Chemistry IA Exemplar: Examining the Effect of Copper Sulfate… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Chemistry HL Internal Assessment Example
Examining the Effect of Copper Sulfate Concentration on
the Gibbs Free Energy of an Electrochemical ReactionHL
Loading scores...
-
Overall Score
21/24
Criteria A: Research Design
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Research question context
Good
A.2Methodological considerations
Good
A.3Methodology description
Good
Criteria Feedback
You framed a focused, quantitative question with clear variables and a workable concentration range.
You included a substantial amount of practical detail about solution preparation, repeats, timing, and apparatus.
Your method is organized enough that another student could follow most of the investigation.
You showed awareness of relevant electrochemical and thermodynamic ideas such as the Nernst equation and the link between cell potential and Gibbs free energy.
Some of the electrochemical context is scientifically inconsistent, especially the cell diagram and the identification of the electrode processes.
Key variables that affect reproducibility, especially temperature and exact electrode placement/immersion, are not fully controlled or described.
The five repeats are useful, but the procedure for how each repeat was carried out is not explained with enough precision.
A few important details are only implied across different sections rather than stated directly in the method.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Communication of data recording and processing
Good
B.2Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
B.3Data processing quality
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
You recorded raw data in a clear, structured way with units, repeats, and uncertainty information.
Your processing trail is generally traceable because you include means, theoretical values, sample calculations, and a graph.
You made a meaningful effort to consider uncertainty through repeated trials, apparatus uncertainties, and percentage uncertainty.
You compared experimental and theoretical values rather than only reporting one set of results.
Some of the processing choices do not match the chemistry as closely as they should, especially the way concentration is treated in relation to the Nernst relationship.
The presentation includes a few important technical issues, such as the treatment of correlation values and some inconsistent numerical reporting.
Uncertainty is considered, but it is not fully propagated through all relevant calculations.
The analysis would be stronger if the meaning of the spread in repeated readings and the uncertainty in the mean were handled more carefully.
Criteria C: Conclusion
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
C.1Conclusion relevance and support
Good
C.2Scientific context comparison
Good
Criteria Feedback
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Criteria D: Evaluation
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
D.1Methodological weaknesses
Excellent
D.2Suggested improvements
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.