Chemistry IA Exemplar: Research question: What are the orders of… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Chemistry HL Internal Assessment Example

Research question: What are the orders of reaction with respect to iodate ions (IO3-) and metabisulfite ions (S2O52-) in the iodine clock reaction, as determined by the time taken for the reaction mixture to change from colorless to blue/black?HL

Overall Score

20/24

Criteria A: Research Design

4/6

Criteria Strands

A.1Research question context

Good

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

You pose a focused, testable question that clearly names the two reactants, the clock reaction, and the measurable endpoint.
You include several deliberate design features such as repeated trials, controlled variables, and a stated rationale for using reciprocal time as a rate proxy.
You provide enough procedural detail that another reader could largely follow the investigation.

The reaction context contains important chemical inaccuracies, including unclear reagent identity and an unsupported mechanism.
Some controls are not tightly enough defined for a kinetic investigation, especially temperature.
There are internal inconsistencies in the method and tables, such as the starch volume and some procedural wording, which reduce reproducibility.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria Strands

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Poor

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

Your raw and processed data are generally organised clearly in tables with units, repeated trials, averages, and concentration series.
You calculate means and several reciprocal-time values correctly, and the graphs are labelled with trendlines and R² values.
There is some awareness of uncertainty through recorded apparatus uncertainties and attempted propagation into the processed results.

There are major calculation and notation errors, including an incorrect concentration calculation and inconsistent scientific notation for the same quantity.
The uncertainty treatment is inconsistent and sometimes incorrectly labelled, so the meaning of the processed values is not always clear.
The analysis relies too heavily on a limited comparison of data points, and the use of reciprocal time is not fully justified for every part of the dataset.

Criteria C: Conclusion

6/6

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

4/6

Criteria Strands

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Suggested improvements

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.

Loading scores...

Overall Score

20/24

Criteria A: Research Design

4/6

Criteria Strands

A.1Research question context

Good

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

You pose a focused, testable question that clearly names the two reactants, the clock reaction, and the measurable endpoint.
You include several deliberate design features such as repeated trials, controlled variables, and a stated rationale for using reciprocal time as a rate proxy.
You provide enough procedural detail that another reader could largely follow the investigation.

The reaction context contains important chemical inaccuracies, including unclear reagent identity and an unsupported mechanism.
Some controls are not tightly enough defined for a kinetic investigation, especially temperature.
There are internal inconsistencies in the method and tables, such as the starch volume and some procedural wording, which reduce reproducibility.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria Strands

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Poor

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

Your raw and processed data are generally organised clearly in tables with units, repeated trials, averages, and concentration series.
You calculate means and several reciprocal-time values correctly, and the graphs are labelled with trendlines and R² values.
There is some awareness of uncertainty through recorded apparatus uncertainties and attempted propagation into the processed results.

There are major calculation and notation errors, including an incorrect concentration calculation and inconsistent scientific notation for the same quantity.
The uncertainty treatment is inconsistent and sometimes incorrectly labelled, so the meaning of the processed values is not always clear.
The analysis relies too heavily on a limited comparison of data points, and the use of reciprocal time is not fully justified for every part of the dataset.

Criteria C: Conclusion

6/6

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

4/6

Criteria Strands

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Suggested improvements

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.