Guidance for the Independent Investigation in the Sciences

Compiled by Christian Schmelz with contributions by Kwaku Boateng, version March 2016

1. General Information
The Individual Investigation is the only practical or research-based investigation that will be formally
assessed during your Diploma course and contribute to your final grade (20% of your overall grade). 10
hours of practical or research work are allocated to this task and you will produces a write-up of about 6
to 12 pages (Times New Roman, Arial or Calibri, font size 11 to 12, line spacing 1.5 to 2).
The Individual Investigation may take the form of a practical investigation which you will design and
carry out in the lab or a research-based investigation that will use databases, simulations or modelling
software as the source data. Obviously, the latter will rely not on lab work, but on computer-based
work. Alternatively you could blend of any of the above approaches.
Any Individual Investigation should be meaningful, good Science appropriate for the IB Diploma level. As
such, you will be expected to carry out a well-designed, manageable investigation in a thorough manner.

2. Assessment criteria
The assessment uses five criteria to assess your report for the Individual Investigation with the following
maximum levels. The highest possible levels total is 24.
Personal Exploration, Analysis, Evaluation, Communication,
engagement, PE EX A EV C
2 6 6 6 4
Consistent with instructions from the IB, your teacher will be using the best-fit approach in deciding the
appropriate mark for a particular criterion. The teachers marking of all II work will be validated by the IB
through external moderation after the final submission of all II reports. The assessment criteria with all
markbands and relevant descriptors are included at the end of document.
The criteria Exploration, Analysis and Evaluation are more relevant to specific sections of your
report. Personal engagement and Communication are applied to the report as a whole which is why
more general comments are included below.

a) Personal engagement, PE
This criterion assesses the extent to which you engage with your investigation and make it your own.
Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. Regarding the designing,
implementation and presentation of the investigation, these could include showing evidence of:
personal interests & curiosity enthusiasm
justification of your investigation independent & creative thinking
relevance to local or global issues personal initiative

b) Communication, C
This criterion assesses whether your investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports
effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes. You will aim for the following:
3
clear presentation correct use of units (e.g. cm , not ml)
appropriate headings clear, helpful annotations of tables & graphs
relevant information and data correct use of referencing style, including in-
well structured, coherent report text citations and quotes (MLA style)
concise writing appropriate and correct use of subject-specific
appropriate and correct use of subject-specific conventions
terminology report not exceeding page limit
correct and consistent use of decimal places & graphs, data & background information
uncertainties facilitate a ready understanding
 3. Suggested structure for reports based on practical Independent Investigations

1 Title
This should be a clear title; specifically indicating what your work is all about, thus establishing a sense
of uniqueness. The degree of saturation of lipids in refined and un-refined Ghanaian palm oil is better
than Iodine number of oils.

2 Introduction

2.1 Motivation
Tell the reader about the problem (observation, news item, personal experience, article, report, claim,
prejudice, etc.) that caught your interest and got you thinking about carrying out a scientific
investigation. Place emphasis on explaining how this problem is significant for you.

2.2 Scientific Background Information

Provide details about what research you have undertaken to educate yourself about the problem
specified above. Include relevant scientific information. Reference sources as appropriate, but avoid
referencing facts that are common knowledge, e.g. the world is spherical (wikipedia). This section ought
to enhance your (and the readers) understanding of the scientific context and, equally importantly,
establish what specific insight you were not able to gain from your initial research. Building on this you
should explain how and why your investigation will be worth your time because it will address this lack
of information. This, ultimately, is the justification for your investigation. Consequently your

3 Research Question
should, in a perfectly logical manner, be a natural continuation of your scientific reasoning. The RQ
needs to be relevant (to your problem and the scientific context) and fully focused (addressing a
manageable scientific question that can be adequately and thoroughly investigated [within 10 hours]
and written up [within the limit of 12 pages]). Identify organisms (scientific names!) studied, chemicals
and/or reactions used, or phenomena investigated.

example
How does the concentration of ascorbic acid and pH of the
fruit juice and the amount of CO2 produced vary with the time
yeast is allowed to ferment the following fruits: orange,
pineapple, grapefruit, and lemon at different temperatures?
comments
A very poor RQ. Multiple independent variables [temperature,
time and type of fruit] and dependent variables [concentration
of ascorbic acid, pH and amount of CO2] have been selected.
This RQ completely lacks focus because it covers too many
variables, and, consequently, is entirely unmanageable.

How does repeated heating affect vegetable oil?
This RQ lacks focus because much specific information has
been omitted. The oil used has not been identified, nor the
temperature to which the oil is heated or the number of times
for which the oil is heated, nor the aspect that is being
measured, e.g. the peroxide value of the oil.

How does repeated heating (140C for 5 minutes) and cooling This RQ identifies one independent variable (repeated heating
(30C for 20 minutes) of un-refined palm oil from Ghana affect and cooling) and one dependent variable (peroxide value of
its peroxide value over ten heating and cooling cycles? the oil), as well as the context (Ghana) and the substance
investigated (un-refined palm oil). Good.
The research question needs to specify the independent and the dependent variable. The wording used
here should be applied consistently throughout your report. E.g. avoid referring to rate of degradation
of paracetamol in the RQ and identifying order of reaction of paracetamol degradation as the
dependent variable in a later section.

A hypothesis is not required and should not be used unless it really enhances your report. Often
hypotheses create confusion, lead to a loss of focus, or remain scientifically unsubstantiated. A well
written section on the scientific background information should provide enough information regarding
what you want to find out, and what expectations you have, if any.

4 Methodology

4.1 Methodological Background Information and Research

Having established what you aim to find out (RQ, above) you now need to consider how to go about
your investigation. Again, you will need to carry out research. Identify the methods (Plural!) you
considered, reference those methods and explain which one(s) you chose and why. In broad terms tell
the reader how and why you needed to adapt the methods you used.

4.2 Variables

4.2.1 Independent Variable, IV

This is the factor you change/manipulate/vary (often in a systematic, quantifiable manner).

4.2.2 Dependent Variable, DV

This is the factor you expect to change (in a quantifiable way) in response to the above
changes/manipulations/variations.

4.2.3 Controlled Variables, CVs

Those are factors which (given your scientific understanding) would have an effect on your DV and
which, therefore, you wish to keep constant in order to carry out a fair test. Briefly explain how the
controlled variables would affect the outcome of your investigation and how you keep them constant.

4.2.4 Monitored Variables

Those are factors which also would impact on your DV but which, you are not able to keep constant, e.g.
air pressure, room temperature, humidity etc. While you cannot control these factors you can at least
monitor them to see if there are any changes. Any changes would impact on your data analysis. Briefly
explain how the monitored variables would affect the outcome of your investigation and how you
monitor them.

4.3 Procedure and Apparatus / Equipment

Provide details of your method. This section needs to be written in a way that would enable another
person to repeat your investigation in an identical manner. Include, as appropriate, photographs, a list
of chemicals (with formulae and concentrations), names of organisms, materials and equipment
(indicated sizes and uncertainties for all items used to measure quantities) and a step-by-step
description of what you did, and why. Uncertainties need to be realistic and must be applied
consistently throughout your report. E.g. the uncertainty of a stopwatch operated by you is not 0.01s,
but 0.1s, which corresponds to your reaction time. Explain such instances.
The range and intervals used for your IV, as well as the quantity of measurements collected for your DV
(e.g. number of repeats) depend on the context. You need sufficient relevant data to answer your RQ.

4.4 Safety, Ethical or Environmental Issues

In your method section document what safety, ethical or environmental consideration are relevant for
your investigation and how you addressed those. Should no ethical considerations be of relevance say
so. Be aware of the IB animal experimentation policy and general lab safety manuals.

Title, Introduction, Research Question and Methodology are primarily used to assess you on the criterion
Exploration, EX [6 marks]. You will aim to meet the following expectations:

topic clearly identified methodology takes into consideration all

background information provided is entirely
relevant to the investigation
clear evidence of thorough understanding
of underlying Science
fully focused RQ
methodology for the investigation is
appropriate to address the RQ
significant factors methodology must allow
for the collection of sufficient relevant and
reliable data
indication of anticipated data processing
safety, ethical and environmental issues
relevant to the methodology fully
discussed.

5 Data Collection

5.1 Qualitative Data

Record all observations that pertain to your investigation. Remember that these observations do not
only have an effect on how your data will be interpreted. You will also refer back to these observations
in your evaluation. No weakness/problem/limitation mentioned there should be speculative or appear
out of nowhere. Instead, any weakness/problem/limitation should be based on a specific observation
you made.

5.2 Quantitative Data

Include raw data (the readings you collected, not derived values). In cases where there are very long
tables of raw data only include a sample to show how you organised your data collection. Pay attention
to uncertainties. These need to be consistent with the uncertainties of the equipment as stated earlier,
and uncertainties need to remain consistent throughout your report, unless error propagation dictates
otherwise.

6 Data Processing and Presentation

Carry out calculations and statistical tests, or graph your data as appropriate and relevant. Derived
values must not appear out of nowhere. The reader needs to be able to follow your logic and the steps
you have taken. Explain and justify your data processing. Remember that all processing and
presentation needs to improve your ability to interpret the data in an attempt to answer your research
question. Avoid redundant graphs. Give thought to uncertainties and how these need to be presented.
Ensure that all graphs and table can be understood easily and all necessary information is provided
(headings, units, uncertainties, explanations of error/uncertainty bars etc.).
7 Interpretation of Processed Data
What does your data reveal? What trends or patterns are there? Can any quantities/values be derived
from the processed data? What are the outcomes of statistical tests and what do those mean? To what
extent, if at all, do limitations/weaknesses/errors in your investigation affect how the data you collected
needs to be interpreted? How confident can you be in your data? Why? This section will prepare the
reader (and you, of course) for deducing a valid and detailed conclusion to the research question.

Data Collection, Data Processing and Presentation and Interpretation of Processed Data are primarily
used to assess you on the criterion Analysis, A [6 marks]. You will aim to meet the following
expectations:

sufficient relevant quantitative and data processing can be followed easily

qualitative raw data collected if applicable: propagation of uncertainties
data is authentic error bars, statistics etc. as appropriate
correct units used processed data presented in a clear &
uncertainties considered appropriate manner
raw data appropriate to RQ interpretation of data addresses RQ
processing relevant & sufficient for RQ

8 Conclusion and Evaluation

8.1 Conclusion
The conclusion needs to address and, if possible, answer your research question. Describe and justify
your conclusion and make sure it is fully supported by the data presented. Avoid sweeping or
indiscriminate statements that go beyond the scope of your investigation and your data. Be well aware
of the limited scope of what you were able to do with 10 hours. For example, if you burnt different
alcohols with a spirit burner refrain from making general judgments about the suitability of those
alcohols as a source of energy in combustion engines.

8.2 Comparison with Scientific Context

Correctly describe and justify your conclusion through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific
context. Consult reliable scientific sources. Compare and contrast your investigation and the work
carried out by others, and judge to what extent such comparisons are valid.

8.3 Strengths and Weaknesses

Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of
error. Provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in establishing
your conclusion. Depending on your essay some of this may have already happened in earlier sections
of your report. In particular strengths may have been discussed in the interpretation or conclusion
section as these would ideally allow you to be more confident in your results.

Any weaknesses/problems/limitations you write about must not be speculative but need to be backed
up by a specific piece of evidence (observation/qualitative data!). Identify each weakness, explain
scientifically how it impacts on your investigation, deduce the direction of the error (i.e. whether this
weakness led to values to be too high or too low) and explain how significant this weakness is (i.e.
whether this is a minor problem or a major issue). Never say: I might have touched the agar plate and
thereby introduced additional bacteria into the petri dish. Instead, in the Qualitative Data section,
there would have been a mentioning of you accidentally touching the agar, as well as the observation
that in this one petri dish the growth of bacteria colonies resembled the appearance of a finger print.
Furthermore, there would have been an unusually high colony count in your raw data. In your analysis
you would have discarded this high count as an anomaly (and provided a reason). In less obvious cases
the implications would perhaps have appeared also in the Interpretation section. Referring back to the
observation you would be discussing this problem, its impact on the outcomes and how this can be
avoided in the future. These comments on improvements are basically part of the final section of your
report:

8.4 Improvements and Extensions

Remember that each suggestion for an improvement should be inspired by a specific observation you
noted earlier in your report. Furthermore, discuss realistic and relevant suggestions for the extension of
your investigation. Dont start talking about entirely different investigations. Stay focused and think
about your investigation.

Conclusion and Evaluation are primarily used to assess you on the criterion Evaluation, EV [6 marks].
You will aim to meet the following expectations:

RQ addressed types of errors discussed (systematic and

conclusion supported by data presented random), as appropriate
(linked to the research question) strengths and weaknesses of the
conclusion justified through comparison of investigation discussed
accepted scientific context sources of error in the investigation stated
results compared with other results and and discussed
comment on percentage error and realistic and relevant suggestions for
percentage uncertainty, as appropriate improvement discussed
clear distinction between precision and realistic and relevant extensions of the
accuracy investigation suggested

9 Bibliography
Include a bibliography consistent with the MLA style.
 4. Assessment criteria

Personal engagement

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their own.
Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. These could include addressing personal
interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation or
presentation of the investigation.

Mark Descriptor

0 The students 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 insight.
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 insight.
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

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work, states a
clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques appropriate to the Diploma Programme
level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical
considerations.

Mark Descriptor

0 The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

12 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.

34 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.
56 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

This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report provides evidence that the student has selected,
recorded, processed and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support
a conclusion.

Mark Descriptor

0 The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

12 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.

34 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.

56 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

This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report provides evidence of evaluation of the
investigation and the results with regard to the research question and the accepted scientific context.

Mark Descriptor

0 The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

12 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.

34 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.

56 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

This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports effective
communication of the focus, process and outcomes.

Mark Descriptor

0 The students report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

12 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*.

34 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.
 5. Internal Assessment marking sheet (SOS-HGIC Science Department)

The below table will be used by your teacher to holistically mark your work.

Personal Engagement, PE 1 2 1st 2nd

evidence of personal limited with little independent
engagement thinking, initiative or insight
justification does not demonstrate personal
significance, interest or curiosity
personal input / initiative there is little evidence
Exploration, EX 1-2
topic & RQ of the unfocused RQ of some
investigation relevance stated
background information superficial or of limited
relevance, does not aid
understanding
methodology addresses RQ to very
limited extent,
considers only few
relevant factors1
safety, ethical or limited awareness
environmental issues
Analysis, A 1-2
2
relevant raw data insufficient
data processing basic, too inaccurate,
too insufficient to lead
to a valid conclusion
measurement uncertainty little consideration
interpretation of incorrect or insufficient,
processed data enabling only invalid or
very incomplete
conclusion
Evaluation, EV 1-2
conclusion outlined, but not
relevant to RQ, or not
supported by data
scientific context conclusion makes only
superficial comparison
with conclusion
strengths and weaknesses outlined, but restricted
improvement and outlined very few
extension realistic and relevant
suggestions
Communication, C 1-2
presentation of the unclear, hindering understanding
investigation
structure unclear: incoherent or disorganized
relevance and conciseness understanding is obscured by inappro-
priate or irrelevant information
subject-spec. terminology many errors
& conventions3
is clear with significant independent
thinking, initiative or insight
demonstrates personal significance,
interest or curiosity
there is evidence
3-4 5-6 1st 2nd
relevant RQ described, relevant RQ described,
but not fully focused and fully focused
mainly appropriate and entirely appropriate and
relevant, aids relevant, enhances
understanding understanding
mainly appropriate to highly appropriate to
addresses RQ, considers addresses RQ, considers
some relevant factors all, or nearly all,
relevant factors
some awareness full awareness
3-4 5-6 1st 2nd
relevant but incomplete sufficient relevant
appropriate and appropriate, sufficient
sufficient for broadly & accurate, enabling
valid conclusion, but conclusion consistent
significantly inaccurate with data
& inconsistent
some consideration full and appropriate
consideration
interpretation enabling correct, enabling
broadly valid, but completely valid and
incomplete or limited detailed conclusion
conclusion
3-4 5-6 1st 2nd
described, relevant to described and justified,
RQ, and supported by entirely relevant to RQ,
data and fully supported by
data
conclusion described, conclusion correctly
with some relevant described and justified,
comparison through relevant
comparison
described, including discussed, with clear
some impact on understanding of impact
conclusion on conclusion
described some realistic discussed realistic and
and relevant suggestions relevant suggestions
3-4 1st 2nd
clear, any errors do not hamper
understanding
clear: coherent, necessary
information is present
relevant and concise, thereby
facilitating a ready understanding
appropriate and correct, any errors do
not hamper understanding

levels total: /24

1
factors refers to the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data
2
raw data refers to quantitative and qualitative raw data
3
conventions refers to labelling of graphs, tables, images; units, decimal places; referencing, citations