Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
IBDP Chemistry IA
and Lab Report
Rubric & Checklists
Adapted from Angelique Hiscox on Chem OCC (2015) and American International School of Bucharest
1
IBDP
Chemistry
Internal
Assessment
• The
major
piece
of
assessment
in
Group
4
subjects,
in
addition
to
the
exams,
is
the
Lab
Investigation.
• The
final
IA
task
(a
10
hour
individual
investigation,
chosen,
designed
and
carried
out
by
you)
to
be
completed
in
Grade
12.
• It
will
count
as
20%
of
your
final
IBDP
Grade.
• All
labs
and
reports
you
are
asked
to
complete
in
this
class
are
designed
to
help
you
build
the
necessary
skills
to
carry
out
this
task
to
the
best
of
your
ability.
• The
final
IA
Lab
Investigation
is
marked
using
5
criteria:
Personal
Engagement
Exploration
Analysis
Evaluation
Communication
•
You
will
have
opportunity
to
practice
each
criteria
on
its
own
or
in
combination
with
other
criteria
as
progress
through
the
course.
• This
document
details
what
is
required
to
achieve
the
best
grade
possible
for
each
criteria.
• It
is
long,
but
in
the
beginning
just
focus
on
the
criteria
being
assessed
for
each
lab.
2
https://i-‐biology.net/category/ibdp-‐biology/lab-‐work-‐internal-‐assessment/
3
Personal
engagement
This
criterion
assesses
the
extent
to
which
you
engage
with
the
exploration
and
makes
it
your
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 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.
This
section
is
very
much
tied
to
the
exploration
section
rather
than
being
a
section
in
its
own
right
in
your
lab
report.
Most
of
the
evidence
for
personal
engagement
will
appear
in
your
introduction
or
background
information
and
in
your
method.
When
deciding
on
a
topic
of
investigation
research
should
first
be
done
to
make
sure
there
is
enough
literature
to
support
your
investigation.
The
topic
chosen
should
be
unique
and
your
introduction
should
show
how
the
topic
is
relevant
to
you.
Third
person
is
the
correct
form
for
a
scientific
paper
but
first
person
can
be
used
in
one
paragraph
to
show
your
connection
to
the
topic.
When
choosing
a
research
topic
and
writing
an
introduction
ask
yourself
the
following
questions?
• Is
this
experiment
just
replicating
another?
–
if
the
answer
is
yes
then
its
not
suitable
• Is
this
topic
worthy
of
investigation?
-‐-‐-‐
if
the
answer
is
no
then
its
not
suitable
• Is
there
enough
literature
to
support
my
investigation?
–
in
text
referencing
should
be
used
with
a
sufficient
number
of
sources
of
information.
Writing
Research
Questions
The
Research
Question
should
be
clearly
stated
with
the
reason
for
its
investigation,
as
part
of
the
introduction.
The
research
question
should
be
sharply
focused
and
refer
to
both
the
independent
variable
and
the
dependent
variable.
Poor
Research
Question
• To
investigate
the
impact
of
concentration
on
reaction
rate”
Good
Research
Question
• To
investigate
the
impact
of
the
concentration
of
hydrochloric
acid
on
its
reaction
rate
with
calcium
carbonate
by
monitoring
the
pressure
over
time
as
carbon
4
dioxide
is
produced.
Exploration
This
criterion
assesses
the
extent
to
which
you
establish
the
scientific
context
for
the
work,
state
a
clear
and
focused
research
question
and
use
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 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.*
5
Example
Format
for
Exploration
Section
Title:
‘
The
effect
changing
x
has
on
y’
or
‘How
x
affects
y’
Background
Information:
including
any
equations
and
reactions
or
other
scientific
information
necessary
to
understand
the
purpose
of
the
investigation.
Explain
how
your
investigation
links
to
the
curriculum.
Include
a
justification
for
your
design,
relating
to
(as
much
possible-‐
do
not
make
it
up)
personal
significance,
interest
and
curiosity.
This
section
should
be
in
your
own
words.
Use
citations
where
appropriate.
Note:
This
section
is
not
intended
to
include
any
discussion
of
your
conclusion
or
possible
results.
Research
Question
(included
in
the
introduction):
must
refer
to
both
the
independent
and
the
dependent
variables
Variables:
• State
independent
variable
(what
you
decided
to
change/investigate)
• State
the
range
that
you
will
be
investigating
(should
have
a
range
of
at
least
5
levels)
• Justify
why
you
chose
this
independent
variable
and
this
specific
range
• Explain
why
this
is
appropriate
and
relevant
relative
to
the
research
question
of
the
goal
of
the
investigation
• State
dependent
variable
(what
you
are
measuring/gathering
data
on)
• Clarify
the
technique
that
you
will
be
using
to
collect
this
data
• Explain
why
this
is
an
appropriate
technique
(if
applicable)
• State
all
relevant
control
variables
(the
other
factors
that
my
affect
your
results)
• Describe
what
your
significant
control
variables
are
• Explain
how
you
will
keep
each
constant
in
the
experiment
and/or
how
you
will
monitor
each
variable
• This
control
should
be
apparent
and
referenced
in
the
procedure!
Materials:
• Provide
a
list
of
all
equipment/materials
needed
• Select
appropriate
equipment
(meaning,
do
not
use
a
beaker
to
measure
volume)
• List
the
quantity
you
require
of
each
material
(you
should
detail
trial
runs
to
calculate
how
much
you
would
need
in
order
to
perform
all
of
your
trials)
• List
any
sizes
of
equipment,
as
appropriate
(e.g.
50cm3
burette)
• List
uncertainties
with
equipment
(ex:
electronic
mass
balance
±
0.001g)
–
see
separate
handling
errors
and
uncertainties
document.
• Include
a
diagram
where
appropriate
of
your
setup
Ethical,
Safety,
or
Environmental
Issues:
• Go
through
your
materials
list
and
acknowledge
anything
that
has
different
ethical,
safety,
or
environmental
considerations
(the
MSDS
sheet
will
have
safety
data
for
chemicals)
• Think
about
the
manipulation
and
disposal
of
your
different
materials
• If
there
are
no
ethical/safety/environmental
considerations,
you
should
at
least
acknowledge
and
maybe
justify
this.
6
Method:
• State
the
need
for
a
trial
run
• Your
trial
runs
should
be
acknowledged
and
the
information
you
obtain
from
there
should
be
documented
in
your
report
(ex:
if
you
learned
during
your
trial
runs
that
you
needed
to
change
the
range
of
your
independent
variable/concentration
of
one
of
the
chemicals,
this
should
be
reflected
in
your
report
–
it
looks
good)
• Include
a
step-‐by-‐step
procedure
• Make
sure
that
when
you
reference
previous
steps,
you
are
careful
to
reference
the
correct
ones
• Mention
how
you
are
controlling
variables
(do
not
directly
repeat
what
you
wrote
earlier
in
the
variables
section,
but
acknowledge
where
you
are
addressing
controls)
• Carry
out
the
appropriate
number
of
trials
(at
least
3)
over
an
appropriate
range
of
the
independent
variable
of
you
are
investigating
a
trend
(5
is
good)
and
justify
your
choice.
Any
diagrams,
tables
and
graphs
in
this
section
should
be
numbered
and
titled
(e.g.
Table
1a
or
Graph
2)
TOP
TIP:
As
you
carry
out
your
investigation,
make
notes
beside
the
steps
in
your
method
where
assumptions
have
been
made/errors
could
be
made/controls
have
been
put
in
place
as
best
as
possible
but
do
not
eliminate
a
possible
issue/observations
made
at
crucial
points.
These
notes
will
help
you
in
your
qualitative
data
and
your
evaluation.
7
Analysis
This
criterion
assesses
the
extent
to
which
you
report
provides
evidence
that
you
have
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 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.
• You
ensure
you
are
collecting
sufficient
quantitative
data
by
deciding
on
what
is
sufficient
in
your
method
(e.g.
5
different
runs
of
the
variable,
3
repeats
etc
-‐
whatever
is
needed
to
allow
you
to
generate
a
conclusion
to
your
research
question)
8
Raw
data
• Record
qualitative
and
quantitative
data
• Use
data
tables.
They
should
be
numbered
if
you
have
more
than
one,
for
easy
reference
• Data
tables
should
have
descriptive
titles
NOT
“Data
Processing”
or
“Raw
Data”
or
“Data
Collection”.
INSTEAD,
something
like
‘Masses
of
different
substances’,
‘Qualitative
observations
during
the
reaction
between
Magnesium
and
Oxygen.”
• Columns
need
to
have
descriptive
headings
-‐
NOT
“Trial
1”,
INSTEAD,
“Mass
of
Mg,
Trial
1”
• Column
headings
need
to
have
units
• DO
NOT
put
the
units
beside
the
measurements
(e.g.
do
not
write
1.00g,
2.25g
each
time)
• Column
headings
need
to
have
uncertainties
(see
uncertainties
document)
• DO
NOT
put
uncertainties
beside
the
measurements
(see
above)
• You
should
only
use
another
column
for
uncertainties
if
they
are
different
for
the
different
values
in
your
column
• At
the
bottom
of
each
data
table
it
is
helpful
to
explain
how
each
of
your
uncertainty
values
were
chosen
• Your
measurements
need
to
be
recorded
with
the
correct
precision.
If
your
temperature
probe
shows
20.0
oC,
you
record
EXACTLY
that,
NOT
20
oC
• Check
that
the
precision
of
your
measurements
matches
the
precision
of
your
uncertainty.
E.g
2.34
with
an
uncertainty
of
±0.01
match
because
the
uncertain
digit
is
the
last
one
of
your
measurement,
recording
2.3
with
an
uncertainty
of
±0.01
is
incorrect.
EXAMPLE
DATA
COLLECTION
• Table
1:
Table
showing
the
masses
of
different
substances
in
the
reaction
between
Magnesium
and
Oxygen.
Measurement
Mass
±
0.001
g
Magnesium 0.098
10
Data
Processing
Tables:
• All
of
your
calculations
need
to
be
organized
in
one
or
more
Data
Processing
Tables.
These
tables
should
still
follow
the
requirements
for
putting
together
a
table,
as
described
in
the
Data
Collection
Section.
Graphs:
• Graphs
should
have
descriptive
titles
• The
graph
axes
need
to
be
labeled
with
units
and
uncertainties
• You
graph
should
be
scaled
appropriately
so
that
the
data
points
fit
the
graph
area
well.
• A
best-‐fit
line
should
be
added
• Below
your
graph,
you
should
comment
on
the
ways
in
which
your
errors
seemed
to
have
impacted
your
trend
line
• Ex:
if
you
were
expecting
a
linear
relationship,
but
your
data
points
result
in
more
of
a
curve,
mention
this
and
briefly
state
what
you
will
be
considering
in
your
evaluation.
11
Example
Graph
12
Evaluation
This
criterion
assesses
the
extent
to
which
your
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 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.
Conclusion:
• Answer
the
research
question/state
the
trend/state
the
relationship
or
information
that
you
obtained
from
your
experiment.
This
is
directly
related
to
the
purpose
of
the
lab
–
what
did
you
find
out?
• Instead
of
just
stating
a
relationship,
provide
data
from
your
lab
to
support
your
conclusion.
• For
example,
state
the
slope
of
your
graph
to
explain
what
the
relationship
is
between
two
variables
you
were
investigating
13
• You
can
also
relate
your
results
back
to
the
hypothesis
that
you
originally
had
and
discuss
the
degree
to
which
your
data
support
or
refute
your
hypothesis
• Compare
your
results
to
scientific
theory
–
explain
what
you
were
expecting
to
find,
based
on
theory
and
why
it
was
supposed
to
be
so.
• When
measuring
an
already
known
and
accepted
value
of
a
physical
quantity,
compare
the
experimental
value
with
the
textbook
or
literature
value.
Be
sure
to
reference
the
literature
used.
• If
applicable,
state
the
theoretical
or
expected
value
and
compare
your
result
to
it
using
the
%
Error
calculation
results
(see
uncertainties
document).
• You
must
take
into
account
any
systematic
or
random
errors
and
uncertainties.
• A
percentage
error
should
be
compared
with
the
total
estimated
random
error
as
derived
from
the
propagation
of
uncertainties.
• Discuss
whether
systematic
error
or
further
random
errors
were
encountered
(for
more
detail
on
types
of
error
see
the
handling
errors
and
uncertainties
document).
• Include
comparisons
of
different
graphs
or
descriptions
of
trends
shown
in
graphs.
• Consider
how
large
the
errors
or
uncertainties
in
your
results
are,
how
confident
are
you
in
the
results?
Are
they
fairly
conclusive,
or
are
other
interpretations/results
possible?
• Was
your
value
too
low?
What
errors
contributed
to
making
it
low?
(just
a
list
at
this
point)
• Was
your
value
too
high?
What
errors
contributed
to
making
it
too
high?
• Which
error,
of
those
listed,
was
the
most
significant?
• Are
your
results
reliable,
given
the
errors
listed?
Justify
this.
• Make
sure
to
use
appropriate
and
descriptive
scientific
language.
Evaluation:
• Discuss
the
strengths
of
the
investigation.
These
could
be
related
to
• Procedure
• Equipment
• Number
of
trials
• Control
of
variables
• Range
of
independent
variables,
etc.
• Do
not
just
state
strengths,
but
describe
and
explain
them.
Also
state
how
these
strengths
improved
your
results.
• Discuss
the
errors
or
assumptions
of
the
investigation.
One
separate
paragraph
for
each:
• Describe
error
• How
did
it
impact
the
data?
Did
it
make
the
recorded
values
larger
or
smaller
and
therefore
what
effect
would
it
have
on
the
final
result?
DO
NOT
just
state
that
it
may
have
affected
the
results
–
specify
how
it
affected
the
results
and
the
significance
of
it.
• How
could
it
be
improved,
realistically,
in
our
lab?
• Describe
improvement
• Possible
errors/issues
to
improve
should
be
related
to:
14
• Procedure
• Equipment
• Number
of
trials
• Control
of
variables
• Range
of
independent
variables,
etc.
• Comment
on
the
reliability
(precision)
and
validity
(accuracy)
of
your
results.
• State
and
describe
a
possible
extension
to
the
investigation.
• This
cannot
just
be
a
random
idea
that
you
don’t
know
how
it
could
work
or
is
not
feasible.
• You
actually
have
to
provide
general
description
of
what
you
would
do
during
that
extension
investigation.
• Explain
the
reasons
why
it
would
be
a
good
extension/why
you
would
want
to
carry
it
out/what
information
it
would
give
you
(think
of
any
questions
that
arose
during
the
investigation,
or
how
the
impact
of
any
possible
assumptions
or
errors
could
be
investigated
further.
• Don’t
forget
a
bibliography
for
all
outside
information,
especially
the
information
related
to
your
scientific
theory
explanations.
Evaluation
example
–
one
section
only.
Yours
will
have
many
paragraphs
like
this
for
each
error.
One
assumption
made
in
reacting
the
magnesium
ribbon
in
the
crucible
is
that
only
magnesium
oxide
is
formed.
When
the
mass
of
the
crucible
is
taken
at
the
end
of
the
experiment,
it
is
assumed
that
all
of
the
extra
mass
is
attributed
to
the
reaction
of
oxygen
with
magnesium
to
form
MgO.
However,
at
such
high
temperatures
it
is
possible
that
some
magnesium
reacted
with
the
nitrogen
in
the
air
to
form
magnesium
nitride.
This
means
that
the
measured
mass
is
not
only
MgO
but
also
in
fact
some
magnesium
nitride.
This
would
result
in
our
recorded
mass
of
oxygen
being
higher
than
the
actual
true
mass
present
in
the
crucible
and
increasing
the
ratio
of
oxygen
in
our
empirical
formula
beyond
what
is
actually
there.
In
order
to
reduce
and
possibly
eliminate
this
error,
we
could
improve
the
method
by
adding
the
extra
step
of
adding
water
to
the
crucible
following
heating.
This
can
then
be
evaporated
over
the
bunsen
burner
in
order
to
ensure
the
Magnesium
Nitride
that
was
formed
decomposes
into
Magnesium
Hydroxide
and
ammonia.
The
magnesium
hydroxide
forms
Magnesium
Oxide
upon
further
heating.
This
would
ensure
that
the
mass
of
the
product
measured
was
of
the
desired
compound
only,
i.e.
Magnesium
Oxide.
Another
error…..
and
so
on.
15
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 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;
uses
of
units,
decimal
places
• Organize
your
sections
clearly,
with
labels
• Structure
your
report
in
a
logical
way
• Organize
your
paragraph
to
include
one
main
idea/topic
per
paragraph.
Do
not
just
jumble
all
kinds
of
information
into
one
huge
paragraph.
• Use
correct
scientific
language.
• Be
specific
and
unambiguous.
Shorter
sentences
are
often
clearer.
• Proof-‐read
your
work
for
any
errors.
By
using
the
example
format
structures
given
in
this
guide
you
will
be
able
to
write
a
well-‐-‐-‐structured
and
clear
report.
16