Can AI accurately mark an IB Internal Assessment?

AI can provide a useful criterion-based estimate, but it cannot award an official IB mark. Its strongest function is identifying missing evidence, inconsistent reasoning, weak analysis, and places where the draft does not clearly satisfy a descriptor. Final IA marks involve teacher judgment and may be adjusted through IB moderation. Accuracy also depends on selecting the correct subject, level, syllabus, and examination session. Treat the estimate as a revision diagnosis and confirm important decisions with your teacher.

Does RevisionDojo use the official IB IA grading criteria?

RevisionDojo describes its Coursework Grader as using the selected IB subject rubric and organizing feedback by criterion and rubric strand. Students must still check that they have chosen the correct syllabus version, especially in subjects undergoing curriculum change. Official criteria should be verified through the subject guide supplied by the school or the IB Programme Resource Centre. RevisionDojo translates the criteria into feedback but does not become an official IB examiner or moderator. If the platform's wording conflicts with the current guide, follow the official guide and ask your teacher.

What feedback does the RevisionDojo IA Grader provide?

The grader can return an estimated overall result, criterion-level estimates, strand ratings, strengths, weaknesses, and prioritized revision suggestions. It can also attach comments to relevant passages so students can locate the evidence behind a criticism. This is more useful than general advice such as “add analysis” because a strong annotation identifies what is missing and where. Jojo AI can then explain unfamiliar terminology or help turn a broad comment into a revision checklist. Students should implement changes using their own reasoning and language.

Should I use RevisionDojo or Clastify for IA feedback?

RevisionDojo is well suited to students who want rapid rubric feedback connected with Jojo AI, subject resources, coursework guidance, and wider IB revision tools. Clastify also provides an AI coursework grader and separately offers human examiner review, which may suit students seeking a one-off human assessment. The two services therefore overlap but are not identical in workflow. RevisionDojo's main strength is its integrated and repeatable draft-revision process rather than any guarantee of a final mark. Compare current features, privacy terms, turnaround arrangements, and available subjects before choosing.

Is using an AI IA grader allowed under IB academic integrity rules?

Using AI for feedback is not automatically misconduct, but the submitted work must remain authentically yours. Follow your school's rules because schools may set more specific limits on when and how AI tools can be used. Do not ask an AI to generate your investigation, fabricate data, invent sources, write evaluative judgments, or replace your final prose. Keep drafts and a record of how you used feedback, and acknowledge AI assistance when your school's policy requires it. A safe principle is to use AI to diagnose and explain, not to take over authorship.

When should I upload my IA to the grader?

Upload once you have enough genuine work for the relevant criteria to be assessed, rather than waiting until minutes before submission. An early draft can reveal structural problems such as an unanswerable question, insufficient data, or sources that cannot support the argument. A later upload is useful for checking whether your revisions addressed the original gaps. Leave time to verify the feedback, consult your teacher where permitted, and make changes independently. Repeated grading is valuable only when each cycle leads to a deliberate revision rather than superficial rewriting.

Back to all posts

How RevisionDojo Applies IB IA Grading Criteria

Coursework Grader Internal Assessment IB IA

• 28 Sept 2026•11

How RevisionDojo Applies IB IA Grading Criteria

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

How RevisionDojo Applies IB IA Grading Criteria | RevisionDojo

Back to all posts

How RevisionDojo Applies IB IA Grading Criteria

Coursework Grader Internal Assessment IB IA

• 28 Sept 2026•11

If you need an AI that checks IB coursework against grading criteria, RevisionDojo's IB Coursework Grader is designed for that purpose. You upload a draft, select the relevant subject and rubric, and receive criterion-level estimates, annotations, identified strengths, weaknesses, and prioritized revision steps.

This makes RevisionDojo a practical IB coursework grading service with detailed rubric-based feedback, particularly when you want to revise repeatedly rather than receive one general writing review. Its marks remain formative estimates, however. Your teacher assigns the internal mark, which may subsequently be moderated by the IB.

How RevisionDojo applies IB IA grading criteria

IB Internal Assessments are criterion-referenced. Work is judged against published descriptors rather than ranked against other students. Teachers use best-fit judgment, deciding which descriptor most accurately represents the evidence across each complete criterion.

RevisionDojo follows a comparable diagnostic sequence:

You select the coursework type, subject, level where applicable, and assessment rubric.
Jojo AI identifies evidence relevant to each criterion and rubric strand.
The grader compares that evidence with the selected descriptors.
It returns estimated scores, strengths, omissions, and comments linked to relevant passages.
It prioritizes changes that could improve rubric alignment.

Selecting the correct rubric is essential. A scientific investigation rewards reproducible methodology, uncertainty treatment, and scientific evaluation. A History IA rewards source evaluation, historical argument, perspectives, and reflection or synthesis, depending on the examination session.

The main Coursework Grader includes public, read-only reports showing how annotations and criterion breakdowns appear. Students can also open the dedicated Biology IA Grader and History IA Grader.

Biology IA marking, criterion by criterion

For Biology first assessed in 2025, the scientific investigation is marked out of 24 using four equally weighted criteria. Research design, Data analysis, Conclusion, and Evaluation are each worth 6 marks. The report has a 3,000-word maximum, and the IA contributes 20% of the final Biology result at SL and HL.

The official IB Biology curriculum update confirms the investigation format and word limit. Complete descriptors are available through schools and the IB Programme Resource Centre, while the IB offers an official science internal-assessment resource.

Biology criterion	What the grader examines	Typical revision priority
Research design, 6	A contextualized question, justified methodological choices, controlled variables, safety or ethical considerations, and reproducibility	Explain choices of ranges, repeats, controls, intervals, and instruments
Data analysis, 6	Raw and processed data, units, precision, uncertainties, graphs, calculations, statistics, and anomaly handling	Correct inconsistencies and connect processing to the question
Conclusion, 6	A direct answer supported by processed results and uncertainties, compared with accepted biological knowledge	Use quantitative evidence and traceable scientific sources
Evaluation, 6	Specific limitations, their relative effects, and realistic linked improvements	Explain consequences instead of listing generic errors

Research design

The grader asks whether another student could understand the investigation's purpose and reproduce it. A variable table is insufficient if the report never explains why its range, repeats, controls, measurement method, or equipment are appropriate.

In RevisionDojo's public Biology IA feedback example, the report recognizes detailed volumes, masses, uncertainties, calibration, and software steps as evidence of reproducibility. It also identifies omitted pH control and unclear stirring duration. These comments are useful because they connect weaknesses to identifiable design decisions.

Data analysis

Jojo AI examines whether data recording and processing are clear and precise. Relevant conventions include table headings, units, significant figures, uncertainties, graph labels, error bars, calculations, statistical choices, and explanations for excluded results.

The public Biology report praises the use of a one-tailed t-test and standard deviation but flags inconsistent units, blank uncertainty cells, absent error bars, and unjustified outlier removal. Rather than merely requesting more analysis, it identifies the conventions that are missing and where they affect precision.

Conclusion

The conclusion must answer the research question using the analysis presented. The grader therefore looks for numerical results, interpretation of uncertainty, consistency with graphs or statistical outcomes, and comparison with accepted biological theory or published findings.

Useful feedback identifies the missing relationship. For example, it may ask whether uncertainty ranges or a statistical test support the claimed difference, or whether an external comparison is properly cited and genuinely comparable.

Evaluation

Evaluation is not a list of vague problems such as human error or insufficient time. The required reasoning is specific limitation, effect on results, relative importance, and realistic improvement.

For example, inconsistent temperature could alter yeast respiration rates, increase variation, and weaken confidence that sweetener type caused the observed difference. A linked improvement would specify thermostatically controlled conditions and explain how they reduce variation.

History IA marking, criterion by criterion

History requires particular care because two syllabuses are relevant in 2026. Students completing the current course through the 2027 examination session use three criteria totaling 25 marks: Identification and evaluation of sources, Investigation, and Reflection. The course first assessed in 2028 uses Historical inquiry question, Sources and perspectives, and Synthesis and evaluation, totaling 24 marks.

The official current History subject brief outlines the current historical investigation. The official History subject brief for first assessment 2028 confirms the redesigned structure. Always select the rubric matching your examination session.

Current History criterion, final assessment 2027	What the grader examines	Example of useful feedback
A: Identification and evaluation of sources, 6	A focused question, two relevant sources, and analysis of their origin, purpose, content, values, and limitations	Explain how the author's purpose affects usefulness for the specific investigation
B: Investigation, 15	Historical analysis, evidence, differing perspectives, source evaluation, organization, and a reasoned conclusion	Compare why historians interpret the policy differently and use that comparison to support a judgment
C: Reflection, 4	Reflection on historians' methods and challenges, grounded in the investigation	Explain what conflicting evidence revealed about the difficulty of establishing causation

These examples illustrate criterion-linked feedback rather than quotations from a verified public History report.

For first assessment 2028, the grader must instead examine:

Historical inquiry question, 6 marks: formulation and development of a focused question.
Sources and perspectives, 6 marks: selection and analysis of sources and represented perspectives.
Synthesis and evaluation, 12 marks: integration of evidence and perspectives into an evaluated response.

The old standalone reflection section does not belong in the 2028 structure. This transition shows why a subject-specific grader is more useful than a generic essay checker, provided the correct session is selected and feedback is verified against the school-issued guide.

How to use the feedback effectively

Do not begin by chasing the overall estimate. Read the report in three passes:

Criterion pass: identify the weakest criterion and missing descriptor evidence.
Annotation pass: locate the sentences, tables, calculations, or source discussions connected to each comment.
Revision pass: convert every comment into a task you can complete and verify.

For example, replace “improve evaluation” with: “For each major limitation, explain its likely effect, rank its importance, and connect it to one feasible improvement.” Jojo AI can clarify rubric terminology, but the analytical decisions and final revisions should remain your own.

RevisionDojo compared fairly with Clastify

Clastify also offers criterion-by-criterion AI feedback and separately provides human examiner reviews. It may suit students seeking a one-off human assessment or access to its coursework library.

RevisionDojo is generally better suited to an integrated cycle involving rubric feedback, Jojo AI explanations, exemplars, coursework guidance, and broader exam preparation. Neither service represents the IB, and no AI estimate guarantees a moderated result. RevisionDojo discusses this limitation in its IA grader accuracy review.

Practical IA self-check before submission

I selected the correct subject, level, syllabus, and examination session.
I can identify evidence for every criterion strand.
My research question remains consistent throughout.
Important methodological or source-selection decisions are explained.
Claims are supported by data, calculations, sources, or historical evidence.
Tables, figures, units, uncertainties, citations, and references are consistent.
My conclusion answers the exact question without overstating the evidence.
Each limitation has a specific consequence and realistic improvement.
I checked the official word limit and what it includes.
I verified AI feedback against official guidance and teacher instructions.
Every final calculation, judgment, and sentence represents my own work.

Conclusion

RevisionDojo applies IB IA grading criteria by matching evidence in a draft to the selected rubric, then returning criterion estimates, annotations, and prioritized improvements. Biology and History demonstrate why feedback must remain subject-specific and aligned with the correct examination session.

Use the report as a structured second opinion, not an official mark. Upload an authentic draft to the RevisionDojo Coursework Grader, verify comments against your official guide, and use Jojo AI to clarify feedback before revising independently.

Sources and referenced URLs

Add as a preferred source on Google

Get your coursework graded against the IB criteria

Upload an IA, EE, or TOK draft and get criterion-by-criterion feedback in minutes.

Grade my coursework Browse coursework examples

How RevisionDojo applies IB IA grading criteria

RevisionDojo follows a comparable diagnostic sequence:

You select the coursework type, subject, level where applicable, and assessment rubric.
Jojo AI identifies evidence relevant to each criterion and rubric strand.
The grader compares that evidence with the selected descriptors.
It returns estimated scores, strengths, omissions, and comments linked to relevant passages.
It prioritizes changes that could improve rubric alignment.

The main Coursework Grader includes public, read-only reports showing how annotations and criterion breakdowns appear. Students can also open the dedicated Biology IA Grader and History IA Grader.