How much teacher feedback should I expect on an Internal Assessment?

There is no safe universal comment-count or draft-count rule to copy from another school. Teacher feedback is governed by the school, subject, current assessment guidance, and the stage of the work. If the process is unclear, ask your teacher or coordinator for the written feedback rules that apply to your class.

What can I do if my teacher is not giving enough useful feedback?

First clarify what feedback the school is allowed to provide. If you use an external review tool, verify that it applies the correct subject and assessment session, shows criterion-level evidence, explains its data handling, and leaves the actual assessed writing in your hands.

How are Internal Assessments actually marked?

The relevant subject and assessment session determine the criteria. Work criterion by criterion rather than converting a generic percentage into a grade. A practice score from a feedback tool is not an official teacher or examiner grade.

What should I compare when choosing an Internal Assessment feedback tool?

Check whether the tool identifies the exact subject and assessment session, shows criterion-level evidence, separates feedback from replacement writing, explains data handling, and documents how its claims were tested. iBacalao's IA review covers 26 subject configurations, with separate EE and TOK workflows, but this page does not rank a universal winner.

Can ChatGPT use a Diploma Programme Internal Assessment rubric?

Yes, if the relevant rubric is supplied or otherwise available in the conversation. What a general-purpose ChatGPT conversation does not inherently guarantee is that the current rubric for the student’s exact subject and assessment session is the one being applied. iBacalao binds its review workflow to configured subject/session criteria.

Is AI feedback allowed for Diploma Programme Internal Assessments?

International Baccalaureate guidance does not blanket-ban AI tools. If AI-generated material is included in assessed work, it must be acknowledged and referenced; presenting AI-produced work as the student’s own is academic misconduct. Schools may add their own rules. iBacalao's IA, EE, and TOK review feature checks a provided draft against selected criteria and returns feedback and suggested next steps. Other supported workflows may provide AI assistance, so review outputs and follow your school's rules on assessed work and disclosure.

How much do Internal Assessment feedback tools cost?

Signed-in iBacalao free accounts refill continuously toward a 60-Shell cap over 7 days with no credit card required. Paid Plus, Pro, and Ultra plans are available weekly or annually. Competitor pricing changes - check each site's public pricing page. A school's own feedback process may have different costs and availability; check with your school.

Can iBacalao predict what an external detector will report?

No. iBacalao does not predict external detector classifications. AI-content and originality signals are for review and do not establish authorship. See the privacy policy for configured providers and storage, check provider terms, and follow your school's rules on AI use and disclosure.

Internal Assessment Feedback Tools Compared (2026)

What does this page evaluate?

iBacalao publishes this comparison and is one of the products listed. We compared tools using public product pages and hands-on checks of iBacalao (competitor feature set last checked 2026-09-22). We did not run a blind bake-off across every competitor account. Rows reflect advertised features and stated rubric alignment, not a claim that any tool predicts exam marks.

Inclusion criteria

A tool is listed if students currently encounter it when looking for Diploma Programme Internal Assessment feedback, including general chatbots used as a substitute workflow. Inclusion is not an endorsement. Absence is not a claim that a tool is unused.

Evaluation dimensions

Coursework types supported
Subject and session specificity
Criterion-level feedback and prioritization
Rewriting or generation behavior
Transparency and methodology
Public privacy or data-handling statements
Pricing with date and billing period, when published
Spanish support only where verified
Public sample or output availability

Speed is recorded only when a vendor publishes it or iBacalao timed its own product. Grading accuracy is not inferred from marketing copy or price.

Reproducible cross-tool test protocol

The cross-tool same-draft test is not yet complete. iBacalao has been checked hands-on; competitor rows remain vendor-published facts or labelled unknowns until an equivalent controlled test is run.

Use the same permission-cleared, anonymized draft for every tool that accepts draft uploads.
Select the same subject, level, assessment session, and rubric version wherever the product exposes those controls.
Record the exact product/version, plan, test date, input format, and any settings that can change the output.
Capture the returned output and measure criterion coverage, prioritization, factual or rubric errors, response time, and whether replacement assessment text is generated.
Separate vendor-published facts from measurements observed during the test; do not convert an advertised claim into an observed result.
Publish limitations and rerun material comparisons when a vendor changes its product, rubric support, pricing, or data-handling disclosures.

What evidence supports the Internal Assessment tool comparison?

Competitor rows are attributed to the vendor's public product surface checked on 22 September 2026 unless noted otherwise. A vendor's accuracy or performance claim is not treated as independently validated by iBacalao.

For iBacalao, the public IA review methodology and test fixture documents the synthetic end-to-end input, required output contract, failure conditions, and limitations. It remains first-party evidence rather than independent validation.

iBacalao: iBacalao IA review methodology and test fixtureFirst-party methodology: synthetic smoke-test input, output contract, failure conditions, and explicit limitations. This is not independent validation.
RevisionDojo: RevisionDojo Coursework GraderPublic product page; competitor account not independently bake-off tested by iBacalao.
Clastify: Clastify IA exemplarsCurrent public exemplar/mark-scheme surface found; iBacalao did not independently verify a current universal IA-grader workflow.
IBLens: IBLens product pagePublic product page; current page advertises subject/session-specific reads and a first preview.
MyRevisionAgent: MyRevisionAgent IA GraderVendor page currently reports validation on IB-awarded work and accuracy statistics; those figures are vendor-reported and have not been independently validated by iBacalao.
ChatGPT: OpenAI ChatGPT pricingOfficial OpenAI product/pricing source; ChatGPT is a general-purpose product rather than a subject- and session-specific Diploma Programme grader.

Feature	iBacalao	RevisionDojo	Clastify	IBLens	MyRevisionAgent	ChatGPT	Teacher feedback
Evidence status	Hands-on publisher check + public product documentation	Vendor public surface; no controlled logged-in bake-off yet	Vendor public surface; no controlled logged-in bake-off yet	Vendor public surface; no controlled logged-in bake-off yet	Vendor public surface; no controlled logged-in bake-off yet	General product behavior; no fixed-prompt comparison run on this page yet	School-process comparator, not a software-vendor test
Rubric accuracy	Configured Diploma Programme assessment criteria and mark-band descriptors per subject/session	Diploma Programme-aligned rubrics; depth varies by product surface	Public site prominently exposes marked exemplars and mark-scheme breakdowns; current AI-grader scope should be verified on site	Diploma Programme rubric alignment claimed per subject	Per-subject IA rubrics claimed on the public grader page	General-purpose; rubric context must be supplied or otherwise available	Teacher use of current subject criteria depends on school calibration and session
Criterion scoring	Criterion-by-criterion with ranked improvements	Criterion-style feedback on IA/EE products	Varies by current review / AI-assistant surface - verify before relying on it	Holistic + criterion breakdown (product-dependent)	Predicted band + criterion-by-criterion breakdown advertised	Format depends on the prompt, model and context supplied	Criterion-level comments
Academic integrity	IA, EE, and TOK review checks a provided draft against selected criteria and returns feedback and suggested next steps	Mixed - includes study content; check each feature	Public exemplars warn students not to copy or submit sample work as their own	Check whether feature rewrites text	Public page describes grading and feedback rather than replacement draft writing	Can generate text; assessed AI-generated material must be acknowledged and referenced under IB guidance	School- and teacher-governed formative feedback
Pricing	Free accounts refill toward 60 Shells over 7 days; paid Plus / Pro / Ultra weekly or annual	Freemium; paid tiers on public pricing page	See current public site	See public pricing page	First grade free on the current public site; verify paid pricing before purchase	Free and paid plans - verify current OpenAI pricing	School-dependent
Subjects covered	26 IA subject configurations; separate EE and TOK workflows	Broad Diploma Programme subject coverage	Broad IA exemplar coverage	Multiple Diploma Programme subjects	27 IA subject-levels advertised	General-purpose; subject/rubric context depends on the conversation	Subject teacher's expertise only
EE & TOK	Extended Essay + TOK essay	EE and TOK features advertised	IA, EE and TOK exemplar libraries; current grader scope should be verified	Varies by plan	TOK, Extended Essay and IA graders advertised	Can work with EE/TOK criteria when the relevant context is supplied	Supervisor feedback per school process
2025–2027 rubrics	2027 EE rubric; FA 2025 science IAs; Psychology 2027 proposal	2027 materials marketed on site	Verify the exact assessment session on the current product surface	Not always explicit - verify for your session	Verify the exact assessment session before relying on a grader	No session-specific rubric guarantee	Depends on coordinator guidance
Upload formats	Paste or upload draft; subject selected per review	In-app draft upload	Varies by product surface	Web upload	PDF upload advertised	Paste text	School workflow
Turnaround	Timing varies by workflow, document, and provider load	Near-instant on advertised grader flows	Verify current product surface	Minutes typical	4–6 minutes advertised for IA grading	Seconds	School- and teacher-dependent
Turnitin / repository risk	External-system outcomes are not assessed here; see the privacy policy for providers and storage	Not verified in this comparison; check provider terms and school policy	Not established by the source checked - confirm before use	Unknown - confirm before use	No direct Turnitin submission claim identified on the page checked - confirm with school	Data handling depends on plan and settings; external-system outcomes are not assessed here	School-dependent

What questions do students ask about Internal Assessment feedback tools?

Compare documented rubric context, feedback detail, subject coverage, pricing, and data handling before choosing a tool.

How much teacher feedback should I expect on an Internal Assessment?: There is no safe universal comment-count or draft-count rule to copy from another school. Teacher feedback is governed by the school, subject, current assessment guidance, and the stage of the work. If the process is unclear, ask your teacher or coordinator for the written feedback rules that apply to your class.
What can I do if my teacher is not giving enough useful feedback?: First clarify what feedback the school is allowed to provide. If you use an external review tool, verify that it applies the correct subject and assessment session, shows criterion-level evidence, explains its data handling, and leaves the actual assessed writing in your hands.
How are Internal Assessments actually marked?: The relevant subject and assessment session determine the criteria. Work criterion by criterion rather than converting a generic percentage into a grade. A practice score from a feedback tool is not an official teacher or examiner grade.
What should I compare when choosing an Internal Assessment feedback tool?: Check whether the tool identifies the exact subject and assessment session, shows criterion-level evidence, separates feedback from replacement writing, explains data handling, and documents how its claims were tested. iBacalao's IA review covers 26 subject configurations, with separate EE and TOK workflows, but this page does not rank a universal winner.
Can ChatGPT use a Diploma Programme Internal Assessment rubric?: Yes, if the relevant rubric is supplied or otherwise available in the conversation. What a general-purpose ChatGPT conversation does not inherently guarantee is that the current rubric for the student’s exact subject and assessment session is the one being applied. iBacalao binds its review workflow to configured subject/session criteria.
Is AI feedback allowed for Diploma Programme Internal Assessments?: International Baccalaureate guidance does not blanket-ban AI tools. If AI-generated material is included in assessed work, it must be acknowledged and referenced; presenting AI-produced work as the student’s own is academic misconduct. Schools may add their own rules. iBacalao's IA, EE, and TOK review feature checks a provided draft against selected criteria and returns feedback and suggested next steps. Other supported workflows may provide AI assistance, so review outputs and follow your school's rules on assessed work and disclosure.
How much do Internal Assessment feedback tools cost?: Signed-in iBacalao free accounts refill continuously toward a 60-Shell cap over 7 days with no credit card required. Paid Plus, Pro, and Ultra plans are available weekly or annually. Competitor pricing changes - check each site's public pricing page. A school's own feedback process may have different costs and availability; check with your school.
Can iBacalao predict what an external detector will report?: No. iBacalao does not predict external detector classifications. AI-content and originality signals are for review and do not establish authorship. See the privacy policy for configured providers and storage, check provider terms, and follow your school's rules on AI use and disclosure.

Limitations

This is not a blind bake-off. Competitor rows are vendor-published facts or labelled unknowns. This page evaluates iBacalao's dedicated IA review workflow; it should not be read as the definition of every other assignment workflow in the product. Ambiguous competitor surfaces stay labelled as verify-on-site rather than as absences.

Who each approach may suit

A general chatbot can be enough for brainstorming or when the student will supply and check the current criteria. A dedicated review workflow is more useful when the student wants criterion-level comments bound to a selected subject and session, with feedback and next steps returned for a provided draft. Teacher feedback remains the school-governed standard.

Session and rubric warning

Diploma Programme criteria change by subject and assessment session. Confirm the first-assessment year or exam session before relying on any tool, including iBacalao.

Academic integrity and privacy

IB guidance requires acknowledgement and referencing if AI-generated material is used in assessed work; schools may add rules. iBacalao's privacy policy describes configured providers and storage; it does not predict how a school or external similarity system will treat a draft. See the privacy policy and methodology pages.

Update and correction policy

If a sourced fact is wrong, send the page URL and supporting source to support@ibacalao.com. Material corrections update the review date on this page.

Ready to try rubric-grounded feedback? Upload your draft for any of 26 supported IA subject configurations, compare coursework feedback across IA, EE, and TOK, or read ChatGPT vs iBacalao for IA feedback.