How should I divide my time between DP1 and DP2 during the fall term?

Use a changing allocation rather than a fixed 50:50 split. In early September, give DP1 more direct attention because strong routines prevent repeated problems later, while auditing DP2 IA progress and identifying urgent cases. During October, reduce stand-alone DP1 induction and place those skills inside normal subject teaching. Increase protected DP2 feedback and conference time as draft or final milestones approach. Keep separate calendar blocks for lesson planning and IA work so that urgent coursework does not consume every preparation period.

What should be included in DP1 onboarding during the first month?

Cover the course structure, assessment components, classroom routines, command terms, file organization, source use, academic integrity, and routes for obtaining help. Explain the difference between formative tasks, school assessments, and work submitted or moderated by the IB. Students should also know where to find policies, deadlines, subject materials, and feedback records. Use a low-stakes subject task to practise submission, citation, criterion interpretation, and reflection together. Detailed IA instruction can wait until students have enough disciplinary understanding to apply it meaningfully.

How much feedback can an IB teacher give on a DP2 IA draft?

There is no safe universal rule that applies identically to every subject and component. Teachers must consult the current subject guide and their coordinator's assessment documentation to determine the permitted timing and extent of feedback. In general, feedback should identify concerns and point students toward criteria, evidence, or reasoning rather than rewriting their work. Multiple rounds of editing or supplying submission-ready language may breach assessment instructions and undermine authenticity. Keep a record of the feedback given so the school can demonstrate that supervision remained consistent and appropriate.

How can I supervise a large DP2 IA cohort efficiently?

Track each student by stage, obstacle, next action, and deadline rather than treating the class as one undifferentiated group. Use short conferences with a fixed agenda and reserve longer intervention for students facing significant methodological or academic-integrity concerns. Batch review around common criteria or problems, then address shared misconceptions through a brief feedback clinic. A criterion-linked comment bank can reduce repeated typing, provided the diagnosis remains specific to the student's work. Schedule internal standardization early so that efficient marking does not come at the expense of consistency.

Can students use AI tools while working on an IB Internal Assessment?

The IB does not apply a blanket ban to AI tools, but their use must comply with academic-integrity expectations and the school's policy. AI-generated content is not automatically the student's own work, and material incorporated into assessed work requires appropriate transparency and acknowledgment. Students should not use AI to produce the reasoning, analysis, or prose that the assessment is intended to evaluate. Safer uses may include clarifying a concept, generating unassessed practice, or interpreting feedback, if the school permits them. Teachers should require students to retain drafts and source records and to ask when the boundary is unclear.

What should I do when DP2 students miss internal IA deadlines?

Follow the school's published escalation process rather than creating a private extension system for individual students. Record the missed milestone, contact the student through the agreed channel, and notify the coordinator or relevant pastoral staff when required. Break the recovery plan into a specific next deliverable and a short deadline instead of simply moving the original due date. Maintain the same academic-integrity and feedback boundaries that apply to students who submitted on time. If missed deadlines are widespread, the programme team should review the cohort calendar because the problem may reflect deadline congestion rather than isolated poor organization.

Back to all posts

Balancing New DP1 Onboarding With DP2 IA Supervision

IB Teachers Seasonal Planning IB IA

• 22 Sept 2026•10

Balancing New DP1 Onboarding With DP2 IA Supervision

Join 650k+ students breezing through the IBReady to breeze through the IB?

Balancing New DP1 Onboarding With DP2 IA Supervision | RevisionDojo

Back to all posts

Balancing New DP1 Onboarding With DP2 IA Supervision

IB Teachers Seasonal Planning IB IA

• 22 Sept 2026•10

Balancing new DP1 onboarding with DP2 supervision is one of the hardest demands of the IB teacher fall term. DP1 students need explicit instruction in unfamiliar routines, while DP2 students need timely Internal Assessment guidance without receiving excessive assistance.

The most effective approach is to create two predictable systems: a concise DP1 induction programme that builds independence and a DP2 IA pipeline based on fixed milestones, short conferences, criterion-focused feedback, and protected standardization time. The September-November plan below shows how to manage both cohorts without allowing either to consume every planning period.

Why the fall term becomes overloaded

DP1 and DP2 require different kinds of attention. DP1 students are learning command terms, assessment criteria, source use, academic integrity, independent study, and subject-specific expectations. When these foundations remain implicit, misunderstandings become repeated emails, incomplete work, and avoidable interventions.

DP2 pressure is more immediate. Students may be collecting evidence, refining research questions, completing analysis, or responding to permitted feedback. Because the sequence and feedback rules vary by subject, teachers must follow the current subject guide, school assessment calendar, and DP coordinator's instructions.

Attention should therefore be allocated by risk, not divided equally every week. Establish DP1 routines early, then move more protected time toward DP2 coursework as internal deadlines approach.

Start with one coordinated assessment calendar

Identify every relevant DP2 milestone before planning the term. These may include proposal checks, data collection, oral components, draft submission, feedback, final submission, standardization, authentication, and upload preparation.

Schools normally set internal deadlines earlier than IB submission dates so marking, moderation, authentication, and administrative checks can be completed. Distinguish among three dates:

Student deadline: work reaches the teacher
Department deadline: marking and standardization are completed
Coordinator deadline: authenticated files, marks, and supporting material are ready

Work backwards from the coordinator deadline and include contingency time for absences, inaccessible files, missing citations, technical problems, and academic-integrity reviews.

A September-November operating plan

This model suits schools starting in August or September and preparing for a May examination session. Schools using another calendar can preserve the sequence while changing the months.

Period	DP1 priority	DP2 IA priority	Protected teacher action
Early September	Explain course structure, routines, command terms, and independent study	Audit each student's IA stage and identify high-risk cases	Build one tracker and confirm deadlines
Late September	Diagnose prior knowledge and teach referencing through a short task	Check question feasibility, evidence, or method progress	Hold brief triage conferences
October	Develop research, self-management, and criterion literacy	Receive planned sections or drafts under subject rules	Give criterion-focused feedback in batches
Early November	Review routines through reflection and formative evidence	Monitor revision, authenticity, and citations	Standardize selected anchor samples
Late November	Consolidate learning for the next teaching block	Complete the next IA milestone or final checks	Record decisions and escalate concerns

By October, induction should be embedded in subject learning rather than continuing as a separate presentation series.

Build focused DP1 onboarding

DP1 students do not need every rule during their first week. They need the information required to make sound decisions now, followed by further guidance when it becomes relevant.

The first month should cover:

Subject structure at SL and HL, where applicable
Differences among formative work, school assessment, and IB assessment
Command terms and criterion language
Course resources, deadlines, policies, and support routes
File organization, source use, and feedback records
Academic integrity and permitted AI use
How and when to request help

Use one low-stakes task to teach several routines. Students could answer a source-based question, cite the source, submit it correctly, examine the relevant criterion, and record one improvement target. This produces diagnostic evidence while rehearsing the complete workflow.

Introduce the IA's purpose early, but delay detailed instruction about design, methods, or criteria until students possess enough subject knowledge to apply it meaningfully.

Manage DP2 IA supervision as a pipeline

A single deadline labelled "IA draft due" hides too much. Use a tracker showing each student's current stage, last checkpoint, main obstacle, next student action, next teacher action, conference date, feedback status, and authentication status.

Group students by need. Routine confirmation may require two minutes, while an unworkable method needs a focused conference. The guided IA supervision framework provides a milestone model that departments can adapt.

Use short, structured conferences

A 5-10 minute conference can address four questions: What has been completed? What evidence demonstrates progress? What prevents the next step? What will the student complete, and by when?

Record the agreed action. Students should leave responsible for the next intellectual decision, without receiving teacher-generated wording or analysis.

Batch criterion-focused feedback

Where subject rules permit, review one common element across the cohort, such as question focus, evidence, evaluation, or citation practice. A concise criterion-linked comment bank reduces repeated typing, but the diagnosis must remain specific to the student's work. RevisionDojo's guide to delivering better IA feedback efficiently explains this approach.

Keep feedback within IB boundaries

Permitted support differs across subjects and components. Confirm what may be discussed before drafting, whether a draft can receive feedback, the permitted extent of that feedback, what must remain the student's decision, and how authenticity is confirmed.

Feedback should identify weaknesses and redirect students to criteria, evidence, or reasoning. It should not rewrite passages, provide conclusions, correct every sentence, or create submission-ready material.

The IB does not impose a blanket ban on AI tools, but generated material is not automatically the student's own work. Schools should specify permitted uses, require transparency where relevant, and teach students to verify outputs.

Protect standardization and authenticity

Internal assessment is marked by teachers and may be moderated by the IB, making departmental standardization essential. Before marking the entire cohort, select anchor samples at different levels, mark them independently, compare criterion-level judgments, and record agreed interpretations. RevisionDojo's guide to IA consistency and departmental standardization offers a practical structure.

Establish authenticity throughout the process. Retain proposals, notes, sources, draft versions, conference records, and evidence showing how thinking developed. Escalate serious concerns through the school's academic-integrity procedure.

Protect teacher workload deliberately

Reserve separate calendar blocks for DP1 planning, DP2 feedback, conferences, and standardization. Practical boundaries include accepting work through one channel, using fixed conference windows, marking manageable batches, maintaining one tracker, and escalating missed milestones early.

RevisionDojo's teacher and department guide explains how assignments, analytics, the Questionbank, and coursework feedback can support repeated tasks. Automated feedback should remain diagnostic because teachers retain responsibility for applying official criteria, observing feedback restrictions, protecting data, and making assessment decisions.

Common mistakes to avoid

Completing DP1 induction in one presentation instead of revisiting expectations through subject tasks
Giving every DP2 student equal conference time instead of triaging support fairly
Treating internal deadlines as continuously negotiable
Writing exhaustive feedback that creates dependence or exceeds permitted assistance
Delaying standardization until most marking is finished

Conclusion

Balancing DP1 onboarding with DP2 IA supervision requires a concise induction sequence and a milestone-based IA pipeline. Clear deadlines, targeted conferences, criterion-focused feedback, early standardization, and process evidence protect assessment quality and teacher capacity.

RevisionDojo can support this structure through its IB resource hub, Questionbank, Study Notes, class tools, and coursework feedback. Questionbank can support DP1 diagnostic practice, while Coursework Review can provide secondary diagnostic support for DP2. Teacher judgment and the current IB guide remain the final authority.

Sources and referenced URLs

Add as a preferred source on Google