Using AI to help you write your Internal Assessment - the do’s and don’ts
So, you’ve been asked to write your internal assessment (IA) by one of your teachers - but you have no idea where to start, or how to finish. You’ve decided that you want to use AI to help you write your essay - but you want to use it in a responsible manner and use it as a tool rather than get caught for plagiarism. Well you’re in the right place!
Want to learn how to use AI responsibly for your IB Internal Assessment?
Work with top IB tutors who’ll not only guide you through writing a strong IA but also show you how to use AI tools safely and effectively - so you boost your grades without risking plagiarism.
We’ve taken a random IA topic, plopped it into ChatGPT, studied the results and created a list of things you can use so as to use ChatGPT in a responsible manner. The following topic was taken from the subject History but the takeaways from this blogpost can be used for any IA in any subject.
First and foremost - while ChatGPT can help you brainstorm an IA topic, we’ve decided to use one of our previous blogposts (https://www.ts-tutoring.com/blog/25-history-ia-ideas) to find a topic. Take a look if you are struggling to find a history IA topic!
Curious what happens when ChatGPT tackles a real IB History IA question?
So, I asked ChatGPT the following:
Hey ChatGPT - could you write me a paper of 2200 words (the IB history requirement) on the following question: To what extent were foreign powers involved in the Rwandan Genocide? Thank you (always thank your AI in case of an uprising).
Here is the TLDR:
The Do’s:
Do use ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas.
Do use ChatGPT to guide your word count
Do use ChatGPT to learn some general knowledge
The Dont’s:
Don’t use ChatGPT to answer your research question
Don’t use ChatGPT to answer your research question (yes this repetition is intentional)
Don’t use ChatGPT to structure your paragraphs
The Right Way to Cite AI Tools in Your IA
Before I continue with a more detailed version of the takeaways, it’s important to note that you cannot just copy and paste what ChatGPT throws at you and hand it in. You will most definitely be caught for plagiarism - since schools have lots of tools to pick up on AI plagiarism nowadays. If you do quote ChatGPT - which is allowed in various situations - make sure to reference ChatGPT in the following way:
“Over the course of approximately 100 days, an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were systematically slaughtered in Rwanda.” (OpenAI, 2025)
Make sure to also include the following in your references:
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (Write in current date version)[Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
Oh and before I forget - ChatGPT makes up fake references. So never use ChatGPT’s references! Also - the resulting essay is copy and pasted below for your leisure, happy reading!
Want to boost your IB IA grade using AI - without risking plagiarism?
Learn how to transform ChatGPT’s rough drafts into polished, high-scoring essays by adding your own research, smart edits, and clear structure.
Let’s get started with the Do’s.
Use ChatGPT to spark ideas, guide your word count, and build general knowledge - but always add your own research.
Do use ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas
If you are completely lost ChatGPT is a great way to brainstorm ideas. In the essay ChatGPT wrote for me, for instance, it notes France’s military involvement in the Rwandan genocide. If I’m trying to argue that foreign powers were involved to a large extent in the Rwandan Genocide, I can start researching France’s military involvement to prove this. ChatGPT has also given me some names of operations that France undertook during the genocide. I can use these names to find academic papers for my IA by putting them into JSTOR or a difference academic paper website.
Do use ChatGPT as a word count guide
ChatGPT is great at allocating a certain amount of words to sections. The introduction is less important than the main body, so ChatGPT has ascribed less words to it. The same goes for historical background and the conclusion. If you’re looking to allocate a certain amount of words to a certain section, copy and paste what ChatGPT writes into your word document and check how many words it has included per section. In the case of the essay it wrote for me, however, it was 15 words over so make sure to subtract any extra words over the word count if necessary.
Do use ChatGPT to accrue some general knowledge
If you know nothing about the Rwandan genocide ChatGPT is not a bad place to start orienting yourself. It may not be 100% accurate all of the time, but it can let you know generally who was involved, what the names of the 2 combating groups were and what the historical background of the genocide is. Don’t rely solely on ChatGPT, however. Do your own research from peer-reviewed academic sources!
Our IB tutors can teach you how to use AI effectively, turning tools like ChatGPT into a real advantage for your IAs.
With this in mind, let’s get to the Don’ts.
Don’t use ChatGPT to answer your research question
This might seem a bit vague. What I mean is that ChatGPT sometimes goes off track and starts talking about things that have little to do with the research question. If you are writing an essay about the extent to which foreign powers are involved in the Rwandan genocide, every paragraph you write must be actually answering that question. In one of the paragraphs, for instance, ChatGPT writes that “President Bill Clinton would later describe the inaction as one of his greatest regrets. In 1998, during a visit to Rwanda, he apologised for the international community’s failure to act—but many critics argue that such acknowledgments came far too late” (OpenAI, 2025). While this is interesting information, it does not answer to what extent foreign powers were involved in the Rwandan genocide. Keep the quoted sentence in mind for the next one:
Don’t use ChatGPT to answer your research question
Now it’s vague and repetitive - oh dear. What I mean with this second iteration of the same sentence is that ChatGPT doesn’t actually answer the research question. I have seen this many many times before, but after finishing my review of ChatGPT’s paper I do not have an answer to the question: To what extent were foreign powers involved in the Rwandan Genocide? Yes, ChatGPT has written about foreign involvement, as well as some nations’ lack of involvement - which would have been great if my question (or prompt) would have been: Describe foreign involvement in the Rwandan Genocide. What your teacher wants is an answer to the actual question - so somewhere in this fictional essay it should say: Foreign powers were (or were not) involved in the Rwandan genocide to a large (or a minor) extent due to reason x, y & z. This brings us to the last Don’t.
Don’t use ChatGPT to structure your paragraphs
While ChatGPT has a good structure for papers overall (it starts with an introduction and ends with a conclusion, for instance), it does not have great structure within paragraphs. Paragraphs should start with a topic sentence to let the reader know what the paragraph will be about. If you do it really right then this topic sentence also directly answers the question of the paper. For instance, my paragraph about French military involvement should start with the topic sentence: Foreign powers were involved in the Rwandan genocide to a large extent which can be exemplified by French military involvement and operation X. The concluding sentence of the paragraph should mimic the topic sentence but include some more details of your paragraph. For instance: As can be seen by the aforementioned, foreign powers were involved in the Rwandan genocide to a large extent due to the direct supply of weapons, training and military advice that the French provided, as well as the [insert details of Operation X here]. Between the topic sentence and the concluding sentence, one should be able to find the main content of the paragraph and substantiated evidence for your argument. ChatGPT has, unfortunately, done none of these things. But fear not! You are now wiser than the almighty AI.
With that in mind I will leave you to write your IA’s. Good luck! And if you need actual help to write your IA, sign up for our services.
References
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (July 21 version)[Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
Here’s what ChatGPT wrote:
“Introduction
The 1994 Rwandan genocide stands as one of the most horrific instances of mass violence in the 20th century. Over the course of approximately 100 days, an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were systematically slaughtered in Rwanda. While the brutality of the genocide was largely perpetrated by internal actors—particularly the Hutu-dominated government, military, and Interahamwe militias—the role of foreign powers in the crisis has drawn extensive scrutiny. This essay explores the extent of foreign involvement in the Rwandan genocide, arguing that international actors played a significant role through their political decisions, military support (in some cases), and, most critically, their failure to intervene in a timely and effective manner. By examining the actions and inactions of key international players—including France, the United States, the United Nations, and Belgium—this paper demonstrates that foreign powers, though not the primary instigators of the genocide, bear a share of responsibility for enabling its scale and severity.
Historical Background
Rwanda’s colonial history laid the groundwork for ethnic divisions that later fueled genocidal violence. Under Belgian colonial rule, the Tutsi minority was favored over the Hutu majority, deepening social stratification. After independence in 1962, power shifted to the Hutu elite, leading to decades of political exclusion and periodic violence against Tutsis. By the early 1990s, the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), composed largely of exiles, was engaged in a civil war with the Hutu-dominated government of President Juvénal Habyarimana. The 1993 Arusha Accords, brokered with international mediation, sought to establish peace and power-sharing, but tensions remained high.
On April 6, 1994, President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down, and within hours, coordinated massacres began across the country. The systematic nature of the killings points to a premeditated plan by Hutu extremists. In this context, the role—or absence—of foreign powers became critically important.
France: Complicity Through Support and Military Intervention
France's involvement in Rwanda prior to and during the genocide has been the subject of intense debate. As a key ally of the Habyarimana regime, France provided extensive military and diplomatic support in the years leading up to 1994. This support was part of France’s broader policy of Françafrique, aimed at maintaining influence over its former colonies and other Francophone African countries.
Between 1990 and 1993, during Rwanda’s civil war, France supplied the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) with weapons, training, and military advisers to help combat the RPF. French troops were also directly involved in Operation Noroît, ostensibly to protect French nationals but effectively serving to bolster the Habyarimana government against the RPF. Critics argue that this support helped entrench the regime’s power and indirectly emboldened the hardliners who orchestrated the genocide.
Perhaps most controversially, in June 1994—when the genocide was nearing its end—France launched Operation Turquoise, a UN-authorized humanitarian mission that established a safe zone in southwestern Rwanda. While the operation did save some lives, it also allowed many genocide perpetrators to escape into neighboring Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), contributing to regional instability. Some survivors and observers argue that the operation protected Hutu power structures and delayed the RPF's military victory, which ultimately ended the genocide.
Although a 2021 French commission acknowledged France’s “serious and overwhelming” responsibilities for supporting a genocidal regime, it stopped short of accusing French officials of direct complicity. Nevertheless, France's role remains one of the most controversial examples of foreign involvement.
United States: Paralysis and Political Calculations
In stark contrast to France’s active involvement, the United States has been widely criticized for its passivity during the Rwandan genocide. After the disastrous 1993 intervention in Somalia, which resulted in the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu, the Clinton administration adopted a cautious approach to African conflicts. The trauma of “Black Hawk Down” significantly influenced U.S. reluctance to engage in Rwanda.
Despite early warnings from intelligence sources and reports from NGOs, the United States avoided labeling the events in Rwanda as “genocide” for weeks. This linguistic hesitancy was not accidental; under the 1948 Genocide Convention, recognizing an event as genocide imposes a legal obligation to intervene. Internal U.S. documents later revealed a deliberate strategy to avoid such a designation to sidestep international obligations.
Furthermore, the U.S. actively lobbied against the reinforcement of the existing UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), led by Canadian General Roméo Dallaire. When Dallaire requested additional troops and a stronger mandate to protect civilians, the U.S. opposed the initiative in the UN Security Council. While the U.S. did provide some logistical support and post-genocide humanitarian aid, its failure to lead or support timely intervention undoubtedly contributed to the magnitude of the crisis.
President Bill Clinton would later describe the inaction as one of his greatest regrets. In 1998, during a visit to Rwanda, he apologized for the international community’s failure to act—but many critics argue that such acknowledgments came far too late.
The United Nations: A Failure of Will and Structure
As the primary international body charged with maintaining peace and security, the United Nations bears significant responsibility for the failure to prevent or stop the genocide. The UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) was established in 1993 to oversee the implementation of the Arusha Accords. However, the mission was hampered by an inadequate mandate, insufficient resources, and a lack of political support from powerful member states.
General Dallaire, the UNAMIR commander, repeatedly warned of the likelihood of mass violence. In January 1994, he sent a now-famous “Genocide Fax” to UN headquarters, detailing arms caches and plans for mass killings. His request for permission to seize the weapons was denied by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
When the genocide began in April, the situation quickly spiraled out of control. Ten Belgian peacekeepers were killed early in the conflict, prompting Belgium to withdraw its contingent. Rather than reinforcing the mission, the UN Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR’s troop strength from 2,500 to 270—effectively rendering it impotent.
Only in late May, after much of the killing had already occurred, did the UN authorize an expanded mission (UNAMIR II), but it lacked the necessary troops and equipment to make a meaningful impact. The UN’s slow response, bureaucratic paralysis, and failure to heed early warnings collectively amounted to a catastrophic moral and institutional failure.
Belgium: Colonial Legacy and Strategic Missteps
As Rwanda’s former colonial power, Belgium retained strong ties to the country after independence. However, its role in the genocide was shaped more by its abrupt withdrawal and symbolic significance than by active support for the regime. Belgium had contributed a significant portion of the UNAMIR peacekeeping force and was seen as a key stabilizing presence.
The murder of ten Belgian peacekeepers by Hutu extremists early in the genocide was a calculated act designed to provoke Belgium’s withdrawal—and it succeeded. Within days, Belgium pulled out its troops, severely weakening UNAMIR’s capabilities. This decision, while understandable from a national security standpoint, had far-reaching consequences, as it signaled to the perpetrators that the international community was unwilling to intervene.
Belgium has since been more willing than other countries to confront its role. Belgian officials have publicly apologized, and in 2001, a Belgian court convicted several individuals for crimes related to the genocide. Nonetheless, its retreat at a critical moment contributed to the vacuum of international will.
International Arms Sales and Economic Interests
Another dimension of foreign involvement lies in the international arms trade. Despite an arms embargo, weapons continued to flow into Rwanda during the genocide through clandestine routes and loopholes in enforcement. Countries such as Egypt and South Africa have been named in reports as indirect suppliers of arms to the Hutu regime, sometimes with the tacit approval or neglect of Western powers.
Additionally, economic and political interests shaped foreign attitudes. Rwanda held little strategic value for most Western countries, and its lack of oil, minerals, or major geopolitical influence contributed to global apathy. The prioritization of national interests over humanitarian concerns was a recurring theme in the responses of foreign powers.
Conclusion: Degrees of Responsibility
Foreign powers were not the architects of the Rwandan genocide, but their actions—and inactions—shaped the context in which it occurred and exacerbated its human cost. France’s military and political support for the Habyarimana regime enabled a system that prepared for mass violence. The United States’ refusal to act, driven by political caution and fear of entanglement, sent a message of indifference. The United Nations, hobbled by bureaucracy and lack of member-state support, failed to uphold its mandate. Belgium’s early withdrawal signaled a broader collapse of international resolve.
The genocide in Rwanda was first and foremost a product of internal dynamics: ethnic hatred, political manipulation, and organized violence. However, the international community bears a collective responsibility for failing to prevent or mitigate the atrocities. The failure to intervene was not due to ignorance—information was available—but to a lack of political will.
In the years since 1994, Rwanda has become a powerful symbol in debates about humanitarian intervention, international justice, and the responsibility to protect (R2P). The lessons from Rwanda have influenced peacekeeping doctrine and inspired reforms in the UN system. Yet, the world continues to grapple with similar crises—Syria, Myanmar, Sudan—raising questions about whether those lessons have truly been learned.
In sum, foreign powers were deeply implicated in the Rwandan genocide—not as direct perpetrators, but as enablers, facilitators, and silent witnesses. Their involvement serves as a sobering reminder of the cost of inaction in the face of evil. “
(OpenAI, 2025)
