IB Chemistry IA Tips
“The major change for next year is that, students will use secondary data to do all their data processing and conclusions. Don’t fail to think that this will be literature search only. You are still expected to carry out an investigation and write a scientific report with similar assessment criteria. What has changed is, you are not required to collect your own data as it may not be possible.”
Author: Dr Ayse Yavuz UlkerIB Chemistry Examiner and IA moderator, IB and AP Chemistry teacher
Navigate the IB Chemistry IA Tips page easily by clicking the section icons below.
As the data collection from secondary sources will not take as long as it would have taken in a normal experiment, provide evidence for the depth of your investigation, remember your RQ should feel like a 10-hour research. Don’t make it too simple!
Weaknesses and limitations of your investigation should be addressed in detail to allow you discuss the possible errors.
Moderators are not expected to read appendices therefore, anything in the appendices may not be checked and you may lose points if you include something in appendices that should be in the main body.
IB Chemistry IA Tips: Introduction
IB community tries their best to support students, teachers and schools under these unprecedented times. The assessment criteria for Chemistry internal assessments is still valid but there are some important changes for the 2021 May examination period due to the current situation. These changes and flexibilities are for the benefit of students. As an experienced IB teacher and examiner/moderator, I will summarise what these changes are and how students can work towards the highest grades and achieve them in their internal assessment (IA) in Chemistry.
One thing you have to keep in mind, moderators are not trying to give low marks, they are marking lab reports with an IB set criterion. In fact, we (moderators) were told to mark positively, be open-minded and try to reward independent thinkers and risk takers (remember IB student profile) in May 2020 examination period. (How the overall grades were awarded was another story, don’t get confused) It is important that you understand the criteria and complete your report fulfilling these assessment criteria.
Due to current situation throughout the world, most students are either doing distance or blended learning where it may not be possible to do experiments in their schools to collect data.
The major change for next year is that, students will use secondary data to do all their data processing and conclusions. Don’t fail to think that this will be literature search only. You are still expected to carry out an investigation and write a scientific report with similar assessment criteria. What has changed is, you are not required to collect your own data as it may not be possible.
Where can you get your data? There are many reliable databases. Choose sites, databases and simulations. IMPORTANT: Do not use one source or site. Use multiple. Less will look like you haven’t spent enough time searching your topic.
Find below more detailed tips for each assessment criteria.
Present evidence for personal engagement by addressing personal interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation and presentation of the investigation.
Be authentic! Do not replicate very common experiments like enthalpy of combustion, Vitamin C content of … unless you convert them into a unique investigation by adding authenticity to your RQ.
DON’T PUT A SEPARATE TITLE for PE, PE can be in any part of the report.
In the past it was very important to write a focused and quantified Research Question (RQ), which included the variables and the methodology to be used. For example, the effect of x on y measured using this method.
For 2021 May assessment period, you can expand your RQ. You can look at your independent variable (IV) from different angles, you can even use multiple IVs, but remember adding more IVs means, you will need more data. More open ended RQs will not be penalised and encouraged for this marking period. As the data collection from secondary sources will not take as long as it would have taken in a normal experiment, provide evidence for the depth of your investigation, remember your RQ should feel like a 10-hour research. Don’t make it too simple!
A relevant background which enhances the understanding of the investigation must be provided. Include enough chemical facts, principles and reasoning to explain the chemical context of your investigation. Use reputable sources, like university websites. Many universities opened their sources for free. DO NOT use Wikipedia or some random source that you don’t know how reliable the information they provide.
A full risk assessment is expected with safety and ethical considerations and environmental impact. This may not be possible with the secondary data but still STATE there are no safety/ethical considerations. This would show the moderator that you have considered that.
The methodology given should address the research question, should not be too simplistic although you are taking data from other sources. Should guide the moderator about how the data will be processed to answer your RQ.
Data Collection: Secondary source data instead of actual data collection.
Where/How can you get your data? There are many reliable databases. Use multiple databases to increase your accuracy. Choose sites, databases where you can get Independent variable (IV), dependent variable (DV) and if possible, where you can control variables (CV) around your investigation. You can also use simulations which allows you to manipulate these variables.
Use at least five data points to make a scientifically valid generalisation. Make sure there are at least 5 data sets, less will probably be penalised. This is an important point that students lose points. Fewer data points will not allow you to talk about trends even if you get good results.
Raw data will not be enough alone. Process your data correctly. Show a sample calculation for each data processing. Show your data processing coherently.
State outliers and how you treated them in your data processing. Pay attention to decimal places and significant figures in your calculations. This shows your precision and adds to the accuracy of your results.
Propagate uncertainties.
What are the uncertainties unless provided by the databases? They would be the range between the sources, and you may use generally accepted significant figures for some measurements when not provided.
Present your findings clearly. Unless your RQ is a very well formulated qualitative one, it is always possible to plot a graph to show the relationship between variables. A graph summarizes the relationship between IV and DV very clearly. Include units and uncertainties on your data tables and graphs. If applicable talk about qualitative aspects of the data.
A detailed conclusion relevant to your RQ should be described and supported by your data. Discuss the trends, correlations if there was any. If a hypothesis was proposed, it should be stated whether or not supported by the data. The context must be relevant. Justification with scientific context increases the reliability of your findings.
Weaknesses and limitations of your investigation should be addressed in detail to allow you discuss the possible errors. If you didn’t collect your own data, you cannot discuss the limitations of equipment, but you can still comment on the random errors using uncertainties used in the data. If there were significant differences between databases, discuss what might have caused that difference. Then, make realistic suggestions for improvement.
Compare your results with literature value. This will add to the validity of your results.
Every research paper has a title. Put a title at the top of the first page. DO NOT put a separate title page. Page count is important not word count.
Try not to exceed 12 pages. There is no word count for IAs but a well written report should fit in 10 to 12 pages. If you have too many data, put a part of it in the main report and the rest in the appendices. Moderators are not expected to read appendices therefore, anything in the appendices may not be checked and you may lose points if you include something in appendices that should be in the main body.
All the resources used should be cited in the report. They should be properly included in the bibliography section at the end of the report.
Include page numbers. Check spelling grammar before submitting your report.
A few websites suggested by IB for virtual data collection:
IB Chemistry IA Tips
Chemistry IA Criteria Review
Find below the assessment criteria used for chemistry independent investigations. Remember, your IA reports may be a bit different from the past reports due to the type of the data used. I am sure IB will consider this in their guidance pack they share with examiners/moderators nearer the time of exam period.
PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT
MARK
DESCRIPTOR
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
2
The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity. The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity. There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
EXPLORATION
MARK
DESCRIPTOR
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2
The topic of the investigation is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but it is not focused. The background information provided for the investigation is superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation. The methodology of the investigation is only appropriate to address the research question to a very limited extent since it takes into consideration few of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data. The report shows evidence of limited awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation*.
3-4
The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research question is described. The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation. The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data. The report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.*
5-6
The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research question is clearly described. The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation. The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data. The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.*
ANALYSIS
MARK
DESCRIPTOR
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2
The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to the research question. Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion. The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis. The processed data is incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete.
3-4
The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question. Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing. The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis. The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
5-6
The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question. Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy required to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent with the experimental data. The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis. The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
EVALUATION
MARK
DESCRIPTOR
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2
A conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to the research question or is not supported by the data presented. The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context. Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an account of the practical or procedural issues faced. The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
3-4
A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented. A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context. Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are described and provide evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion. The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
5-6
A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented. A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context. Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion. The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
COMMUNICATION
MARK
DESCRIPTOR
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1-2
The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes. The report is not well structured and is unclear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or disorganized way. The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information. There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions*.
3-4
The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes. The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way. The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation. The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding.
*For example, incorrect/missing labelling of graphs, tables, images; use of units, decimal places. For issues of referencing and citations refer to the “Academic honesty” section.
