Feedback on IA drafts is permitted and expected, but it must help students recognize weaknesses rather than repair those weaknesses for them. The decisive question is authorship: does the student still make the intellectual decisions and produce the final wording, analysis, calculations, and conclusions?
Teachers may explain requirements, discuss ideas, ask questions, identify problems, and give advice within the relevant subject guide. They should not rewrite passages, supply missing analysis, prescribe an exact high-scoring response, or provide repeated editing cycles. Because arrangements vary by component, the current subject guide and Diploma Programme assessment procedures take precedence over general advice.
The IB principle behind feedback on IA drafts
Internally assessed work is direct evidence of the student's achievement. Teachers mark most IAs before the IB moderates a sample, so the submitted work must show what the student can independently understand, decide, and communicate.
The IB academic integrity policy requires teachers to support students while avoiding excessive editing or assistance contrary to the relevant subject guide. Students must also avoid non-permitted help from tutors, relatives, peers, editing services, and other third parties.
This separates two legitimate teacher roles:
- During teaching, the teacher develops the knowledge and skills needed for the assessment.
- During formal draft review, the teacher diagnoses weaknesses without becoming a co-author.
The IB Mathematics: Analysis and Approaches guide, for example, states that teachers should read and advise on one draft of the exploration but should not edit it. The next version submitted is final. Teachers must still check the guide for their own subject and examination session rather than assuming every component follows identical rules.
How much draft feedback is allowed?
There is no universal limit such as ten annotations or one page of comments. What matters is the nature, timing, and repetition of assistance.