Introduction

This whitepaper documents how RevisionDojo aligns its content, AI tutor (Jojo), practice workflows, and coursework grading to International Baccalaureate (IB) assessment rubrics and markschemes—while remaining independent from and not endorsed by the IBO. It also summarizes data privacy, licensing posture, evaluation methods, and known limitations, with references to our Trust Center and product documentation.

What “alignment” means in the IB context

• Rubrics: Criterion-referenced descriptors used to evaluate coursework such as IAs, EEs, and TOK essays (e.g., strands and markbands).

• Markschemes: Paper-specific guidance indicating where marks are awarded, common misconceptions, command terms, and acceptable responses.

• Our goal: Teach toward the constructs IB assesses (criteria, command terms, evidence quality, reasoning) and provide practice feedback that mirrors how marks are typically justified—without claiming official affiliation or using leaked/unauthorized materials. See independence disclaimers across product pages (for example, Questionbank).

Alignment architecture

1) Examiner-written, syllabus-aligned content

• Expert-authored textbooks, lessons, flashcards, and practice items are designed around official syllabus objectives and assessment skills. Editorial standards and review loops are described in our Content Philosophy.

• For schools, our analytics models are “built on authentic IB assessment criteria and past exam question structures,” enabling rubric-relevant insights and cohort reporting. See For Schools.

2) Markscheme-aware practice and instant feedback

• Students practice in the Questionbank, where Jojo AI provides immediate, markscheme-aligned feedback and grading guidance. Items are tagged by topic/skill and written to reflect IB command terms and typical mark allocations.

• In Exam Mode, students sit timed simulations with immediate breakdowns “by topic and question,” reinforcing markscheme reasoning under time pressure.

3) Coursework Grader mapped to rubrics (IA/EE/TOK)

• The Coursework Grader accepts IA, EE, and TOK drafts and returns rubric-mapped feedback, strand-by-strand commentary, and actionable next steps. Files are deleted within 48 hours and are not used to train models.

• The broader Coursework feature pairs grading with high-scoring exemplars to help students internalize criteria quality bands.

4) Jojo AI tutor tuned for IB reasoning patterns

• Jojo AI is curated on thousands of curriculum-specific datasets so explanations foreground: command terms, evidence selection, method/layout expectations, and justification of marks. Jojo also grades diagrams instantly where applicable, improving feedback fidelity in sciences.

Data sources, licensing, and independence

• RevisionDojo is independently developed and not endorsed by the International Baccalaureate Organization. This disclaimer appears across product pages (e.g., Questionbank).

• Question items and learning materials are examiner-written “IB‑style” and aligned to syllabus aims and assessment constructs. We do not rely on leaked or unauthorized content.

• Coursework exemplars available to users are curated and permissioned for instructional use within the platform (see Coursework).

Privacy, security, and training‑data posture

• Data governance, consent, DSAR handling, and cross-border transfer controls are documented in the Trust Center and its Controls.

• We collect necessary PII to operate the service but do not collect credit card or personal health information. See Trust Center.

• Coursework uploads for grading are deleted within 48 hours and are not used to train AI; see the Grader page.

• We use analytics and support cookies but do not use marketing/advertising cookies. See the Cookie Policy. Our Privacy Policy details data rights and processing.

Validation and quality assurance

• Content QA: Multi-stage review by examiners, teachers, and top-scoring alumni to ensure criterion alignment and clarity (see Content Philosophy).

• Assessment QA: Item calibration and solution standards mirror IB command terms and mark allocation patterns; Exam Mode summarizes marks by topic/skill (see Exam Mode).

• Coursework QA: Rubric-to-feedback mapping is validated on IA/EE/TOK artifacts against official criteria structure (see Grader).

• Outcomes evidence: In our annual survey, users reported improved markscheme comprehension and exam technique alongside reduced stress; see the State of Learning Survey.

Known limitations and responsible use

• Not official marking: Feedback and scores are educational guidance, not official grades or IBO decisions. Teachers/ schools should moderate and adapt to local policies.

• Rubric evolution: Syllabi and criteria change over time; our teams track updates and refresh materials accordingly (see regular updates across subject hubs, e.g., IB Biology/Chemistry/Physics with first assessments from 2025).

• Ambiguity handling: Where markschemes allow judgment calls, Jojo explains trade-offs and asks for additional evidence rather than over‑asserting a single “correct” phrasing.

For schools and teachers

• Free teacher licenses include bulk coursework grading, analytics, and Jojo access; student plans receive discounts via partner schools. See For Schools.

• Department analytics are built on IB criteria and question structures to surface systemic gaps and intervention opportunities (same source).

Evidence map (feature → alignment proof)

How to evaluate our alignment in your context

• Define target constructs: criteria strands, command terms, and skills your department emphasizes.

• Sample review: Run a small set of past-style tasks through Exam Mode and compare Jojo’s rationales to your departmental markschemes.

• Coursework pilot: Submit anonymized IA/EE/TOK drafts to the Grader; check strand-level comments for relevance and actionability.

• Analytics check: Use the For Schools dashboards to confirm topic/criterion visibility aligns with your assessment plans.

• Data review: Verify privacy and controls in the Trust Center match your institution’s requirements.

Governance, ethics, and transparency

• We design for augmentation, not replacement, of teacher judgment; see platform positioning in Jojo AI and For Schools.

• Transparent privacy and consent flows are documented in the Trust Center and supporting policies.

• Independence from the IBO is stated across features (e.g., Questionbank).

Get started and learn more

• Trust, privacy, and security details: RevisionDojo Trust Center

• Product capabilities and alignment touchpoints: Jojo AI, Questionbank, Exam Mode, Grader, For Schools.