When a student wants extra IA help, the right response is neither an automatic refusal nor unlimited feedback. Clarify the difficulty, consult the current subject guide and school policy, provide support that develops understanding, and stop before making assessed decisions or producing work for the student.
The central test is authorship: after receiving help, can the student explain and defend the question, method, analysis, conclusions, and wording as their own? This framework helps Diploma Programme teachers respond consistently while protecting access, fairness, and academic integrity.
Diagnose what the student actually needs
"I need more help" can describe several problems. A student may not understand a concept, may be unable to interpret a criterion, may have missed a checkpoint, or may be requesting another detailed edit after the permitted feedback stage.
Begin with three questions:
- "What specific decision or criterion are you finding difficult?"
- "What have you already tried?"
- "What would you like me to do?"
These questions distinguish a learning need from a request to transfer intellectual responsibility. They may also reveal difficulties involving subject knowledge, executive functioning, language access, anxiety, or absence.
A student who cannot explain regression may need concept teaching using unrelated data. A student asking, "Which model should I use to reach the top band?" is asking the teacher to make an assessed decision. Support the first request directly and redirect the second through questions and comparison.
Apply the correct IB boundary
An IA is internally assessed, meaning the teacher marks it and the IB moderates a sample to check how standards have been applied. Because teachers are both instructors and assessors, consistent boundaries are essential.
The IB's Academic Integrity Policy requires teachers to explain expectations and provide feedback without giving multiple rounds of editing contrary to the relevant subject guide. Over-editing, templating, or manipulating finished work may constitute undue assistance. The IB's Programme standards and practices also expects feedback to support learning in accordance with assessment documentation.
Exact procedures differ by subject, component, syllabus, and examination session. Do not treat a common rule such as "one draft" as universal without checking the current subject guide, teacher support material, and school policies.
Use this distinction:
- Teach the skill: explain evaluation, citation, uncertainty, organization, or subject content.
- Clarify the standard: unpack a criterion and examine an unrelated example.
- Prompt reflection: ask the student to justify choices or identify evidence.
- Do not perform the assessment: avoid choosing the question, supplying analysis, rewriting passages, correcting every error, or guaranteeing a mark.
Use a consistent response process
1. Acknowledge the request
Say: "I can help identify what is blocking your progress. I first need to check what feedback you have received and what our subject guidance permits."
This remains supportive without promising another complete review.
2. Check the support history
Review conference notes, written comments, draft status, absences, accommodations, and extensions. Consider whether other students received equivalent opportunities. Fairness does not always mean identical support, but differences should arise from documented needs or procedures, not persistence or parental pressure.
3. Choose the least intrusive effective intervention
Begin with questioning, criterion clarification, or an unrelated model. If subject knowledge is the obstacle, reteach it outside the student's exact IA context and require independent transfer.
For example: "I will demonstrate how limitations are evaluated in a different investigation. You will decide which limitations apply to your method and explain why."
4. End with student-owned action
Ask the student to record one or two next steps. A useful prompt is: "What will you change, why will you change it, and which evidence justifies that decision?"
Use clear scripts near the boundary
For another complete review after formal feedback:
"I cannot provide another detailed edit if that exceeds the feedback permitted for this component. I can clarify the criterion, answer a conceptual question, or help you evaluate your own work."
For sentence-level rewriting:
"I can identify where the meaning is unclear, but I cannot rewrite assessed prose. Explain the intended point aloud, then revise it independently in your own voice."
For requests to choose a method, argument, or conclusion:
"I can help you compare the strengths and limitations of the options. You must select and justify one because that decision is part of the assessment."
Planning support from families or tutors is appropriate, but another person must not write, substantially edit, calculate, analyse, or make assessed decisions. RevisionDojo's guide to supporting IA work without replacing the student explains this distinction for families.
Respond carefully to AI-related requests
The IB's statement on artificial intelligence in assessment explains that AI-produced material is not automatically the student's own. AI-generated text, images, or graphs incorporated into assessed work must be acknowledged and referenced. Citation does not make every use educationally appropriate, and schools may impose additional restrictions.
Tell students not to ask a tool to rewrite or generate submitted material unless permitted use and acknowledgement requirements are clear. Approved tools may support concept learning or interpretation of feedback, but students must verify outputs and make their own academic decisions.
The RevisionDojo explanation of AI feedback recommends an attempt, feedback, verification, and independent revision cycle. Jojo AI or Coursework Grader must still be used within school rules, current subject guidance, privacy requirements, and teacher instructions.
Document support and escalate concerns
Keep factual records of meetings, formal feedback, agreed actions, and significant changes between versions. Planning notes, source records, raw data, version history, and short oral explanations can help establish how work developed.
If authorship becomes doubtful, do not rely solely on automated detection or make an improvised accusation. Ask neutral questions about sources, methods, calculations, and decisions, preserve relevant evidence, and follow the school's reporting procedure with the DP coordinator. Consult the IB's assessment guide for teachers and coordinators alongside current subject materials.
Prevent repeated extra-help requests
Publish milestones, define the purpose of each conference, explain the permitted feedback stage, and ask students to identify the relevant criterion, evidence, and obstacle before meetings. Departments should also agree how to handle incomplete drafts, missed appointments, language corrections, extensions, AI use, and post-feedback questions.
RevisionDojo's resources on efficient IA feedback and IB teacher workflows can support planning, although official documentation remains authoritative.
Conclusion
When a student requests extra IA assistance, diagnose the need before deciding what help is appropriate. Teach transferable skills, clarify criteria, ask questions, document the interaction, and leave assessed choices and final expression to the student.
Consistency protects the student, teacher, and cohort while preserving authentic authorship. RevisionDojo resources, Jojo AI, and Coursework Grader can supplement formative support when used within school and IB boundaries.
Sources and referenced URLs
- IB Academic Integrity Policy
- IB Programme standards and practices
- IB statement on artificial intelligence in assessment
- IB assessment guide for teachers and coordinators
- RevisionDojo guide to supporting IA work
- How RevisionDojo AI feedback works
- RevisionDojo guidance on efficient IA feedback
- RevisionDojo for IB teachers and departments
