Internal Assessment · 7 min read
Can I use ChatGPT for my IB IA? A stage-by-stage workflow that stays within the rules
What AI can do for you at each stage of an IA, what it must never touch, and how to document your use so authentication is a formality.
On this page
Yes, you can use ChatGPT and other AI tools while working on an IB IA, but not to produce anything that is assessed. The IB doesn't ban AI. Its rule is that anything an AI tool produces is not your work, so if AI-generated text, images or graphs appear in your IA they must be credited where they appear, with the prompt and the date, and listed in the bibliography. In practice that means AI can act as a tutor around your IA (explaining a statistical test, checking a spreadsheet formula, suggesting variables you might have missed), while every sentence, every number and every decision in the report stays yours.
The IB sets this out on its AI in learning, teaching and assessment page and in Appendix 6 of its academic integrity policy. For the IB's general position and how AI helps with revision, read how to use AI in the IB without crossing the line. This guide is narrower: the IA itself, stage by stage. Your school's policy can be stricter than the IB's, so check it first.
What's acceptable at each stage of an IA?
| Stage | Fine | Ask your teacher first | Not acceptable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic and research question | "What factors affect the rate of catalase activity?" to check your list of control variables | Feedback on the wording of a question you wrote | Taking an AI-suggested research question or method as your own |
| Background research | Explaining a concept you don't follow; suggesting search terms for Google Scholar | Summarising a paper you've already read, to check your understanding | Citing the chatbot as the source of a fact; letting it write the background |
| Method | Brainstorming hazards to research properly; asking what could go wrong with a technique | Asking it to find ambiguities in a method you wrote | Any AI-written method text |
| Data | Nothing generated: the data are yours | — | Generating, completing, smoothing or "cleaning" data; inventing replicates |
| Processing and statistics | Checking a formula's syntax; explaining a test's assumptions | Checking your own finished calculation for an error | Uploading your data and pasting its analysis or interpretation |
| Writing | Basic spell check | Grammar tools that suggest rewrites | Any assessed text, including "improving" or paraphrasing your own draft |
| References | Formatting a reference for a source you have read | — | AI-generated reference lists; citing sources you haven't opened |
The IB's academic integrity policy names falsification of data as a form of academic misconduct. "Generate a few more realistic values for 40 °C", "fill in the missing quadrat" and "remove the noise from this dataset" are all fabrication, however small. If your data are messy, that is something to evaluate, not to fix.
Which prompts help, and which cross the line?
The difference is usually who ends up doing the thinking.
Crosses the line"Write an evaluation for my enzyme IA. The weaknesses were temperature control and a small sample."
Helps"I'm evaluating an enzyme experiment where the water bath drifted by ±2 °C. Ask me questions, one at a time, that make me work out how that would affect my rate values." Then write the evaluation yourself.
Crosses the line"Here's my data. Run the right statistical test and explain what the result means."
Helps"What are the assumptions of a Mann–Whitney U test, and how would I check whether two groups of invertebrate counts meet them?" Then choose and run the test yourself, using a guide like this one on statistical tests.
Crosses the line"Rewrite my conclusion so it sounds more academic."
Helps"Excel's STDEV.S gives 1.82 for my five values but my calculator gives 1.63. Why?" (Answer: the calculator was showing the population SD, σx; for a sample of repeats you want the sample SD, sx, which is what STDEV.S calculates.)
A good test: if the AI's answer could be pasted into your IA, you asked the wrong kind of question.
How do I cite AI in an IA?
If any AI-produced material appears in your IA, whether copied or paraphrased, the IB expects two things:
- An in-text citation at the point of use, with the material in quotation marks, in your school's referencing style, including the prompt you gave and the date the tool produced the output.
- A bibliography entry for the tool.
An example in APA-style format (adapt it to your school's style):
- In text: To check for missing control variables, ChatGPT was asked "What factors affect the rate of catalase activity in potato tissue?" (OpenAI, 2026, response generated 3 October 2026). Its list included "the surface area of the potato pieces", which was then added as a controlled variable (cut with a cork borer, 10 mm discs).
- Bibliography: OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/. Prompt: "What factors affect the rate of catalase activity in potato tissue?" Response generated 3 October 2026.
Record the model or version if the tool shows it. Note how little AI material appears in the IA even in this example: one quoted phrase, with the decision and its justification written by the student.
If you only used AI to understand something, nothing needs a citation under the IB's rule, because no AI material is in the work. Some schools still ask for a short statement of how you used AI. Even when yours doesn't, one honest sentence costs nothing and your log backs it up.
How do I keep an AI log?
Keep one running document, started on day one, with a row for every AI conversation that touched the IA:
| Date | Tool | Exact prompt | What it gave (short) | What I did with it | In the IA? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Oct | ChatGPT | "What factors affect the rate of catalase activity in potato tissue?" | List of 7 factors | Checked against textbook; added surface area as a control | Yes, quoted and cited in Variables |
| 12 Oct | Claude | "Why might STDEV.S and my calculator's SD differ?" | Sample vs population SD | Switched to sample SD throughout | No |
Save or export the full conversations too. If your teacher asks how a decision was made, you can show the exact exchange, and the log makes it obvious that the thinking was yours.
How does authentication work, and how do I make it easy?
Your teacher has to confirm that your IA is your own work before it goes to the IB. Under the IB's AI guidance, that confirmation rests mainly on two things:
- the teacher has watched the work develop over time, rather than seeing it appear finished;
- you can explain your work well enough to show you made it.
The IB says it would rather rely on students being able to talk about their work than on AI-detection tools. If a teacher isn't convinced the work is yours, it can't be submitted, and without the IA you get no grade in the subject.
So make your process visible:
- Write in one document with version history switched on, and meet your teacher's draft deadlines.
- Keep raw data in its original form: the lab book page, data-logger files, timestamped photos of samples or quadrats.
- Be able to justify every choice: why that range, why that test, why those controls. If an AI tool helped you understand something, make sure you could now explain it without it.
The annotated science IA example shows what a report full of the student's own decisions looks like.
What about the Extended Essay?
The same rules apply, with a few EE-specific points from the current EE guide:
- AI-generated material can count as one of your resources, alongside books, articles and websites, as long as it is acknowledged and cited, and you check it against other sources.
- Because AI tools can invent things, the IB's guidance treats them as a research aid: ask them research questions rather than your essay title, then follow up and check the sources they point to. AI can also help you compare and evaluate sources you have already found.
- Your supervisor can comment in writing on one full draft. Don't use AI as a substitute second round of written feedback without asking first.
- Record your AI use in your Researcher's Reflection Space as you go, the same way as the IA log above.
For finding and judging the sources themselves, see sources for the IA and EE. For the whole EE process, see the Extended Essay guide. If you're unsure about a specific use, ask your teacher or IB coordinator before you do it, not after.
Questions students ask
Do I have to cite AI if I only used it to brainstorm?
The IB's rule is about material produced by an AI tool that ends up in your work, copied or paraphrased: that must be cited in the text and in the bibliography. If nothing AI-produced is in your IA, a short note on how you used it, backed by your AI log, is the safe and honest choice, and your school may require it.
Can I use Grammarly or a spell checker on my IA?
The IB's AI guidance allows basic spelling and grammar tools in subjects where language itself isn't assessed (language acquisition is the exception). Tools that rewrite whole sentences or paragraphs are a different thing: the result is no longer your writing. Check your school's policy before using them.
Can my teacher tell if I used AI?
The IB says it does not want to rely on AI detectors. Authentication rests on your teacher having seen the work develop and on you being able to explain it. A student who can talk through every decision is in a strong position; one who can't is not, whatever a detector says.
What happens if my teacher can't authenticate my IA?
Under the IB's policy, work the teacher isn't convinced is your own must not be submitted. Without the IA, the IB won't award a grade in that subject. Your school decides whether you can redo it.