Internal moderation of IAs is the school-level process used to make teacher marking accurate and consistent before marks are entered in IBIS. Coordinators do not need to re-mark every piece of coursework. Their role is to establish a defensible process in which teachers use current subject criteria, calibrate judgments, investigate discrepancies, and document changes.
This differs from IB moderation. Teachers award initial marks, while the IB externally moderates selected work to determine whether the school has applied the global standard accurately and consistently. The IB guide to assessment for teachers and coordinators explains that moderation may leave a school’s marks unchanged or cause them to be raised or lowered.
What internal moderation should achieve
A strong system for standardizing IA marking should confirm that:
- Teachers are using the correct criteria for the subject, level, component, and examination session.
- Equivalent performances receive equivalent marks within the school.
- Every criterion mark can be justified through evidence in the student’s work.
- Marks, files, forms, recordings, and authentication records are ready for submission.
Internal moderation does not impose one generic interpretation across subjects. Analysis in History, mathematical communication, scientific evaluation, and artistic performance use different criteria. Coordinators standardize the quality of the process, while subject specialists standardize the application of subject criteria.
This matters because external moderation normally examines a sample rather than every candidate. According to the IB’s overview of assessment methods, the sample represents the school’s mark range and may produce an adjustment across that component. An unreliable sampled mark can therefore affect candidates beyond the individual concerned.
Establish the process before marking begins
Internal moderation is weakest when treated as a final administrative check. The coordinator should publish the process before teachers complete marking, preferably within the school assessment calendar.
Build a reverse calendar
Start with the current deadlines in the applicable Diploma Programme Assessment procedures, IBIS calendar, and coordinator communications. Work backwards to set internal deadlines for:
- Student submission of the authenticated final version
- Completion of first marking
- Department calibration and moderation
- Resolution of disputed marks
- Coordinator audit of marks and files
- Entry of marks and predicted grades
- Upload of the IB-selected sample
Leave several working days between the coordinator audit and the IB deadline. This is practical advice rather than an IB-prescribed interval. It allows staff to correct missing forms, unreadable recordings, incorrect files, or data-entry errors without rushing academic decisions.
Create a subject moderation pack
Each team should receive the current subject guide, criteria, teacher support material, relevant subject reports, authenticated exemplars where available, required forms, upload instructions, internal calendar, and moderation record template.
Version control is essential. An older rubric may appear familiar while containing different descriptors, allocations, or task requirements. The subject teacher should confirm the applicable version, and the coordinator should record that confirmation.
Calibrate teachers before full-cohort marking
Calibration establishes a shared interpretation before marking differences spread through the cohort. It is particularly important with multiple markers, new teachers, revised guides, or a history of substantial external adjustments.
Select 3-5 pieces representing different achievement levels. Teachers should mark them independently before seeing colleagues’ totals. The subsequent discussion should proceed criterion by criterion:
- What evidence supports the proposed level?
- Which descriptor wording is decisive?
- What would be needed for the next level?
- Does an official example or subject report clarify the issue?
The aim is not to create an unofficial replacement rubric. Department notes can record useful interpretations, but they remain subordinate to official criteria. RevisionDojo’s IB IA Guides can provide subject-specific explanations, although the current IB guide used by the school remains authoritative.
Moderate marked work efficiently
After calibration, the responsible teacher marks the cohort. A second marker then reviews a purposeful internal sample rather than automatically re-marking every IA.
Include work from the high, middle, and low mark ranges, the highest and lowest totals, borderline cases, unexpected outliers, work from every marker, and unusual task interpretations. This is school-selected quality assurance, not the official sample generated through IB systems.
Schools may define escalation triggers, but these are local rules rather than universal IB tolerances. A second review might be required when markers select different descriptor levels, disagree beyond a department-defined threshold, or disagree about whether evidence is present.
| Moderation record field | What should be recorded |
|---|---|
| Candidate identifier | A secure identifier without unnecessary personal data |
| Criterion | The exact criterion under review |
| First and review marks | Each marker’s independent judgment |
| Evidence | Relevant page, timestamp, section, or performance feature |
| Final mark | The agreed mark entered in the master record |
| Rationale and approval | Descriptor-linked explanation, initials, and date |
The RevisionDojo guide to simplifying internal moderation across departments explains moderation by exception and concise record keeping. Automated or third-party marks should be treated only as diagnostic comparisons. They cannot replace accountable teacher judgment using official criteria.
Resolve disagreement without averaging
Averaging two totals conceals why markers disagree. If one teacher awards 14 and another awards 18, entering 16 does not establish which descriptors the work satisfies.
Markers should isolate the disputed criterion, cite relevant evidence, and explain their interpretation. If agreement remains impossible, an experienced subject leader or qualified third marker should review that criterion. Record the final decision and rationale.
Coordinators should also identify systematic drift. If one teacher is consistently more generous on evaluation, the team should revisit that criterion across several scripts and adjust other affected marks where necessary. In single-teacher subjects, use official exemplars, reports, workshop learning, and suitably qualified external support where school policy permits, while protecting candidate confidentiality.
Complete the pre-submission audit
Once subject teams approve their marks, the coordinator conducts an administrative and procedural audit, not another round of subject marking. Confirm that:
- Every registered candidate has a mark or documented status.
- Criterion totals match the master record and IBIS entries.
- The correct component, subject, and level were used.
- Final work is authenticated and integrity concerns are resolved.
- Required coversheets, comments, extracts, recordings, and supporting files are present.
- Audio and video files open and contain the complete assessment.
- Candidate identification follows current instructions.
- Full-cohort work remains securely available if requested.
The IB may request additional work when a reliable adjustment cannot be calculated from the initial sample. Schools should therefore retain and organize the cohort’s work according to current IB instructions and local policies.
Use a controlled master record with restricted editing rights. One person should enter or import marks, while another compares an exported report with the approved departmental record. This check catches missing candidates and transposed digits that academic moderation cannot detect.
Use results to improve the next cycle
After results, compare teacher-awarded marks, moderated outcomes, available feedback, and departmental notes. Look for patterns such as repeated generosity in one criterion, weak annotation, unsuitable task design, or inconsistent treatment of boundary work.
Turn each pattern into a specific action for the next calibration meeting. RevisionDojo’s explanation of how IA moderation works can support staff induction, while its guide to consistent criterion-linked IA feedback can help departments strengthen their records.
Conclusion
Effective internal moderation of IAs depends on early calibration, independent marking, purposeful sampling, criterion-based discussion, documented decisions, and a separate administrative audit. Coordinators establish the common framework, while subject specialists remain responsible for applying current assessment criteria accurately.
The result should be evidence-based, defensible marks rather than merely a completed spreadsheet. RevisionDojo’s IA Guides and criterion-focused resources can support staff preparation, but final judgments must remain grounded in current IB documentation and accountable teacher expertise.