Coursework banner

IB Food Science & Technology IA

Get instant AI-powered feedback on your IB Food Science & Technology IA coursework with detailed assessment based on official marking criteria

Exemplar Coursework

Explore high-quality examples to understand what excellent IB Food Science & Technology IA work looks like

IB Food Science & Technology IA Assessment Guide

Food Science & Technology IA Grader

This page is designed to help you understand the assessment criteria for your Food Science & Technology Internal Assessment (IA) and to interpret your grades effectively. An embedded grader is available to assist you in self-evaluating your work, making the grading process more transparent and manageable.

Quick Start Checklist

Before using the grader, ensure you have the following ready:

  1. Final Draft of Your IA: Complete and polished.
  2. Word Count: Verify it meets the required length.
  3. Data Tables and Graphs: Accurately labeled and referenced.
  4. Citations and References: Properly formatted according to IB guidelines.
  5. Raw Data: Organized and accessible.
  6. Reflection Notes: Insights on your research process and findings.

Rubric Breakdown (Paraphrased & Plain English)

The Food Science & Technology IA is assessed across five criteria, totaling 24 marks.

Criterion A: Personal Engagement (2 marks)

What it tests: Your initiative, interest, and creativity in the investigation.

Performance Levels:

  • High (2 marks): Demonstrates significant personal interest and independent thinking.
  • Medium (1 mark): Shows some personal engagement but lacks depth.
  • Low (0 marks): Minimal or no evidence of personal engagement.

Common Mistakes:

  • Choosing a topic without personal interest.
  • Lack of originality in approach.

Evidence to Show:

  • Clear justification for topic choice.
  • Innovative methods or perspectives.

Criterion B: Exploration (6 marks)

What it tests: The clarity and focus of your research question, background information, and methodology.

Performance Levels:

  • High (5-6 marks): Well-defined research question with appropriate background and methodology.
  • Medium (3-4 marks): Research question and methodology are adequate but lack depth.
  • Low (0-2 marks): Unclear research question and inadequate methodology.

Common Mistakes:

  • Vague or overly broad research questions.
  • Insufficient background information.

Evidence to Show:

  • Specific and focused research question.
  • Comprehensive background context.
  • Detailed and justified methodology.

Criterion C: Analysis (6 marks)

What it tests: Your ability to process and interpret data to draw meaningful conclusions.

Performance Levels:

  • High (5-6 marks): Thorough data analysis leading to valid conclusions.
  • Medium (3-4 marks): Adequate analysis with some valid conclusions.
  • Low (0-2 marks): Superficial analysis with unsupported conclusions.

Common Mistakes:

  • Inaccurate data interpretation.
  • Lack of connection between data and conclusions.

Evidence to Show:

  • Accurate data processing.
  • Clear linkage between data and conclusions.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

What it tests: Your ability to assess the investigation's strengths, limitations, and suggest improvements.

Performance Levels:

  • High (5-6 marks): Comprehensive evaluation with realistic improvements.
  • Medium (3-4 marks): Some evaluation with limited suggestions.
  • Low (0-2 marks): Minimal evaluation and unrealistic improvements.

Common Mistakes:

  • Overlooking methodological limitations.
  • Unrealistic improvement suggestions.

Evidence to Show:

  • Critical assessment of methodology.
  • Practical suggestions for improvement.

Criterion E: Communication (4 marks)

What it tests: The clarity, organization, and presentation of your report.

Performance Levels:

  • High (3-4 marks): Well-structured report with clear communication.
  • Medium (2 marks): Adequate structure with some clarity issues.
  • Low (0-1 mark): Poorly organized with unclear communication.

Common Mistakes:

  • Inconsistent formatting.
  • Grammatical errors.

Evidence to Show:

  • Logical structure with clear headings.
  • Accurate use of scientific terminology.

How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool

The embedded grader provides a score for each criterion, which you can sum to get your total out of 24.

If You're Between Bands or Uncertain:

  • Review Feedback: Focus on areas with lower scores.
  • Seek Clarification: Consult your teacher for detailed feedback.

Improvement Actions:

  • Personal Engagement: Choose topics that genuinely interest you.
  • Exploration: Ensure your research question is specific and your methodology is detailed.
  • Analysis: Double-check data processing for accuracy.
  • Evaluation: Critically assess your methods and suggest realistic improvements.
  • Communication: Proofread your report for clarity and coherence.

Annotated Examples

High-Band Excerpt:

"The investigation into the effect of pH on enzyme activity demonstrated a clear trend, with optimal activity observed at pH 7. This aligns with existing literature, suggesting enzyme stability is highest at neutral pH."

Why It Scores High:

  • Clear data interpretation.
  • Connection to existing research.

Mid/Low-Band Excerpt:

"The experiment showed some changes in enzyme activity with different pH levels."

What's Missing:

  • Specific data points.
  • Analysis of trends.
  • Comparison to literature.

Grade Boundaries & Converting Your Mark

Grade boundaries can vary by session. It's essential to consult the latest IB guidelines or your teacher for the most accurate information.

General Contribution to Subject Grade:

The IA typically contributes 20% to your final subject grade. Ensure you understand how your IA score integrates with other assessments.

Common Mistakes & Fast Fixes

  • Mistake: Vague research question.
  • Fix: Refine to a specific, focused question.
  • Mistake: Insufficient background information.
  • Fix: Provide comprehensive context.
  • Mistake: Poor data analysis.
  • Fix: Ensure accurate data processing and interpretation.
  • Mistake: Lack of evaluation.
  • Fix: Critically assess methodology and suggest improvements.
  • Mistake: Unclear communication.
  • Fix: Organize report logically and proofread thoroughly.

Subject-Specific Tips

  • Nutritional Analysis: Use up-to-date databases for accurate information.
  • Food Safety: Adhere to current safety standards and guidelines.
  • Data Presentation: Utilize appropriate statistical tests and graphical representations.

FAQs

Q: How long should my IA be?

A: Ensure your IA meets the word count specified by the IB guidelines.

Q: Can I choose any topic?

A: Yes, but it should be relevant to Food Science & Technology and feasible for investigation.

Q: How important is the IA to my final grade?

A: The IA typically contributes 20% to your final subject grade.

Q: What if my data doesn't support my hypothesis?

A: Discuss the results objectively and suggest possible reasons and improvements.

**Q: How do I ensure my methodology

IB Food Science & Technology IA AI Grader Tool

1
Select grading rubric and level
2
Select coursework progress
3
Configure submission settings
4
Upload your coursework
5
Select report type
6
Confirm your privacy settings

How the IB Food Science & Technology IA Grader Works and Frequently Asked Questions

Why Use Our Coursework Grader?

Comprehensive Feedback

Get annotated suggestions, strengths, and actionable feedback for your work.

Subject specific rubrics

View your feedback in the context of the subject rubric and broken down bycriteria strands.

Secure by design

All files are deleted within 48h. We do not train on your data.

Frequently Asked Questions

Join 350k+ Students Already Crushing Their Exams