An effective IA marking schedule works backwards from the school’s handover dates, then reserves separate time for first marking, standardisation, review, administration and unexpected delays. It should not assume that every available planning period can become a productive marking session.
For IB Diploma Programme teachers, the challenge is arranging enough focused time while reports, mock examinations and coursework deadlines compete for attention. The framework below provides a practical method for planning grading time across a term without compromising consistency.
Start with the deadlines that cannot move
Begin with the calendar issued by your DP coordinator. School deadlines normally precede IB submission requirements because teachers and coordinators need time to mark work, standardise decisions, enter marks, identify moderation samples and prepare files.
Distinguish four dates for every component:
| Date | What it controls |
|---|---|
| Student final submission | When complete, authenticable work reaches the teacher |
| Marking completion | When criterion marks and comments must be finished |
| Internal standardisation | When colleagues align their application of the criteria |
| Coordinator handover | When marks and files are ready for checking or upload |
These dates are school-specific. Use the coordinator’s confirmed calendar rather than an old handbook, another school’s policy or an online discussion.
IB moderation checks how accurately and consistently teachers apply assessment criteria. The IB’s assessment principles and practices explains how moderation supports a common global standard. Standardisation and checking are therefore essential scheduled stages, not optional additions.
Estimate the complete marking workload
A realistic schedule must use measured marking time. Estimate the average time required for one complete IA, then add standardisation, administration and contingency time:
For example, 24 submissions at 35 minutes each require 14 hours of first marking. Adding two hours for standardisation, two hours for review and administration, and a 20% contingency produces a workload closer to 22 hours.
Use evidence from a previous marking cycle where possible. If this is your first cohort, time three varied pieces under normal working conditions and use their average as a provisional baseline.
Use a term-based IA marking schedule
This six-week template accounts for competing responsibilities. Replace the example weeks with your school’s dates and adapt the percentages to the component.
| Week | Main task | Workload limit | Protected action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | Confirm submissions | 1-2 hours | Check access, completeness and file names |
| Week 2 | Calibrate against criteria | 2-3 scripts | Discuss benchmark work with colleagues |
| Week 3 | First marking block | 25% of cohort | Record criterion decisions immediately |
| Week 4 | Main marking block | 35% of cohort | Protect uninterrupted sessions |
| Week 5 | Final marking block | Remaining 40% | Flag borderline or unusual cases |
| Week 6 | Standardisation and administration | No new first marking | Reconcile marks and prepare files |
Avoid leaving more than 40% of the cohort until the final marking week. Illness, late work or a school event could otherwise remove the only remaining opportunity to finish.
For multiple components, stagger high-intensity weeks. If Biology has its main marking block in Week 3, use that week for History file organisation or calibration rather than another full marking block.
Plan by marking capacity, not nominal free time
Timetable gaps are not equally useful. Match each task to the concentration it requires:
- 15-25 minutes: organise submissions, check documents or update trackers.
- 30-45 minutes: assess a familiar section or one criterion.
- 60-90 minutes: complete holistic marking or review borderline work.
- 90-120 minutes: conduct departmental standardisation or reconciliation.
Stop after a defined number of scripts rather than continuing until fatigue becomes obvious. Qualitative judgments can drift gradually, so compare your decisions with an agreed benchmark at the start of each session.
Track progress against the plan
Review the schedule at the end of each marking week. Record how many scripts are fully marked, how many require review and whether the average time per script differs from the original estimate. A simple tracker makes slippage visible while there is still time to redistribute work or protect an additional session.
Use status labels consistently. Marked should mean that every criterion has a recorded decision, while reviewed should confirm that totals, comments and identifiers have been checked. Do not classify a script as ready merely because it has been read.
If actual marking time exceeds the estimate for two consecutive sessions, revise the remaining plan immediately. Reducing the time allowed for later scripts risks inconsistency. It is more defensible to alert the coordinator early, move administrative tasks or arrange departmental support than to compress professional judgment near the deadline.
Protect standardisation and moderation preparation
Where several teachers mark one component, agree the standard before dividing the cohort. Select scripts representing different achievement levels, mark them independently and discuss disagreements criterion by criterion.
Comparing totals is insufficient because two teachers may award the same total while interpreting individual criteria differently. The IB’s assessment and moderation overview explains that moderated marks may be raised, lowered or remain unchanged according to the accuracy of criterion application.
Keep a concise record of benchmark decisions and recurring borderline features. RevisionDojo’s guidance on IA feedback and moderation shows how criterion-linked records can support departmental discussions.
Build in a genuine contingency buffer
A buffer is reserved capacity, not spare time to fill with routine marking. Protect one session before marking completion and another before coordinator handover.
It may be needed for late or inaccessible files, illness, authentication questions, disputed criterion decisions, extra standardisation or data-entry corrections. If unused, spend it checking criterion totals, candidate identifiers and file readiness.
Reduce repetitive work without outsourcing judgment
Efficiency comes from reducing task switching and duplicated administration, not shortening the professional evaluation behind a mark. Where appropriate, batch similar criteria, maintain criterion-linked comment stems and use a tracker separating marked, reviewed, standardised and ready for handover.
RevisionDojo for IB teachers and departments outlines rubric-aligned coursework workflows. Automated feedback should remain diagnostic, with teachers verifying every judgment against the current subject guide, permitted-feedback rules and the student’s work. Further strategies appear in delivering better IA feedback in less time.
Common scheduling mistakes
Common errors include counting only first-marking time, leaving difficult scripts until last, marking through fatigue and treating weekends as the main plan. Schools should also avoid placing IA marking, reports and mock marking in the same week.
A shared calendar covering IAs, EE, TOK, reports, mocks and school events allows departments to identify pressure points before student deadlines are announced.
Conclusion
A realistic IA marking schedule starts with confirmed deadlines, measures the full workload and protects time for calibration, standardisation, checking and administration. RevisionDojo can support criterion-aligned workflows, but final marks remain the teacher’s professional responsibility. Begin with criterion-linked IA feedback strategies and Coursework Review tools.
