An effective internal moderation session aligns teachers' application of IB assessment criteria without becoming a prolonged debate or a complete re-marking exercise. Select a small number of informative samples, require independent marking beforehand, discuss differences criterion by criterion, and document decisions that can be applied across the cohort.
This matters because internally assessed work is marked by teachers and may then be externally moderated by the IB. When several teachers mark the same component, their judgments must reflect one coherent standard rather than separate classroom expectations.
Standardization and moderation are different
Standardization develops a shared understanding of how criteria, markbands, or markschemes should be applied. Moderation checks whether marking is accurate and consistent with that shared standard.
The IB describes moderation as checking how accurately and consistently teachers applied the assessment criteria. It is not simply another teacher re-marking individual work. The broader purpose is marking reliability, meaning comparable work should receive approximately the same mark regardless of its marker.
The IB guide to assessment for teachers and coordinators explains that externally moderated marks may be raised, lowered, or left unchanged. Its Dynamic Sampling diagram helps show why inconsistent marking can affect more than the work initially submitted.
A school meeting should therefore combine internal standardization with moderation: establish the standard, then check that teachers applied it consistently.
Prepare before the internal moderation session
Do not use meeting time for first readings. Distribute materials several working days beforehand and require every participant to mark independently.
The meeting pack should contain:
- The current subject guide and correct assessment criteria
- Relevant official teacher support material available through MyIB
- 3-5 anonymized samples representing useful differences
- At least one borderline or ambiguous example
- A criterion-level recording sheet
- Relevant previous moderation feedback
Choose samples for what they reveal, not simply because they received high, middle, and low marks. A strong set includes one clear anchor, one response near a markband boundary, and one response likely to produce disagreement.
Each teacher should record a mark, identify supporting evidence, and note uncertainty before the meeting. This reduces anchoring by the first confident speaker. RevisionDojo's guide to standardizing internal assessments across departments provides a framework for organizing shared rubrics and sample records.
Use a tightly timed meeting structure
A prepared meeting usually needs 45-60 minutes. The chair should circulate the agenda in advance and appoint a separate recorder where possible.
| Time | Activity | Required outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 0-5 minutes | Confirm purpose and documents | Everyone uses the same current criteria |
| 5-15 minutes | Review one clear anchor | Establish a shared reference point |
| 15-35 minutes | Discuss 1-2 borderline samples | Agree criterion marks and reasons |
| 35-45 minutes | Test another sample | Confirm the interpretation transfers |
| 45-55 minutes | Identify work requiring review | Create a focused exception list |
| 55-60 minutes | Record actions | Assign owners and deadlines |
If time is limited, reduce the number of samples rather than removing independent marking. Three carefully selected samples marked in advance are more useful than ten pieces skimmed during the meeting.
Run a criterion-led discussion
Take one criterion at a time. Ask markers to state their marks before hearing explanations, then begin with the largest difference.
Use four questions:
- Which descriptor is the best fit?
- What precise evidence supports that judgment?
- What evidence required by the higher level is absent?
- Would the same interpretation apply across the cohort?
Statements such as "this feels like a six" or "my students normally do more" are not adequate justifications. The question is what the submitted work demonstrates against the published criterion.
Separate disagreements about quality from disagreements about interpretation. If teachers identify the same evidence but value it differently, examine the descriptor language. If they identify different evidence, return to the work and establish what is present.
The IB assessment principles and practices publication recognizes that legitimate variation can exist between markers while emphasizing the need to minimize differences. Standardization should make professional judgment consistent and defensible, not eliminate it.
Agree without averaging marks
Do not resolve disagreement by averaging two marks. An average produces a number but does not establish which descriptor the evidence satisfies.
Require a final criterion judgment with a short rationale. If agreement remains impossible, consult the subject leader, coordinator, current official guidance, or an experienced external colleague. Record unresolved interpretations instead of inventing local requirements that do not appear in the IB criteria.
Once the standard is established, prioritize work near boundaries, unusual marks from one marker, repeatedly disputed criteria, work marked by a new teacher, and cases affected by the meeting's decisions. This moderation by exception is more efficient than re-marking every submission. RevisionDojo's guide to simplifying internal moderation explains how departments can focus on borderlines and outliers while preserving an evidence trail.
Record reusable decisions
Minutes should be concise rather than a transcript. Record the component and course version, participants, samples reviewed, original and agreed criterion marks, supporting evidence, cohort-wide clarifications, and follow-up responsibilities.
A useful entry might state: Criterion B: evidence is relevant but insufficiently explained for the upper descriptor; agreed mark 4 rather than 5. Apply this distinction to remaining borderline cases. This is more useful than recording only that the mark changed.
Keep anonymized anchor samples where school policy, data protection requirements, and IB rules permit. Pair each with a short annotation explaining the agreed standard. Shared records can support consistent IB IA feedback and moderation across classes.
Avoid common moderation mistakes
Common problems include discussing too many pieces, allowing seniority to outweigh evidence, using an outdated rubric, revealing the original marker before independent marking, debating totals before criteria, comparing students with one another, and changing marks without recording why.
Digital tools can organize criteria, comments, and samples, but they cannot replace teacher judgment. RevisionDojo's overview for IB teachers and departments describes tools that support review while leaving official marking decisions with teachers.
Follow up and conclusion
Within a few days, circulate the decision record and revised marks. The subject leader should confirm that agreed interpretations have been applied across relevant classes. After results are released, compare IB moderation feedback with the department's records and identify a specific improvement for the next cohort.
A productive internal moderation session depends on preparation, independent marking, carefully chosen samples, criterion-led discussion, and concise documentation. RevisionDojo can help departments organize rubric-linked records and coursework review, but the current subject guide and teachers' professional judgment remain authoritative. Use its department tools to support calibration, then verify every final decision against official IB criteria.