IBDP Chemistry IA and Lab Report Rubric & Checklists This document should be referred to every time you have to write a lab report.
Adapted from Angelique Hiscox on Chem OCC (2015) and American International School of Bucharest
1
IBDP Chemistry Internal Assessment
• •
• •
•
The major piece of assessment in Group 4 subjects, in addition to the exams, is the Lab Investigation. The final IA task (a 10 hour individual investigation, chosen, designed and carried out by you) to be completed in Grade 12. It will count as 20% of your final IBDP Grade. All labs and reports you are asked to complete in this class are designed to help you build the necessary skills to carry out this task to the best of your ability. The final IA Lab Investigation is marked using 5 criteria: Personal Engagement Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication
•
You will have opportunity to practice each criteria on its own or in combination with other criteria as progress through the course.
Personal engagement
2 (8%)
• •
Exploration 6 (25%)
Analysis 6 (25%)
Evaluation 6 (25%)
Communication 4 (17%)
Total 24 (100%)
This document details what is required to achieve the best grade possible for each criteria. It is long, but in the beginning just focus on the criteria being assessed for each lab.
2
https://i-‐biology.net/category/ibdp-‐biology/lab-‐work-‐internal-‐assessment/
3
Personal engagement
This criterion assesses the extent to which you engage with the exploration and makes it your own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. These could include addressing personal interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation. Mark Descriptor 0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1
The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.
There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation. The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
2
The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.
There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
This section is very much tied to the exploration section rather than being a section in its own right in your lab report. Most of the evidence for personal engagement will appear in your introduction or background information and in your method. When deciding on a topic of investigation research should first be done to make sure there is enough literature to support your investigation. The topic chosen should be unique and your introduction should show how the topic is relevant to you. Third person is the correct form for a scientific paper but first person can be used in one paragraph to show your connection to the topic. When choosing a research topic and writing an introduction ask yourself the following questions? • Is this experiment just replicating another? – if the answer is yes then its not suitable • Is this topic worthy of investigation? -‐-‐-‐ if the answer is no then its not suitable • Is there enough literature to support my investigation? – in text referencing should be used with a sufficient number of sources of information. Writing Research Questions The Research Question should be clearly stated with the reason for its investigation, as part of the introduction. The research question should be sharply focused and refer to both the independent variable and the dependent variable. Poor Research Question • To investigate the impact of concentration on reaction rate”
Good Research Question • To investigate the impact of the concentration of hydrochloric acid on its reaction rate with calcium carbonate by monitoring the pressure over time as carbon dioxide is produced.
4
Exploration
This criterion assesses the extent to which you establish the scientific context for the work, state a clear and focused research question and use concepts and techniques appropriate to the Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.
Mark
0
1–2
Descriptor The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
The topic of the investigation is identified and a research question of some relevance is stated but it is not focused. The background information provided for the investigation is superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation.
The methodology of the investigation is only appropriate to address the research question to a very limited extent since it takes into consideration few of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
The report shows evidence of limited awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation*.
The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research question is described.
3–4
The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.
The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
The report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.*
5–6
The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research question is clearly described.
The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.
The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.*
5
Example Format for Exploration Section
Title: ‘ The effect changing x has on y’ or ‘How x affects y’
Background Information: including any equations and reactions or other scientific information necessary to understand the purpose of the investigation. Explain how your investigation links to the curriculum. Include a justification for your design, relating to (as much possible-‐ do not make it up) personal significance, interest and curiosity. This section should be in your own words. Use citations where appropriate. Note: This section is not intended to include any discussion of your conclusion or possible results.
Research Question (included in the introduction): must refer to both the independent and the dependent variables
Variables: • State independent variable (what you decided to change/investigate) • State the range that you will be investigating (should have a range of at least 5 levels) • Justify why you chose this independent variable and this specific range • Explain why this is appropriate and relevant relative to the research question of the goal of the investigation • State dependent variable (what you are measuring/gathering data on) • Clarify the technique that you will be using to collect this data • Explain why this is an appropriate technique (if applicable) • State all relevant control variables (the other factors that my affect your results) • Describe what your significant control variables are • Explain how you will keep each constant in the experiment and/or how you will monitor each variable • This control should be apparent and referenced in the procedure! Materials: • Provide a list of all equipment/materials needed • Select appropriate equipment (meaning, do not use a beaker to measure volume) • List the quantity you require of each material (you should detail trial runs to calculate how much you would need in order to perform all of your trials) • List any sizes of equipment, as appropriate (e.g. 50cm3 burette) • List uncertainties with equipment (ex: electronic mass balance ± 0.001g) – see separate handling errors and uncertainties document. • Include a diagram where appropriate of your setup
Ethical, Safety, or Environmental Issues: • Go through your materials list and acknowledge anything that has different ethical, safety, or environmental considerations (the MSDS sheet will have safety data for chemicals) • Think about the manipulation and disposal of your different materials • If there are no ethical/safety/environmental considerations, you should at least acknowledge and maybe justify this. 6
Method: • State the need for a trial run • Your trial runs should be acknowledged and the information you obtain from there should be documented in your report (ex: if you learned during your trial runs that you needed to change the range of your independent variable/concentration of one of the chemicals, this should be reflected in your report – it looks good) • Include a step-‐by-‐step procedure • Make sure that when you reference previous steps, you are careful to reference the correct ones • Mention how you are controlling variables (do not directly repeat what you wrote earlier in the variables section, but acknowledge where you are addressing controls) • Carry out the appropriate number of trials (at least 3) over an appropriate range of the independent variable of you are investigating a trend (5 is good) and justify your choice.
Any diagrams, tables and graphs in this section should be numbered and titled (e.g. Table 1a or Graph 2) TOP TIP: As you carry out your investigation, make notes beside the steps in your method where assumptions have been made/errors could be made/controls have been put in place as best as possible but do not eliminate a possible issue/observations made at crucial points. These notes will help you in your qualitative data and your evaluation. 7
Analysis
This criterion assesses the extent to which you report provides evidence that you have selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion. Mark
Descriptor
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to the research question.
1–2
Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion.
The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
The processed data is incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete. The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question.
3–4
Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing.
The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question can be deduced. 5–6
The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question.
Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy required to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent with the experimental data.
The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
•
You ensure you are collecting sufficient quantitative data by deciding on what is sufficient in your method (e.g. 5 different runs of the variable, 3 repeats etc -‐ whatever is needed to allow you to generate a conclusion to your research question)
8
Raw data • Record qualitative and quantitative data • Use data tables. They should be numbered if you have more than one, for easy reference • Data tables should have descriptive titles NOT “Data Processing” or “Raw Data” or “Data Collection”. INSTEAD, something like ‘Masses of different substances’, ‘Qualitative observations during the reaction between Magnesium and Oxygen.” • Columns need to have descriptive headings -‐ NOT “Trial 1”, INSTEAD, “Mass of Mg, Trial 1” • Column headings need to have units • DO NOT put the units beside the measurements (e.g. do not write 1.00g, 2.25g each time) • Column headings need to have uncertainties (see uncertainties document) • DO NOT put uncertainties beside the measurements (see above) • You should only use another column for uncertainties if they are different for the different values in your column • At the bottom of each data table it is helpful to explain how each of your uncertainty values were chosen • Your measurements need to be recorded with the correct precision. If your temperature probe shows 20.0 oC, you record EXACTLY that, NOT 20 oC • Check that the precision of your measurements matches the precision of your uncertainty. E.g 2.34 with an uncertainty of ±0.01 match because the uncertain digit is the last one of your measurement, recording 2.3 with an uncertainty of ±0.01 is incorrect. EXAMPLE DATA COLLECTION •
Table 1: Table showing the masses of different substances in the reaction between Magnesium and Oxygen. Measurement
Mass ± 0.001 g
Mass of empty crucible 22.832 Initial Mass of Reaction Setup (Crucible 22.930 + Lid + Magnesium) Final Mass of Reaction Setup (Magnesium Oxide + other products + Crucible + Lid)
22.993
Magnesium
0.098
Calculated Mass of Oxygen added to form MgO
0.063
9
Qualitative Observations – these are often crucial to your evaluation • The Magnesium was a silvery solid metal ribbon. • The mass was weighed by placing the Magnesium inside the Crucible, placing the lid atop it and then setting this inside an analytical balance, closing the doors and obtaining the mass reading. • The mixture was heated repeatedly. Upon the first gentle heating, steam escaped from the crucible when the lid was lifted for the first time. The Magnesium had turned into a white solid which continued to glow orange periodically for 3 minutes of strong heating. • Thereafter the white external surface of the product developed black cracks and also seemed to have adhered to the interior surface of the crucible. The product was still in the shape of the original magnesium pieces. • Distilled water was added to the crucible to cover the magnesium and the crucible was heated to evaporate the water. During this heating the mixture bubbled and small black specks were seen flying out when the crucible was heated for too long due to the position of the Bunsen burner remaining unchanged. • After adding and boiling off water, the mass reading was taken and this was repeated twice after which the mass readings became constant. Thereafter the final mass of the reaction setup was recorded.
Data Processing: Calculations: • You need to show calculations for each step of your data processing. DO NOT skip any step. • All of your calculations need to first include a descriptive label. Do not just put in numbers • NOT: 𝑥 + 𝑦 + 𝑧 ÷ 3 !"#!.!"#$% !!!"#$.!"#$% !!!"#$.!"#$% !
•
INSTEAD: 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 =
•
You only need to show one sample calculation, generally under the table that contains the data obtained using the calculation. Use data from one trial to actually perform each calculation step Your calculation results must include units Your calculation results must be rounded to the correct number of significant figures according to your recorded raw data: Adding or subtracting numbers: round to smallest number of decimal places Multiplying or dividing numbers: round to smallest number of sig. figs. After each calculation step, provide a calculation label for the way in which you propagate uncertainties for that step. You only need to show one sample calculation for your uncertainty propagation (see uncertainties document). Convert % uncertainty to absolute uncertainty for your final answer Your final uncertainty should be reported to 1 significant figure. If needed, you should round your answer to match the precision of your uncertainty.
• • • • • • • • •
•
!
Don’t use 1.3 E10-‐-‐-‐3 from your calculator! Use the proper subscript (lower) and superscript (upper) forms, i.e. 3x10-‐3 is good. C4H8, H2O etc are bad!!!
10
Data Processing Tables: • All of your calculations need to be organized in one or more Data Processing Tables. These tables should still follow the requirements for putting together a table, as described in the Data Collection Section. EXAMPLE DATA PROCESSING TABLES Table 2: Table containing the processed values for calculating the empirical formula of the Magnesium and Oxygen compound Measurement Number of Moles of Magnesium (from mass of magnesium initially measured) ± 0.00004 mol Number of Moles of Oxygen (from mass of oxygen via mass difference method) ± 3% Calculated Empirical Formula of MgO Theoretical formula of MgO (from balanced equation) Samples of calculations carried out can go here. Table 3: Table containing the values for calculating the % yield of MgO Measurement Actual Mass of MgO obtained ± 0.003 g Theoretical Mass of MgO that should have been obtained Percent Yield of MgO (%) ± 2% Percent Error in Mass of MgO (%) Percent Error in Mass of Magnesium (%) Percent Error in Mass of Oxygen (%)
Value 0.00403 0.0039 MgO MgO
Value 0.161g 0.16g 99 0.9 -‐0.9 -‐1
Samples of calculations carried out can go here. Graphs: • Graphs should have descriptive titles • The graph axes need to be labeled with units and uncertainties • You graph should be scaled appropriately so that the data points fit the graph area well. • A best-‐fit line should be added • Below your graph, you should comment on the ways in which your errors seemed to have impacted your trend line • Ex: if you were expecting a linear relationship, but your data points result in more of a curve, mention this and briefly state what you will be considering in your evaluation.
11
Example Graph
12
Evaluation This criterion assesses the extent to which your report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results with regard to the research question and the accepted scientific context. Mark
Descriptor
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. A conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to the research question or is not supported by the data presented.
1–2
The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context. Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an account of the practical or procedural issues faced.
The student has outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation. A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented.
3–4
A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are described and provide evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.
The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation. 5–6
A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented.
A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.
The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
•
• •
Conclusion: Answer the research question/state the trend/state the relationship or information that you obtained from your experiment. This is directly related to the purpose of the lab – what did you find out? Instead of just stating a relationship, provide data from your lab to support your conclusion. For example, state the slope of your graph to explain what the relationship is between two variables you were investigating
13
• • •
• • • • •
You can also relate your results back to the hypothesis that you originally had and discuss the degree to which your data support or refute your hypothesis Compare your results to scientific theory – explain what you were expecting to find, based on theory and why it was supposed to be so. When measuring an already known and accepted value of a physical quantity, compare the experimental value with the textbook or literature value. Be sure to reference the literature used. If applicable, state the theoretical or expected value and compare your result to it using the % Error calculation results (see uncertainties document). You must take into account any systematic or random errors and uncertainties. A percentage error should be compared with the total estimated random error as derived from the propagation of uncertainties. Discuss whether systematic error or further random errors were encountered (for more detail on types of error see the handling errors and uncertainties document). Include comparisons of different graphs or descriptions of trends shown in graphs.
When writing a conclusion consider the following: • • • • • •
•
• •
•
Consider how large the errors or uncertainties in your results are, how confident are you in the results? Are they fairly conclusive, or are other interpretations/results possible? Was your value too low? What errors contributed to making it low? (just a list at this point) Was your value too high? What errors contributed to making it too high? Which error, of those listed, was the most significant? Are your results reliable, given the errors listed? Justify this. Make sure to use appropriate and descriptive scientific language. Evaluation: Discuss the strengths of the investigation. These could be related to • Procedure • Equipment • Number of trials • Control of variables • Range of independent variables, etc. Do not just state strengths, but describe and explain them. Also state how these strengths improved your results. Discuss the errors or assumptions of the investigation. One separate paragraph for each: • Describe error • How did it impact the data? Did it make the recorded values larger or smaller and therefore what effect would it have on the final result? DO NOT just state that it may have affected the results – specify how it affected the results and the significance of it. • How could it be improved, realistically, in our lab? • Describe improvement Possible errors/issues to improve should be related to: 14
• •
•
• Procedure • Equipment • Number of trials • Control of variables • Range of independent variables, etc. Comment on the reliability (precision) and validity (accuracy) of your results. State and describe a possible extension to the investigation. • This cannot just be a random idea that you don’t know how it could work or is not feasible. • You actually have to provide general description of what you would do during that extension investigation. • Explain the reasons why it would be a good extension/why you would want to carry it out/what information it would give you (think of any questions that arose during the investigation, or how the impact of any possible assumptions or errors could be investigated further. Don’t forget a bibliography for all outside information, especially the information related to your scientific theory explanations.
Evaluation example – one section only. Yours will have many paragraphs like this for each error. One assumption made in reacting the magnesium ribbon in the crucible is that only magnesium oxide is formed. When the mass of the crucible is taken at the end of the experiment, it is assumed that all of the extra mass is attributed to the reaction of oxygen with magnesium to form MgO. However, at such high temperatures it is possible that some magnesium reacted with the nitrogen in the air to form magnesium nitride. This means that the measured mass is not only MgO but also in fact some magnesium nitride. This would result in our recorded mass of oxygen being higher than the actual true mass present in the crucible and increasing the ratio of oxygen in our empirical formula beyond what is actually there. In order to reduce and possibly eliminate this error, we could improve the method by adding the extra step of adding water to the crucible following heating. This can then be evaporated over the bunsen burner in order to ensure the Magnesium Nitride that was formed decomposes into Magnesium Hydroxide and ammonia. The magnesium hydroxide forms Magnesium Oxide upon further heating. This would ensure that the mass of the product measured was of the desired compound only, i.e. Magnesium Oxide. Another error….. and so on.
15
Communication
This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes.
Mark
Descriptor
0
The student’s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes.
1–2
The report is not well structured and is unclear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or disorganized way.
The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information.
There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions*. 3–4
The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.
The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.
The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding.
*For example, incorrect/missing labelling of graphs, tables, images; uses of units, decimal places
• • • • • •
Organize your sections clearly, with labels Structure your report in a logical way Organize your paragraph to include one main idea/topic per paragraph. Do not just jumble all kinds of information into one huge paragraph. Use correct scientific language. Be specific and unambiguous. Shorter sentences are often clearer. Proof-‐read your work for any errors.
By using the example format structures given in this guide you will be able to write a well-‐-‐-‐structured and clear report.
16