay in physics and certainly within the first month. The time scale will probably be set by your school. If you use ManageBac, there is an online system for entering the reflections (even after November 2026), which seems like the way to go.
Remember that the students will be assessed on their progression, their ability to consider different ways to solve problems and the way they respond to challenges (demonstrating intellectual engagement, research skills, initiative and creativity). This is where they will set out the problems that they will try to solve. Leave this too late, and they will already have solved them. Meet the student too early, and they won't have thought of them.
The session should be a formal dialogue rather than a chat at lunch. It is recommended that the student has a written plan for their research proposal that they share before the meeting. Using something like Google Classroom allows multiple students to work individually on the same proposal template.
From previous experience, I would say the dialogue would be focused on practical problems, assumptions to make, control of variables, measuring devices and the development of a theoretical model.
The student may wish to note problems that they faced and possible strategies for solving them. Hopefully, the next reflection will be about successful solutions.
Before this takes place, the student should have made some progress. In my experience, this will be very different for different students. Some will be ready for this a few weeks after the first reflection. Others will require several months. School administrations will want to fit this into a time slot, but I think it should be individually negotiated with the student.
Students should have:
- tried to focus their research question
- deepened their research by finding out more about the theory/work of others
- sorted out their experimental method and gathered some data
- have some idea of the argument they will follow
- read around the subject and added some sources to their bibliography
- completed a chunk of text to demonstrate referencing, use of language etc.
This sounds like a very good time to meet with your supervisees: not too late to change direction, but enough time for them to have something to discuss. The conversation should be very different from the first reflection, as the student will now have become a bit of an expert in their field. I like these discussions.
The idea is to demonstrate progress. There will have been challenges and problems to solve, and it is important that these are included in written notes. It is also a time to seek advice (although not the only time). Referring back to the first reflection, students should be able to show that they have understood ethical considerations, developed a good experimental method, increased their understanding, avoided pitfalls, and kept to their time plan.
During this session one might discuss:
- style and referencing
- solutions to problems
- relevance of theory
- quality of data from experiment
- plan for completion
By this time, students will have some data and will be considering its relevance. If the experiment hasn't worked, they will be thinking of changing their topic. I think it is good that these challenges will be recorded and assessed with the essay. I suppose that a change of topic could be seen as good or bad depending on the reasons and outcome.
A common problem at this stage is that students struggle to explain why their experiments are not agreeing with their theory. Maybe they could try an alternative method or do some side experiment to show the effect of changing one of the controlled variables. A simulation might shine light on the problem. Maybe they need a more sophisticated model? Be careful here; many potentially good essays have been ruined by the student trying to tackle theory that was beyond them.
If you don't understand it, don't write about it.
Complicated differential equations are great, but only if the student understands the steps. This can be hard to assess if you don't understand them either.
This session takes place after the essay has been uploaded, so there is no going back. I think this is important. Students will want to make changes if you make comments suggesting how it might have been better to....
The viva voce is a celebration of the completion of the essay, a time for the student to demonstrate what they have learnt. In my experience, they often know more about their topic than I do. Now is a good time to gain some knowledge from them; they are now the experts.
The official documents say that this is a time to confirm the authenticity of the essay. I think it's rather late. After many supervision sessions and two formal reflections, you should know by now.
The student will again need to reflect. This should show progress, so it is worth looking at the previous reflections. Help the student by pointing out developments that have been particularly impressive. They may not realise it for themselves.
You will get a chance to comment on the student's reflective statement draft. I will probably talk about this with the student.
Vauxhall Viva
After writing their Extended Essay (maximum 4000 words), students complete their Reflective Statement (maximum 500 words). This is likely to be a coherent, polished summary of:
- Notes made from all three supervisor reflection sessions
- The student's research diary
- The student's “journey” throughout the process
- An attempt to meet the reflection criteria!
The EE Guide recommends including the main ideas discussed in the viva voce, learning skills that can be used in the future, insights gained from researching and writing, changes in perspective on the topic, the impact of the choices, and experiences that could shape future thinking.
The Programme Resource Centre has three marked exemplars of physics EEs. One of these scores 4/4 marks for reflection because “reflection is consistently evaluative, includes specific examples, and shows evidence of growth and transfer of learning". The others score 2/4 because the reflection is merely “descriptive”, fewer examples are given, and there is only sometimes “evidence of transfer of learning”.
The full-marks exemplar is 372 words, whereas the other two are shorter, suggesting that more words allow more scope for evaluation. The student writes about their original physics idea and why it ought to have worked theoretically, along with why it didn't work in practice (high percentage uncertainty). The student's second method was more successful, but required calculations "through a different method" because “the graph produced was not precise enough”. They discuss the specific skills they learned from the school lab technicians and keeping research notes, and how and why the EE experience has confirmed their career plans.
The PRC also includes an interdisciplinary physics and economics EE under the framework “Sustainability, development, change”. This student got 3 marks for the reflection because they included challenges and surprises, showed evidence of growth and transfer of skills, and mentioned real-world implications, but combined descriptive and evaluative writing,
It's not always easy for us physicists to know the difference between describing and evaluating in this format. However, based on the exemplars, it seems like students who write “what happened” are penalised, whereas those who write “what happened, why, what changed, whether it was better, and what this means” succeed. It also appears that physics EE examiners will be expecting to see physics terms in the statement, such as references to uncertainty and reliability, and physics-specific challenges, decisions and triumphs. Based on the exemplars provided, students who discuss only challenges related to writing may do less well.
Perhaps there is an analogy here with Language B extended essays. In Language B, where students are writing in an unfamiliar language (let's say Portuguese), they must write their reflection in that same language (again, Portuguese). In a physics EE, where the essay itself is about equations and methods and analysis and graphs (i.e. the language of physics), the reflection should also be written in the language of physics and assume that the reader is a physicist. The reflection is therefore not simply a diary of the EE experience. It is an opportunity to show how the student thought as a physicist, how their thinking changed during the investigation, and what they will take from that experience into future scientific work.