IBDP

 Internal  Investigation  Coversheet   Name: Cand No: Date:

Lab Title: Teacher: Mr. Oscar

Candidate  declaration:  “I  confirm  that  this  work  is  my  own  work  and  is  the  final  version.  I  have  acknowledged  each  
use  of  the  words  or  ideas  of  another  person,  whether  written,  oral  or  visual.”  
 
Signed:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Date:   –    –      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
  Criteria      
  Personal   Exploration   Analysis   Evaluation   Communication   Total      
Engagement/2   /6   /6   /6   /4   /24   %  
Marks  
awarded                
Internal  
Moderation                
n.b.  Marks  are  given  on  a  best  fit  approach  based  on  the  levels  awarded  for  each  aspect  of  a  given  criteria.  Refer  to  ‘the  criteria  
pages  for  ‘a  more  detailed  breakdown  

Personal  Engagement  
Mark   Exploration   Personal  Significance   Initiative  
The  evidence  of  personal  engagement   The  justification  given  for  choosing  the  research   There  is  little  evidence  of  personal  input  
1   with  the  exploration  is  limited  with   question  and/or  the  topic  under  investigation  does   and  initiative  in  the  designing,  
little  independent  thinking,  initiative   not  demonstrate  personal  significance,  interest  or   implementation  or  presentation  of  the  
or  insight   curiosity.   investigation.  
The  evidence  of  personal  engagement   The  justification  given  for  choosing  the  research   There  is  evidence  of  personal  input  and  
2   with  the  exploration  is  clear  with   question  and/or  the  topic  under  investigation   initiative  in  the  designing,  implementation  
significant  independent  thinking,   demonstrates  personal  significance,  interest  or   or  presentation  of  the  investigation  
initiative  or  insight.   curiosity.  
Comments  
 
 
Mark:              /2  
 
Do  you  have  evidence  of  the  following  in  your  report?  
☐Includes  genuine  curiosity  
☐Design  of  the  method    
☐A  statement  of  purpose  
☐The  relationship  with  the  real  world  
☐The  type  of  material  referred  to  in  the  background  or  in  the  discussion  of  the  results.    I.e  -­‐  
Primary  studies  and  non-­‐website  information.  
☐The  depth  of  understanding  of  the  limitations  in  the  investigation  
☐The  reflections  on  the  improvement  and  extension  of  the  investigation.  
☐  It  is  not  a  “commonplace”  investigation  with  a  procedure  that  has  not  been  adapted  or  
extended  in  someway.  
   
  
Exploration  
Mark   Research  Question   Background   Method   Safety,  ethics  &  
environmental  issues  
The  topic  of  the   The  background  information   The  methodology  of  the  investigation  is   The  report  shows  evidence  of  
1-­‐2   investigation  is  identified   provided  for  the  investigation   only  appropriate  to  address  the  research   limited  awareness  of  the  
and  a  research  question  of   is  superficial  or  of  limited   question  to  a  very  limited  extent  since  it   significant  safety  ethical  or  
some  relevance  is  stated   relevance  and  does  not  aid  the   takes  into  consideration  few  of  the   environmental  issues  that  are  
but  it  is  not  focused.   understanding  or  the  context   significant  factors  that  may  influence  the   relevant  to  the  methodology  
of  the  investigation.   relevance,  reliability  and  sufficiency  of  the   of  the  investigation.  
collected  data  
The  topic  of  the   The  background  information   The  methodology  of  the  investigation  is   The  report  shows  evidence  of  
3-­‐4   investigation  is  identified   provided  for  the  investigation   mainly  appropriate  to  address  the   some  awareness  of  the  
and  a  relevant  but  not   is  mainly  appropriate  and   research  question  but  has  limitation   significant  safety,  ethical  or  
fully  focused  research   relevant  and  aids  the   since  it  takes  into  consideration  only   environmental  issues  that  are  
question  is  described.   understanding  of  the  context.   some  of  the  significant  factors  that  may   relevant  to  the  methodology  
Of  the  investigation   influence  the  relevance,  reliability  and   of  the  investigation.  
sufficiency  of  the  collected  data.  
The  topic  of  the   The  background  information   The  methodology  of  the  investigation  is   The  report  shows  evidence  of  
5-­‐6   investigation  is  identified   provided  for  the  investigation   highly  appropriate  to  address  the   full  awareness  of  the  
and  a  relevant  and  fully   is  entirely  appropriate  and   research  question  because  it  takes  into   significant  safety  ethical  or  
focused  research  question   relevant  and  enhances  the   consideration  all,  or  nearly  all  of  the   environmental  issues  that  are  
is  clearly.  described   understanding  of  the  context   significant  factors  that  may  influence  the   relevant  to  the  methodology  
of  the  investigation.   relevance,  reliability  and  sufficiency  of  the   of  the  investigation.  
collected  data  
Comments  
 
 
Mark:              /6  
 
☐Do  you  have  a  research  question  that  is  clear,  focused,  and  specific  to  the  task  (it  can  be  a  
statement)  and  contains:  
☐Scientific  names  –  yeast  is  not  enough,  instead  use  Saccharomyces  cerevisiae.      
☐Specificity  -­‐    “sugar”  is  vague,  “glucose”  is  more  specific.    “Amount”  could  be  replaced  
with  mass,  volume,  molecules,  concentration.  
☐Include  the  range  of  the  independent  variables  ("a  glucose  concentration  from  0%  to  
5%”)  
☐Measurement  of  the  dependent  variable  –  (“as  measured  by  collecting  the  amount  of  
carbon  dioxide  produced  over  5  minutes”)  
☐Is  NOT  a  comparison  of  two  organisms  or  “brand.”  
 
☐  Do  you  have  a  background  section  that  if  focused  and  relevant  and  contains  the  following  
☐  Contains  specfic  information  sourced  form  primary  sources  (if  possible)  
☐  Justification  of  the  independent  variable  (why  are  you  exploring  this?)  
☐  Independent  variable  is  justified  (why  are  you  collecting  this  information?)    
☐  Control  variables  ore  identified  and  are  discussed  (the  most  relevant)  
☐Did  you  explain  how  you  will  change  your  independent  variable?  
☐Have  you  identified  your  dependent  variable?  
☐Did  you  explain  how  you  will  measure  your  dependent  variable?  
☐Did  you  briefly  describe  how  to  control  your  control  variables?  
       ☐Do  you  have  a  materials  clearly  visible  in  your  lab?  
☐Did  you  list  sizes?  
☐Did  you  list  amounts  of  each?  
☐Concentrations  of  solutions?  
☐Did  you  list  uncertainties  of  your  measuring  equipment  (thermometers,  measuring  
cylinders,  etc)?  
☐Does  your  equipment  list  match  up  with  your  method  and  control  variables  (if  you  
measure  20ml  of  something  do  you  have  a  measuring  cylinder)?  
☐Did  you  include  a  labelled  diagram  of  your  setup  (especially  if  your  setup  is  complicated)?  
☐Did  you  make  sure  you  repeated  your  experiment  multiple  times  (usually  a  minimum  of  5,  
but  more  is  better  though)  
☐Did  you  use  at  least  five  different  variations  of  your  independent  variable  (more  if  
relevant)?  
 
☐  Have  you  shown  full  awareness  of  the  safety,  ethical  or  environmental  issues  relevant  to  
your  method  or  stated  that  there  were  not  any  issues  to  discuss?  And  included  some  of  the  
following  
☐Evidence  of  a  risk  assessment    
☐An  appreciation  of  the  safe  handling  of  chemicals  or  equipment  (e.g.  the  use  of  protective  
clothing  and  eye  protection)    
☐The  application  of  the  IB  animal  experimentation  policy    
☐A  reasonable  consumption  of  materials    
☐The  use  of  consent  forms  in  human  physiology  experimentation  
☐The  correct  disposal  of  waste    
 
   
  
 
Analysis  
Mark   Raw  Data   Data  Processing   Impact  of   Interpretation  of  
uncertainty   process  data  
The  report  includes  insufficient   Some  basic  data  processing  is  carried   The  report  shows  evidence  of   The  processed  data  is  
1-­‐2   relevant  raw  data  to  support  a   out  but  is  either  too  inaccurate  or   little  consideration  of  the   incorrectly  or  insufficiently  
valid  conclusion  to  the   too  insufficient  to  lead  to  a  valid   impact  of  measurement   interpreted  so  that  the  
research  question.   conclusion.   uncertainty  on  the  analysis.   conclusion  is  invalid  or  very  
incomplete.  
The  report  includes  relevant   Appropriate  and  sufficient  data   The  report  shows  evidence  of   The  processed  data  is  
3-­‐4   but  incomplete  quantitative   processing  is  carried  out  that  could   some  consideration  of  the   interpreted  so  that  a  broadly  
and    qualitative  raw  data  that   lead  to  a  broadly  valid  conclusion   impact  of  measurement   valid  but  incomplete  or  
could  support  a  simple  or   but  there  are  significant  inaccuracies   uncertainty  on  the  analysis.   limited  conclusion  to  the  
partially  valid  conclusion  to   and  inconsistencies  in  the  processing.   research  question  can  be  
'the  research  question   deduced.  
The  report  includes  sufficient   Appropriate  and  sufficient  data     The  report  shows  evidence  of   The  processed  data  is  
5-­‐6   relevant  quantitative  and   processing  is  carried  out  with  the   full  and  appropriate   correctly  interpreted  so  that  a  
qualitative  raw  data  that   accuracy  required  to  enable  a   consideration  of  the  impact  of   completely  valid  and  detailed  
could  support  a  detailed  and   conclusion  to  the  research  question   measurement  uncertainty  on   conclusion  to  the  research  
valid  conclusion  to  the   to  be  drawn  that  is  fully  consistent   the  analysis   question  can  be  deduced.  
research  question.   with'  the  experimental  data  
Comments  
 
 
Mark:              /6  

☐Do  you  have  a  data  table(s)?    

☐Does  your  table(s)  have  a  descriptive  title  including:  
  ☐  The  dependent  variable?  
  ☐  The  independent  variable?  
  ☐  Units  and  uncertainty?  
☐Did  you  include  units?  
☐Is  it  understandable?  (Show  it  to  mom  or  dad)  
☐Did  you  include  any  equations  you  used,  including  how  you  manipulated  them  (if  
necessary)?  
☐Did  you  give  an  example  of  each  calculation?  
☐Did  you  include  quantitative  AND  qualitative  data?  
☐Did  you  make  a  graph?  (If  appropriate)  
☐  Are  you  addressing  uncertianity  using  some  of  the  following?  
☐Error  bars  on  graphs  
☐Well-­‐constructed  lines  of  best-­‐fit  (I  will  not  accept  poor  Excel  polynomials!)  
☐Maximum  or  minimum  slopes  
☐Appropriate  consideration  of  outlier  data    
☐Consideration  of  equation  of  a  line  and  the  R2  value  
☐Consistent  significant  figures  and  decimal  places  
☐Sensible  protocol  on  propagation  of  errors  through  numerical  calculations.  
☐  Standard  deviations  
☐Statistical  analysis  
☐Evidence  of  investigation  of  research  into  the  uncertainties  associated  with  database  data  
 
☐Does  you  graph  have  a  descriptive  title  including:  
  ☐  The  dependent  variable?  
  ☐  The  independent  variable?  
☐Do  the  X  and  Y-­‐axis  have  labels  and  units?  
☐Did  you  draw  a  line  of  best  fit  is  it  appropriate?  
☐Is  your  graph  appropriate  (line  graph,  bar  graph,  scatter  plot)?  
☐Did  you  include  error  bars?  (Standard  deviation  or  procedural  error)  
☐Did  you  check  for  outliers  in  your  data?    Are  clearly  marked  in  your  table  and/or  on  your  
graph?  
☐Did  you  gather  all  the  information  needed  from  the  graph,  including  uncertainties?  
☐Did  you  include  standard  deviation?  
☐Did  you  include  statistical  analysis  include  the  null  and  alternative  hypothesis?  
☐Did  you  related  your  statistical  analysis  to  your  data?  
☐  Is  there  a  paragraph  that  interprets  the  processed  data  so  that  a  detailed  conclusion  can  
be  deduced?  
☐Does  your  interpretation  (which  is  the  process  of  making  sense  of  the  data  that  will  then  
lead  into  a  conclusion)  include  a  description  of  your  data,  standard  deviation  and  stats  in  
your  interpretation?  And  include  some  of  the  following:  
the  explanation  of  
☐  trends         ☐comparisons  
☐correlations       ☐plateau    
☐the  correct  interpretation  of  the  results  of  statistical  calculations.    
 
☐  Description  of  data  as  linearly  proportional,  inversely  proportional,  exponentially  
proportional,  etc.    If  appropriate  
 
☐  If  the  data  collected  and  processed  does  not  finally  lead  to  clear  patterns  or  trends  then  
the  efforts  to  make  sense  of  the  data  is  expected.  
☐interpreting  a  graphical  relationship  be  careful  of  the  thoughtless  presenting  of  the  Excel  
best-­‐fit  equation  as  the  outcome  finding.    
☐  Does  your  interpretation  set  up  your  reader  for  the  conclusion  
 
 
 
 
   
  
Evaluation  
Mark   Conclusion   Scientific  Context   Limitations  of  the  data  &  sources  of   Suggestions  for  
improvements  &  extension  
error  
A  conclusion  is  outlined   The  conclusion  makes   Strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the   The  student  has  outlined  very  
1-­‐2   which  is  not  relevant  to   superficial  comparison  to   investigation,  such  as  limitations  of'  the  data   few  realistic  and  relevant  
the  research  question  or  is   the  accepted  scientific   and  sources  of  error,  are  outlined  but  are   suggestions  for  the  
not  supported  by  the  data   context.   restricted  to  an  account  of  the  practical  or   improvement  and  extension  
presented.   procedural/  issue  faced.   of  the  investigation.  
A  conclusion  is  described   A  conclusion  is  described   Strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the   The  student  has  described  
3-­‐4   which  is  relevant  to  the   which  makes  some     investigation,  such  as  limitations  of  ‘the  data   some  realistic  and  relevant  
research  question  and   relevant  comparison  to   and  sources  of  error  are  describe  and  provide   suggestions  for  the  
supported  by  the  data   the  accepted  scientific   evidence  of  some  awareness  of  the   improvement  and  extension  
presented.   context   methodological/  issues  involved  in   of  the  investigation.  
establishing  the  conclusion.  
A  detailed  conclusion  is   A  conclusion  is  correctly   Strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the   The  student  has  discussed  
5-­‐6   described  and  justified   described  and  justified   investigation,  such  as  limitations  of  ‘the  data   realistic  and  relevant  
which  is  entirely  relevant   through  relevant   and  sources  of  error  are  discussed  and   suggestions  for  the  
to  the  research  question   comparison  to  the   provide  evidence  of  a  clear  understanding  of   improvement  and  extension  
and  fully  supported  by  the   accepted  scientific  context   the  methodological/  issues  involved  in   of  the  investigation  
data  presented.   establishing  the  conclusion.  
Comments  
 
 
Mark:              /6  
☐A  statement  or  discussion  of  whether  the  data  answers  the  RQ  is  presented  
☐  Refers  back  to  the  RQ  and  is  scientifically  justified  with  comparisons  made  to  properly  
referenced  background  material.      
☐If  a  hypothesis  has  been  proposed  (IT  IS  NOT  REQUIRED)  then  have  you  concluded  
whether  the  data  does  or  does  not  support  it.      
☐Tied  it  back  to  the  real  world  problem  you  (may  have)  discussed.  
☐The  scientific  context  is  relevant.  It  may  refer  to  the  correct  scientific  context  presented  in  
the  background  information,  or  accepted  literature  values.    
☐If  there  is  no  accepted  value  available,  the  findings  need  to  connect  to  the  relevant  
scientific  context  to  provide  justification  to  show  or  prove  that  the  findings  are  reliable.    
 
☐Are  obvious  weaknesses  that  are  consistent  with  the  direction  of  error  identified  and  
addressed.  
☐Did  you  include  both  the  strengths  and  difficulties  and  the  quality  of  the  data  and  
processing  is  needed.    
☐Your  errors  should  not  include  errors  due  to  sloppy  manipulative  skills  or  hypothetical  
events  for  which  there  is  no  evidence.      
 
☐If  you  reflect  on  how  your  conclusions  could  be  more  valid  and  justified  by  adapting  the  
method  to  address  underlying  factors  such  as  range,  sample  size,  the  use  of  an  alternative  
reaction  system  to  study  the  same  phenomenon,  etc.,  this  is  considered  an  evaluation  of  
the  methodology.    
  
☐If  you  included  experimental  errors  (random  or  systematic)  or  weaknesses  they  should  be  
consistent  with  the  findings  and  not  overstated.  As  part  of  this  process  you  need  to  show  an  
understanding  of  a  source  of  errors  relative  impact  on  the  reliability  of  the  findings.    
☐Your  comments  on  significance  of  sources  of  error  must  be  consistent  with  direction  of  
error.      
☐If  you  only  addresses  practical  or  procedural  issues,  by  simply  giving  an  account  of  how  
their  results  could  be  improved  by  carrying  out  your  stated  procedure  better,  only  fulfils  the  
lower  band  of  this  descriptor  (1-­‐2)  
☐Did  you  explain  how  these  weakness/errors  could  have  specifically  affected  your  data?  
☐Do  you  have  EVIDENCE  that  your  weakness/error  did  affect  your  data?  (i.e.  outliers,  
qualitative  observations)  
☐Did  you  offer  specific  improvements  or  changes  to  your  experiment  based  on  your  three  
weaknesses/errors?  
☐Did  you  discuss  how  your  improvements  will  improve  your  data  collection?  
☐Are  these  improvements  appropriate  and  not  too  simple?  
 
☐Are  your  suggested  improvements  and  extensions  precise,  focused  and  relevant  to  the  
investigation?  (The  potential  implication  of  these  modifications  and  how  they  might  bring  
the  experimental  results  closer  to  what  is  expected  are  discussed.    )  
☐Are  the  improvements  related  to  the  weaknesses  identified  and  are  thy  feasible  in  the  
context  of  a  school  environment  or  field  course?      
☐Does  the  extension  suggested  follow  on  from  the  research  in  a  meaningful  way  and  show  
how  it  will  enhance  understanding  of  the  topic  or  RQ?  
 
 
   
  
Communication  
Mark   Presentation   Structure   Focus   Terminology  &  
convention  
The  presentation  of  the   The  report  is  not  well  structured  and   The  understanding  of  the  focus,   There  are  many  errors  in  
1-­‐2   investigation  is  unclear,   is  unclear:  the  necessary  information   process,  and  outcomes  of  the   the  use  of'  subject  specific  
making  it  difficult  to   on  focus,  process  and  outcomes  is   investigation  is  obscured  by  the   terminology  and  
understand  the  focus,   missing  or  is  presented  in  an   presence  of  inappropriate  or   conventions  
process  and  outcomes.   incoherent  or  disorganized  way.   irrelevant  information.  
The  presentation  of  the   The  report  is  well  structured  ‘and   The  report  is  relevant  and   The  use  of  subject  specific  
3-­‐4   investigation  is  clear.  Any   clear:  the  necessary  information  on   concise  thereby  facilitating  a   terminology  and  
errors  do  not  hamper   focus,  process  and  outcomes  ‘is'   ready  understanding  of  the   conventions  is  appropriate  
understanding  of  the  focus,   present  and  presented  in  a  coherent   focus,  process  and  outcomes  of   and  correct.  Any  errors  do  
process  and  outcomes.   way.   the  investigation   not  hamper  understanding.  
Comments    
 
Mark:            /4  
Writing  and  Presentation  
 
☐Avoid:  
☐Use  of  whole  pages  for  titles  or  contents.  These  are  not  necessary.    
☐Blank  data  tables  presented  at  the  end  of  the  method  section  (unnecessary).    
☐Repetitive  tables,  when  one  would  do.    
☐Multiple  graphs  drawn  when  they  could  have  been  combined,  this  would  not  only  save  
space  but  also  improve  comparisons.    
☐Missing  Bibliography,  footnotes,  end  notes  or  in-­‐text  citation  
☐Inefficient  data  tables  headers.    
       
Structure  &  Clarity    
 
 ☐Did  you  include  the  use  of  headings  and  subheadings,  and  using  diagrams  and  images  to  
enhance  interpretation?  
 
 ☐An  investigation  that  is  clear  will  be  coherent.  It  includes:  
☐  Your  thinking  process  is  easy  to  understand  
☐clearly  presented  raw  and  processed  data  and  sample  calculations  (e.g.  steps  involved  in  
data  processing).  
 
☐  information  from  another  source  are  references  (but  there  is  no  clear  acknowledgement  
of  where  or  how  it  was  used,  this  may  be  considered  academic  misconduct  and  will  be  
reported  to  the  IB.  If  it  is  felt  that  material  has  been  plagiarised  it  should  also  be  reported  to  
the  IB.)  
 
Relevance  &  Conciseness  
 
☐The  research  is  concise  and  does  not  include  extra  or  unnecessary  or  repetitive  
information.  
☐You  should  submit  an  investigation  of  approximately  6-­‐12  pages  in  length.      
   
☐Full  calculations  are  not  expected  to  be  shown,  examples  will  suffice,  and  a  worked  
example  from  a  calculation  carried  out  on  a  spreadsheet  or  a  programmable  calculator  will  
not  be  expected.      
☐You  have  not  included  averages  or  standard  deviation  example  in  you  lab    
 
Subject-­‐Specific  Terminology  &  Conventions  
 
Did  you  use  correct:  
☐  formulae       ☐  nomenclature  
☐mechanisms       ☐  significant  figures  
☐  decimal  places       ☐  units  
☐  other  scientific  terms  and  definitions.  
☐labelling  of  graphs  (axes,  legends,  titles)  and    
☐labelling  of  data  tables  (e.g.  headers)    
☐language  is  concise,  clear,  familiar,  and  precise  
☐Font  and  style  consistent  throughout  the  report  for  section  headings,  subheadings,  and  
text  
☐Tables/Figures/Graphs  &  Captions  not  split  across  pages  
☐Report  is  well  structured  and  clear  
☐Report  is  no  more  than  12  pages  long  
☐The  investigation  has  labels  for  most  section  (Data,  Graphs,  Calculation,  Analysis)  
☐  Labels  are  included  on  tables  and  graphs,  descriptive  titles,  units,  error  bars  and  numbers  
are  given  for  graphs  and  tables  (Table  1,  Graph  1,  etc).