Chemistry IA Exemplar: How does the molar concentration of ammonium… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Chemistry SL Internal Assessment Example

How does the molar concentration of ammonium nitrate, NH₄NO₃ (0.5M, 1.0M, 1.5M, 2.0M, 2.5M ± 0.01 mol dm⁻³), affect the temperature change (ΔT, °C) and enthalpy of dissolution (ΔH°sol, kJ mol⁻¹), measured using a simple calorimeter?SL

Overall Score

20/24

Criteria A: Research Design

6/6

Criteria Strands

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Good

A.3Methodology description

Poor

Criteria Feedback

You defined a focused and measurable research question with clear variables and a relevant calorimetry approach.
You justified several design choices, such as the fixed water volume, repeats, and consistent apparatus, which shows thoughtful planning.
Your background science is relevant and helps connect the investigation to the chemistry of dissolution and cold packs.

The preparation of the concentrations is not fully clear, so another student could not reliably reproduce the intended independent variable values.
There is an important mismatch between the stated concentrations and the masses used, which needs to be resolved.
Some procedural details are still too vague for complete replication, especially around how the solid was added and how the solution was prepared.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria Strands

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

You present your data in generally clear tables and graphs with units, labels, and calculated values included.
You use appropriate processing steps such as calculating temperature change, heat transfer, moles, enthalpy, and percentage error.
You show good awareness of uncertainty by identifying instrumental limits, propagating uncertainty, and including error bars.

Some of the numerical processing is inconsistent, especially where reported enthalpy values do not always match the calculations from the tables.
Your raw data and processed data are not always organised around the same independent variable, which makes the analysis harder to follow.
The uncertainty treatment is helpful but not fully consistent, and repeat variation is not analysed in enough detail.

Criteria C: Conclusion

3/6

Criteria Strands

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Moderate

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

5/6

Criteria Strands

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

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.

Loading scores...

Overall Score

20/24

Criteria A: Research Design

6/6

Criteria Strands

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Good

A.3Methodology description

Poor

Criteria Feedback

You defined a focused and measurable research question with clear variables and a relevant calorimetry approach.
You justified several design choices, such as the fixed water volume, repeats, and consistent apparatus, which shows thoughtful planning.
Your background science is relevant and helps connect the investigation to the chemistry of dissolution and cold packs.

The preparation of the concentrations is not fully clear, so another student could not reliably reproduce the intended independent variable values.
There is an important mismatch between the stated concentrations and the masses used, which needs to be resolved.
Some procedural details are still too vague for complete replication, especially around how the solid was added and how the solution was prepared.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria Strands

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

You present your data in generally clear tables and graphs with units, labels, and calculated values included.
You use appropriate processing steps such as calculating temperature change, heat transfer, moles, enthalpy, and percentage error.
You show good awareness of uncertainty by identifying instrumental limits, propagating uncertainty, and including error bars.

Some of the numerical processing is inconsistent, especially where reported enthalpy values do not always match the calculations from the tables.
Your raw data and processed data are not always organised around the same independent variable, which makes the analysis harder to follow.
The uncertainty treatment is helpful but not fully consistent, and repeat variation is not analysed in enough detail.

Criteria C: Conclusion

3/6

Criteria Strands

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Moderate

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

5/6

Criteria Strands

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

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.