Chemistry IA Exemplar: How does varying the mass of Sensodyne… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Chemistry SL Internal Assessment Example

How does varying the mass of Sensodyne toothpaste (0.00 g, 0.15 g, 0.30 g, 0.45 g, and 0.60 g ± 0.01 g) affect the average change in mass of demineralized bovine enamel, when prepared as aqueous suspensions in 20.00 mL ± 0.5 mL of distilled water, over a 7 day incubation period at a constant physiological temperature of 37 ℃?SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student frames a focused and feasible question with clear variables, treatment levels, and a relevant applied context.
The student's method includes enough procedural detail that another investigator could follow much of the investigation.
The student shows thoughtful planning by explaining the rationale for the selected range and duration.

Some key design choices are not fully justified, especially the treatment volume and how it supports fair comparison across groups.
The preparation and standardization of the enamel samples are not described in enough detail for complete reproduction.
The procedure is incomplete in places, particularly where later steps are referenced rather than fully specified for each treatment level.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Poor

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student presents raw data clearly and makes a serious attempt to process it using means, spread, uncertainty, graphical display, and statistical tests.
The student includes uncertainty information and error bars, showing that they are thinking about the reliability of the results.
The student chooses an appropriate comparative statistical approach and states the hypotheses clearly.

Several later tables and the graph do not match the raw-data-derived values, which makes the overall analysis internally inconsistent.
Some uncertainty discussion relies too heavily on balance uncertainty and does not fully incorporate other sources of variation such as sample differences or retained residue.
The statistical reporting is not fully consistent, so the reader cannot always tell which processed values are the final intended results.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Poor

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

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...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student frames a focused and feasible question with clear variables, treatment levels, and a relevant applied context.
The student's method includes enough procedural detail that another investigator could follow much of the investigation.
The student shows thoughtful planning by explaining the rationale for the selected range and duration.

Some key design choices are not fully justified, especially the treatment volume and how it supports fair comparison across groups.
The preparation and standardization of the enamel samples are not described in enough detail for complete reproduction.
The procedure is incomplete in places, particularly where later steps are referenced rather than fully specified for each treatment level.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Poor

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student presents raw data clearly and makes a serious attempt to process it using means, spread, uncertainty, graphical display, and statistical tests.
The student includes uncertainty information and error bars, showing that they are thinking about the reliability of the results.
The student chooses an appropriate comparative statistical approach and states the hypotheses clearly.

Several later tables and the graph do not match the raw-data-derived values, which makes the overall analysis internally inconsistent.
Some uncertainty discussion relies too heavily on balance uncertainty and does not fully incorporate other sources of variation such as sample differences or retained residue.
The statistical reporting is not fully consistent, so the reader cannot always tell which processed values are the final intended results.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Poor

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

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.