Investigation 1: Moderator comments

Personal Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication Total

Engagement x/6 x/6 x/6 x/4 x/24
x/2

2 6 5 5 4 22

Personal engagement

Mark Descriptor

 The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under
investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.
2  There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or
presentation of the investigation.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The report throughout shows evidence of the student’s interest and curiosity in the
2
research question.

The personal input is manifested through the fact that the report appears original
throughout and definitely not based on a standard template or commonplace exemplar,
while the independent thinking in the interpretation of the results was indicative of fine
insight.

Exploration

Mark Descriptor

 The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research
question is clearly described.
5–6  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.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The topic and research question are clearly described and relevant background
6
information given. The chosen methodology is highly appropriate although there was
opportunity to find other data sources as well. However descriptor for 5/6 states “nearly
all” so that is the best fit. There are no relevant safety, ethical or environmental issues to
be raised so this is not included in the assessment of this criterion

Analysis

Mark Descriptor

3–4 The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement
uncertainty on the analysis

 The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could
support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question.
5–6  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 processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed
conclusion to the research question can be deduced.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The student finds sufficient relevant quantitative data, including uncertainties, to be able to
5
ultimately draw a conclusion. There is no need for qualitative data in this database
focused methodology. The processing is quite simple but effective graphing enables valid
qualitative interpretation. There is qualitative consideration of the measurement
uncertainty on the analysis although it is hard to see if true best fit curves have been
constructed.

The interpretation of the processed data, leading to a valid and detailed conclusion, has
been done successfully.

Evaluation
 Mark Descriptor

 The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement
and extension of the investigation.
1–2

5–6  A conclusion is described and justified which is relevant to the research question and
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
themethodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The student describes and justifies a conclusion that is supported by the data presented
5
The student shows evidence of very fine understanding in their description and justification
of their conclusion within the scientific context. There is also evidence of a sophisticated
understanding of the limitations of the data and the methodology and how this impacts the
conclusion and the student does not overstate their findings.

The student’s fulfilment of this Evaluation criterion falls short of the maximum because the
suggestions for improvement and extension are rather limited and not well clarified.

Communication

Mark Descriptor

 The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and
outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
3–4  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.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award
The report is well structured and very clear. The report remains relevant, coherent and
4
concise throughout and it is very easy to follow the research’s development through to the
conclusion. Suitable terminology, such as the correct nomenclature for homologous series
and types of intermolecular force are used and the tables and graphs are presented
clearly and unambiguously. There is consistent precision in recorded data and with
uncertainties. Diagrams showing structures of molecules, functional groups and
intermolecular formulae would have enhanced interpretation and it is not clear which data
points are derived from median values and should have shown ranges in raw data.

Overall though the report definitely is an example of effective communication and

deserves the highest level.

Investigation 8: Moderator comments

Personal Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication Total

Engagement x/6 x/6 x/6 x/4 x/24
x/2

1 3 3 2 3 12

Personal engagement

Mark Descriptor

 The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under
investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.
1  There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation
or presentation of the investigation.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award
There is a justification for the choice of research question but it does not demonstrate
1
personal significance. The choice of design is simplistic and deviates from the general
research question. This lacks the required engagement and initiative. It could have been
so much more extensive. This doesn’t really appear to represent 10 hours research
endeavour.

Exploration

Mark Descriptor

1–2 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 topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research
question is described.
3–4  The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and
relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The research question is partially focused but it does not indicate that a comparison
3
between experimental and bond enthalpies will be made as outlined in the hypothesis.

Ideas from class are used to explain scientific context. The student does not clarify the
concept of inductive effect clearly. The chosen methodology is limited, although there was
an attempt to verify the results by comparing with secondary experimental sources. The
experimental values for butan-1-ol and pentan-1-ol were taken from Wikipedia. It is not
clear how the values for methanol, ethanol and propan-1-ol were determined since their
source has not been referenced. The reliability and the limitations of the data were not
considered.

There were no safety, ethical or environmental issues associated with this investigation

Analysis
 Mark Descriptor

 Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too insufficient
to lead to a valid conclusion.
1–2  The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement
uncertainty on the analysis.

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.
 The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited
conclusion to the research question can be deduced.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The raw data is relevant but insufficient. Bond energy data is readily available from a
3
variety of sources and the reliability of each source could be considered. More extensive
research to find secondary experimental data could be expected.

The processing of the raw data obtained is appropriate but too simplistic. The use of the
spreadsheet algorithm will automatically generate the obtained trend in the enthalpy
changes in kJ/mol. No calculation of energy change in kJ/kg, which is more relevant for
some fuel uses, has been attempted. Graphs have appropriate best fit lines, but don’t
show exothermic nature of the reaction. There was no treatment of uncertainties from the
data.

The interpretation of the processed data is insufficient to reach a fully valid conclusion
relating to possible use as fuels as stated in introduction. The interpretation of the
secondary research question regarding the validity of enthalpy calculations from bond
energies was more appropriate.

Evaluation

Mark Descriptor

 The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

 Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and
1–2 sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an account of the
practical orprocedural 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.
Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment
Award
The student has described a conclusion that is supported by the data presented but has
2
not attempted to explain the conclusion in the context of the research question. The
student does not explain why the experimental values are higher than the bond enthalpy
values.

There is no evidence of an understanding of the limitations of the data and the

methodology and how this impacts the conclusion. The student does not make
suggestions for improvement and extension.

Communication

Mark Descriptor

 The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and
outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
3–4  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.

Moderator’s Moderator’s Comment

Award
The report is well structured and overall clear. The student could have shown more clearly
3
how the average bond enthalpies were calculated. The report remains relevant coherent
and concise throughout and it is very easy to follow the research’s development through to
the conclusion. This report is at the very lowest limit of the recommended length mainly
due to a lack of depth in the topic of investigation. Overall, suitable terminology has been
used and the tables presented clearly although with some ambiguity in the column
headings. Processed data is clearly presented in graphs leading to ease of interpretation.