You\u2019ve completed a careful IA, you wrote strong methods and cleaned your data beautifully \u2014 and now you\u2019re staring at the blank page for your Extended Essay. The halfway-tempting thought is: \u201cCan I lift that methods paragraph? It\u2019s mine, it\u2019s good, it saves time.\u201d That impulse is understandable. Efficient, well-honed research skills are an asset. What\u2019s tricky is the difference between reusing the skills that made your IA great and reusing the actual assessed content in ways that the IB treats as duplication or plagiarism.<\/p>\n
This guide helps you walk that line with confidence: how to reuse techniques and ideas ethically, when to rewrite instead of copy, how to document everything so assessors see the work is genuinely yours\u2014and what the IB\u2019s policies mean in practice for IA, EE and TOK.<\/p>\n
The IB defines plagiarism and academic misconduct expansively: representing someone else\u2019s ideas or work without clear acknowledgement crosses the line. That umbrella can also reach the reuse of material submitted in past assessment sessions or the presentation of the same work for different assessment components \u2014 both are treated seriously under the IB\u2019s academic integrity framework.<\/p>\n
Think in two buckets. Bucket A is skills: experimental design principles, how you format a methods section, statistical techniques, citation practices and the ability to plan a literature search. These are reusable and should be refined over time \u2014 that’s the point of learning. Bucket B is assessed content: paragraphs of analysis, results submitted to IB, a unique argument you presented in an assessed piece. Reusing material from Bucket B without clear acknowledgment risks self-plagiarism and duplication.<\/p>\n Practical rule: reuse skills; transform content. If you do borrow from your earlier text, explain what you borrowed and how the new submission adds fresh thinking, new analysis or a different research question.<\/p>\n The Extended Essay is an independent research project culminating in a 4,000-word paper; students must also complete structured reflection sessions with their supervisor. These formal elements mean the EE is held to strict authenticity expectations.<\/p>\n The TOK course asks you to reflect on how we know what we claim to know; assessment includes an exhibition and an essay. The TOK focus is conceptual and reflective rather than a straightforward research report, but the same authenticity principles apply when you use prior material as evidence or exhibit artifacts.<\/p>\n Because the EE is externally assessed and formal reflection records (RPPF) accompany the process, examiners and assessment systems expect clear documentation of original thinking and sources. Examiner guidance makes clear that supervisors\u2019 comments and reflection records are important contextual evidence for assessment.<\/p>\n Placing clear language in your RPPF, IA cover notes or the EE bibliography shows intention and protects you from inadvertent problems. Here are neutral, honest templates:<\/p>\n Case 1 \u2014 The dataset you already collected:<\/strong> You ran a well-designed survey for a class project that wasn\u2019t submitted for IB assessment. For your EE, you want to analyze the same responses but ask a different research question. That can work if you clearly document the data\u2019s origin, explain why the new analysis is distinct, and preferably collect a fresh subset or additional data to show an independent contribution.<\/p>\n Case 2 \u2014 The IA paragraph you love:<\/strong> You wrote a concise literature summary for an IA that fits an EE topic perfectly. Rather than cut-and-paste, rewrite it in the EE\u2019s voice, add broader sources, and include a sentence in the RPPF explaining the link. If the IA was already submitted to the IB as an assessed component, be careful \u2014 reuse of assessed content across components is treated as duplication.<\/p>\n Case 3 \u2014 TOK and EE crossovers:<\/strong> You used a concept in TOK about how evidence is constructed, and your EE investigates empirical evidence that speaks to that concept. It\u2019s fine to draw on TOK thinking \u2014 but the TOK work is reflective and conceptual. Cite the relevant theory, connect the ideas, and ensure each piece (EE and TOK) stands on its own intellectual contribution. TOK\u2019s exhibition and essay have their own authenticity checks.<\/p>\n If a school identifies academic-integrity concerns before submitting a piece, it must resolve them under the school\u2019s integrity policy; it should not submit work that does not meet expectations. For externally assessed components, if work contains plagiarized content or does not meet subject-guide requirements, the component may be marked as non-submission or treated with an “F” under assessment rules. These procedures are part of the IB\u2019s academic integrity framework.<\/p>\n That is why early, open communication with your coordinator and supervisor matters: schools can correct issues internally before a submission becomes an IB concern.<\/p>\nSkills versus content: the simple distinction<\/h3>\n
How IA, EE and TOK differ \u2014 and why overlap becomes a problem<\/h3>\n
Quick reference: what\u2019s acceptable and what\u2019s risky<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n \nScenario<\/th>\n Acceptable?<\/th>\n How to do it ethically<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Reusing a methods description (your own) from a previous non-assessed lab<\/td>\n Usually acceptable<\/td>\n Paraphrase, adapt to current study, cite your earlier notes or coursework if relevant, and document changes in your methods section.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Reusing data or analysis previously submitted to IB<\/td>\n Risky \/ often not allowed<\/td>\n Do not resubmit the same assessed data; if you must reuse data, declare provenance clearly, explain new analysis, and consult your coordinator first (IB treats duplication between components seriously).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Using a paragraph of literature review from your IA in the EE<\/td>\n Not recommended<\/td>\n Rewrite in fresh words, extend with new sources, and add a note in your bibliography or RPPF explaining the connection.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Referencing the same theoretical framework across IA, EE, and TOK<\/td>\n Allowed<\/td>\n Use it to build coherence across work \u2014 but ensure each piece develops the idea further and cite the sources rather than copying your past wording.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n Actionable checklist before you reuse anything<\/h3>\n
\n
Words you can actually use: short templates for honesty and clarity<\/h3>\n
\n
Mini-case studies: real-world explanations (so you can picture it)<\/h3>\n
How schools and the IB handle detected overlap<\/h3>\n
Practical systems students actually use (that don\u2019t feel like punishment)<\/h3>\n