When you’re deep in an IA, collaboration can feel like oxygen. A friend has done a similar experiment. Someone in your class writes better than you. A group chat is buzzing with “quick fixes.”
And then a quiet fear shows up: Am I still doing my own work?
In the IB, the line is simple but strict: you can think together, but you must produce your IA (and your Extended Essay) as independent work. Knowing what that actually looks like in real student life is the difference between confident help and accidental misconduct.
IA collaboration rules: the fast checklist
Use this before you share anything:
-
Allowed: discussing ideas, methods, and general strategy for your IA
-
Sometimes allowed: group data collection (subject-dependent), but individual analysis and write-up
-
Allowed: broad feedback like “this is unclear” or “check the criteria here”
-
Not allowed: swapping drafts, sharing paragraphs, or coordinating conclusions
-
Not allowed: someone else rewriting your IA line by line (including heavy AI-generated prose)
If you want a safe starting point, keep the criteria open while you plan using RevisionDojo’s IA Guides and confirm expectations early.
What’s allowed when working on an IA (and EE)
Talking through ideas and research questions
You can absolutely discuss concepts with classmates or your teacher. In fact, a good IA often begins as a conversation: “What if we tested this?” “Would this variable be measurable?” “Is this question too broad?”
What matters is the output. Your IA must show your choices: your framing, your reasoning, your interpretation.
If you need help narrowing your approach without borrowing someone’s structure, use IB Internal Assessment: A Complete Guide as a map, then pressure-test your plan with RevisionDojo’s AI Chat like a tutor, not a ghostwriter.
Limited group work in some subjects (especially data collection)
In certain subjects (often sciences, Psychology, ESS), you may be able to collect data in a small group or as a class activity. But here’s the non-negotiable piece: even if collection overlaps, your IA must separate at the most important point.
You still need:
-
your own research question focus (or a clearly individual angle)
-
your own processing and analysis
-
your own evaluation and conclusion
-
your own writing
A helpful reference point is subject guidance like Essentials of the Internal Assessment (Biology), which makes the “individual report” expectation clear.
Sharing resources and general feedback
Sharing a journal article, a dataset, or a textbook chapter is fine. So is feedback that stays at the “reader reaction” level: This section is confusing. Your graph labels are hard to read. I’m not sure you answered your research question here.
A strong habit is to run your own self-check first (criteria open, sources logged), then ask for feedback on clarity, not content. RevisionDojo’s Study Notes and Flashcards can help you rebuild understanding so you don’t rely on someone else’s phrasing.
Supervisor guidance (what teachers can and can’t do)
Your supervisor can guide you. They can ask questions, point out weak analysis, and suggest places to clarify. They should not be rewriting your IA or editing it sentence-by-sentence until it sounds like them.
If you want structured, criterion-based feedback without losing ownership, you can use RevisionDojo’s Grading tools and compare your work against the rubric language (it’s feedback you act on, not text you copy).
What’s not allowed: the collaboration that becomes collusion
Draft swapping and shared writing
The fastest way to cross the line is sharing living text: Google Docs access, “can you rewrite this paragraph,” or swapping introductions “just to compare.” Even if your intentions are innocent, the result can be two IAs that look related in structure, phrasing, or reasoning.
If you’re tempted, read this once: IB academic misconduct explained.
Over-editing by friends, parents, tutors, or AI
Proofreading for typos is one thing. Rewriting your voice is another. If someone is reshaping your sentences line-by-line, the IA stops being a record of your thinking.
The same principle applies to AI. You can use AI to explain, quiz, outline options, or highlight unclear logic. But using it to generate polished assessed prose is where students get burned.
For a clean boundary, see Is AI Allowed in IB? Using AI for Your IA Safely and IB AI Tools: Ethical Use Without Penalties.
Coordinating conclusions or “matching” structure
Collusion doesn’t require identical paragraphs. If two students plan together so closely that the argument, approach, and conclusions converge, it can still be flagged. Your IA should read like one mind made the decisions from start to finish.
If you’re worried your IA is too close to someone else’s, use the calm process approach in What happens if your IA is plagiarized?.
How to collaborate safely (without losing marks)
Keep it simple:
-
Collaborate early, separate late. Brainstorm together, then write alone.
-
Keep proof of process. Drafts, notes, version history, data tables.
-
Talk in questions, not sentences. Ask: “Does this answer the RQ?” not “Copy this line.”
-
Use RevisionDojo as your independent loop: practise with the Questionbank, tighten concepts with Study Notes, memorize essentials with Flashcards, get stuck-unstuck with AI Chat, check alignment with Grading tools, and if you need a human eye, use Tutors.
If exam pressure is making shortcuts feel tempting, reset with How to Uphold Academic Integrity in IB Assessments.
FAQ
Can I collect data with classmates for my IA?
Sometimes, yes, depending on the subject and your teacher’s guidance. In many science-style IAs, group data collection may be permitted because it can be practical and time-efficient. However, your IA must still show independent decision-making in how you process and select data, what you calculate, and what you conclude. The writing must be entirely yours, in your own structure and voice. If you do share collection, document your individual role clearly and keep your own records. When in doubt, confirm expectations with your teacher and cross-check with RevisionDojo’s IA guidance.
Can a friend proofread my IA or EE?
A friend can give broad feedback, like pointing out confusing sections or places where you forgot to define a term. That kind of feedback is similar to a reader saying, “I got lost here,” and it keeps authorship with you. What crosses the line is editing that changes your phrasing, rewrites paragraphs, or adds analysis you didn’t create. A useful rule is: feedback should be something you can implement yourself without copying their words. If you want a safer alternative, use rubric-aligned checks and self-assessment tools so your improvements are clearly your own decisions. RevisionDojo’s Grading tools are designed for this kind of criterion-focused refinement.
What exactly counts as collusion in an IA?
Collusion is when collaboration removes independence. It can look like sharing drafts, dividing up sections (“you write the evaluation, I’ll write the method”), or agreeing to use the same structure and points. It can also happen when students share sentence-level phrasing, even if they change a few words afterward. The IB cares about authentic authorship: can you prove the thinking and writing are yours? If two IAs read like they were built from the same template, it creates risk. The safest approach is to collaborate on ideas, then separate completely for analysis and writing, keeping your own process trail.
Final takeaway: think together, write your IA alone
Your IA is more than a product. It’s evidence of your thinking. Collaborate to sharpen ideas and reduce confusion, then protect the part that earns marks: your analysis, your wording, your conclusions.
If you want a workflow that keeps you safe and improves results at the same time, build your IA routine inside RevisionDojo: plan with the Coursework Library, practise with the Questionbank, revise with Study Notes and Flashcards, sanity-check with AI Chat, and align to criteria using the Grading tools. That’s how you get support without giving away authorship -- and walk into exams with confidence.