| Code | Criterion | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| RD1 | The research topic is an appropriate Chemistry level for the IB DP Chemistry... | ● 1 | The topic investigates the effect of temperature on the rate of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide catalysed by manganese dioxide, which requires deeper investigation beyond a simple search and is appropriate for IB DP Chemistry. |
| RD2 | Aim is focused in its breadth, investigating at a single relationship. | ● 1 | The aim clearly focuses on a single relationship between temperature (IV) and the rate of oxygen gas production (DV). |
| RD3 | Aim wording is specific, so the reader knows exactly what the investigation is about. | ○ 0 | The aim states the variables but does not include the specific range of temperatures to be tested (e.g. 20-60 degrees C) or the units for the dependent variable measurement. |
| RD4 | Sufficiently appropriate referenced science background affecting the DV... | ● 1 | The background section includes referenced discussion of collision theory, activation energy, and the Arrhenius equation, with three in-text citations from peer-reviewed sources. |
| RD5 | Sufficiently appropriate referenced science background explaining how the IV will potentially cause changes in the DV... | ○ 0 | While collision theory is discussed in general terms, the specific mechanism by which temperature changes affect the rate of H2O2 decomposition with MnO2 catalyst is not explained with scientific references linking IV to DV. |
| RD6 | Valid hypothesis is justified by logical scientific reasoning and the chemistry is accurate and testable by the method. | ● 1 | The hypothesis predicts that increasing temperature will increase the rate of reaction, justified by collision theory and the Boltzmann distribution showing more particles exceeding activation energy at higher temperatures. |
| RD7 | Quantitative IV to be manipulated is stated and used consistently throughout the report. | ● 1 | The IV (temperature) is consistently stated in degrees Celsius throughout the report, from introduction through to conclusion. |
| RD8 | Quantitative IV to be manipulated has correct units stated. | ● 1 | Temperature is correctly stated with units of degrees Celsius throughout. |
| RD9 | Quantitative IV concept is correctly applied to this specific experiment. | ● 1 | Temperature is correctly identified as the quantitative IV that will be systematically varied, and its effect on the rate of gas production is appropriately linked to the hypothesis. |
| RD10 | Quantitative IV choice of values is justified. | ○ 0 | The choice of temperature values (20, 30, 40, 50, 60 degrees C) is stated but not justified. No explanation is given for why this range was selected or why it is appropriate for this reaction. |
| RD11 | Quantitative IV is increased sequentially by intervals of equal values... | ● 1 | The IV is increased in equal intervals of 10 degrees C (20, 30, 40, 50, 60 degrees C). |
| RD12 | Quantitative DV to be measured is stated consistently when referenced throughout the report. | ● 1 | The DV (volume of oxygen gas produced in 60 seconds) is stated consistently throughout the report. |
| RD13 | Quantitative DV to be measured has correct units stated. | ● 1 | The DV is correctly stated with units of cm3 throughout. |
| RD14 | Quantitative DV is described and the chemistry is accurate. | ● 1 | The DV is described as the volume of oxygen gas collected via water displacement over a fixed time period, with accurate chemistry explaining the catalytic decomposition of H2O2. |
| RD15 | Quantitative DV choice of measurements is justified and the chemistry is accurate. | ○ 0 | While the DV measurement method (gas syringe collection) is stated, there is no justification for why this method was chosen over alternatives such as water displacement or mass loss methods. |
| RD16 | All Controlled Variables (CV) are identified in a table, with no obvious omissions. | ● 1 | A controlled variables table is present listing concentration of H2O2, volume of H2O2, mass of MnO2 catalyst, collection time, and atmospheric pressure. |
| RD17 | CV table with a column identifying the 'Value Maintained'. | ● 1 | Each CV has a corresponding value maintained column with specific values (e.g. 0.50 mol/dm3 H2O2, 25.0 cm3 volume, 0.20 g MnO2). |
| RD18 | CV table with a column for the 'Potential Effects'. | ○ 0 | The potential effects column is present but gives only generic effects (e.g. 'would affect results') rather than specific directional effects on the DV. |
| RD19 | CV table with a column for the 'Method of Control'. | ● 1 | A method of control column is present with specific methods for each CV (e.g. water bath for temperature, volumetric flask for solution preparation). |
| RD20 | Provide a labelled and assembled apparatus diagram... | ○ 0 | No apparatus diagram is provided. Only a photograph of the setup is included, which does not meet the requirement for a clear labelled diagram. |
| RD21 | All Equipment, sizes, absolute uncertainties, and amounts are listed in the Equipment List. | ○ 0 | The equipment list is missing the uncertainty for the gas syringe and does not state the specific molarity values for all concentrations used. The thermometer range is also not specified. |
| RD22 | Described the trial runs and giving details of initial problems specific to this experiment... | ● 1 | Trial runs are described with specific problems encountered including gas leakage from loose tubing connections, leading to the modification of using petroleum jelly on all joints. |
| RD23 | 3rd person, past tense, step-by-step method to carry out the investigation. | ● 1 | The method is written in third person past tense in a numbered step-by-step format (e.g. 'The water bath was heated to the required temperature'). |
| RD24 | Method has sufficient procedural fine detail to ensure all variables are controlled... | ○ 0 | The method lacks specific detail on how the H2O2 solution was brought to the target temperature before adding the catalyst, and does not specify waiting times between trials. |
| RD25 | Experiment is planned to contain at least five changes to the IV... | ● 1 | Five changes to the independent variable are planned (20, 30, 40, 50, 60 degrees C). |
| RD26 | Health and Safety considerations are recorded in a Risk Assessment table. | ● 1 | A risk assessment table is present covering H2O2 (irritant), MnO2 (harmful if inhaled), and the exothermic nature of the reaction. |
| RD27 | Risk Assessment table contains explicitly referenced CLEAPSS Hazcard numbers... | ○ 0 | CLEAPSS Hazcard numbers are not referenced. The risk assessment identifies hazards but does not cite specific Hazcard references for the chemicals used. |
| RD28 | Risk Assessment table contains CLEAPSS Hazcard numbers for disposal of materials... | ○ 0 | No disposal methods from CLEAPSS Hazcards are referenced. The report mentions 'dispose of waste solutions down the sink' without referencing appropriate disposal guidance. |
| Code | Criterion | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| AN1 | Sufficient raw data is recorded in a Results Table, with IV in the first column and DV repeats in subsequent columns. | ● 1 | Raw data is recorded in a clear results table with temperature (IV) in the first column and three repeat DV measurements in subsequent columns. |
| AN2 | All Raw and Processed Results tables are titled with specific detail. | ● 1 | All tables have specific titles (e.g. 'Table 1: Raw data showing volume of O2 gas collected at varying temperatures'). |
| AN3 | Data table column headings include 'Measurable' units. | ● 1 | All column headings include measurable units in brackets (e.g. 'Temperature (degrees C)', 'Volume of O2 (cm3)'). |
| AN4 | Data table column headings include Instrumental Uncertainties. | ○ 0 | The raw data table includes instrumental uncertainties for temperature but the gas syringe uncertainty is missing from the DV column heading. |
| AN5 | Instrumental Uncertainties are kept to 1 significant figure. | ○ 0 | The uncertainty for temperature is given as +/-0.50 degrees C (2 significant figures). This should be expressed as +/-0.5 degrees C (1 significant figure). |
| AN6 | Data tables are formatted adequately, making it easy to read. | ● 1 | Tables are well-formatted with adequate column widths, legible font size, and do not break across pages. |
| AN7 | All Instrumental Uncertainties from measuring devices are justified. | ○ 0 | The justification for instrumental uncertainties is incomplete. The thermometer uncertainty is stated but not justified as being from the smallest readable division of the instrument. |
| AN8 | Decimal Points of raw and processed data are consistent with Instrumental Uncertainties. | ● 1 | Decimal places in raw data are consistent with stated instrumental uncertainties (temperature to 1 d.p. matching +/-0.5 degrees C). |
| AN9 | Qualitative observations Before, During, and After are recorded. | ○ 0 | Qualitative observations are only recorded during the experiment. No observations are recorded before or after the reaction process. |
| AN10 | Qualitative observations are backed up by photographic evidence. | ○ 0 | No photographic evidence is included to support qualitative observations. |
| AN11 | Attempts are made to repeat measurements within Instrumental Uncertainty limits. | ● 1 | Multiple repeat measurements are recorded (3 trials per temperature) showing attempts to achieve consistency within instrumental uncertainty limits. |
| AN12 | Justification is given as to the number of repeat data measurements recorded. | ○ 0 | No justification is given for why three repeats were chosen as sufficient for this experiment. |
| AN13 | Anomalous data points are identified and removal justified. | ● 1 | One anomalous data point at 40 degrees C (Trial 2: 45.2 cm3 vs mean of 32.1 cm3) is identified and its removal is justified based on a suspected gas leak during collection. |
| AN14 | Any necessary calculations to process data are complete and without errors. | ● 1 | No additional processing equations are required beyond mean averaging, as the DV is directly measured. |
| AN15 | The specific 'First' chosen change in IV Value is stated for the worked example. | ● 1 | The first IV value (20 degrees C) is clearly stated as the dataset used for the worked example calculation. |
| AN16 | Worked example to calculate mean average using [Sum of Values/Number of Values]. | ● 1 | A worked example shows: (15.2 + 14.8 + 15.1) / 3 = 15.0 cm3, clearly demonstrating the mean average formula. |
| AN17 | Worked example to calculate Uncertainty in Repeats using [(Max-min)/2]. | ● 1 | A worked example shows: (15.2 - 14.8) / 2 = +/-0.2 cm3 for the uncertainty in repeats. |
| AN18 | Uncertainty in Repeats is kept consistent with the apparatus (1 sig fig). | ● 1 | The uncertainty in repeats is consistently reported to 1 significant figure throughout. |
| AN19 | Calculate a Mean Average % Instrumental Uncertainty from both IV and DV data. | ○ 0 | The percentage instrumental uncertainty calculation is shown for the DV but not for the IV (temperature). Both are required for propagation. |
| AN20 | Calculate a Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty [IV% + DV%]. | ○ 0 | The mean propagated percentage instrumental uncertainty is not calculated. The IV and DV percentage uncertainties are not summed. |
| AN21 | Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty uses lowest decimal places. | ○ 0 | Not applicable as the propagated uncertainty calculation was not completed (see AN20). |
| AN22 | Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty is quoted to 1 significant figure. | ○ 0 | Not applicable as the propagated uncertainty calculation was not completed (see AN20). |
| AN23 | An appropriate sized scatter graph. | ● 1 | The scatter graph is appropriately sized, filling approximately two-thirds of the page with no large empty spaces. |
| AN24 | Scatter graph has a Title stating the IV and DV being compared. | ● 1 | The graph is titled 'Volume of O2 gas produced vs Temperature of H2O2 decomposition'. |
| AN25 | Scatter graph contains major grid lines. | ● 1 | Major gridlines are present on both axes. |
| AN26 | Scatter graph contains labelled IV vs DV axis labels. | ● 1 | Both axes are labelled with the correct variables (Temperature on x-axis, Volume of O2 on y-axis). |
| AN27 | Scatter graph contains IV vs DV 'Measurable' axis units. | ● 1 | Both axes include units (degrees C and cm3 respectively). |
| AN28 | Scatter graph contains IV vs DV axis Instrumental Uncertainty values. | ○ 0 | The axis labels do not include the instrumental uncertainty values alongside the units. |
| AN29 | Scatter graph uses crosses to plot data points. | ○ 0 | Data points are plotted as filled circles rather than crosses. IB convention requires crosses for data points on scatter graphs. |
| AN30 | Scatter graph trendline gradient equation shows the Final Relationship. | ● 1 | A trendline is present with the equation y = 0.82x - 1.4 displayed, showing the gradient of the final relationship. |
| AN31 | Scatter graph trendline has an R2 value given. | ● 1 | The R-squared value of 0.987 is displayed on the graph adjacent to the trendline. |
| AN32 | Horizontal uncertainty bars for IV are added to the scatter graph. | ○ 0 | Horizontal uncertainty bars for the IV (temperature) are not present on the scatter graph. |
| AN33 | Vertical uncertainty bars for DV are added to the scatter graph. | ○ 0 | Vertical uncertainty bars using the uncertainty in repeats values are not present on the scatter graph. |
| AN34 | A Maximum gradient trendline is calculated with associated equation. | ○ 0 | No maximum gradient trendline is calculated or displayed. |
| AN35 | A Minimum gradient trendline is calculated with associated equation. | ○ 0 | No minimum gradient trendline is calculated or displayed. |
| AN36 | Trendline equations for Maximum and Minimum gradients are shown on the graph. | ○ 0 | No trendline equations for maximum and minimum gradients are shown (see AN34 and AN35). |
| AN37 | Uncertainty in Final Relationship is calculated by [(Max gradient - Min gradient)/2]. | ○ 0 | The uncertainty in final relationship is not calculated as no max/min gradient analysis was performed. |
| AN38 | State Uncertainty in Final Relationship units [Y units/X units]. | ○ 0 | No units are stated for the uncertainty in final relationship (see AN37). |
| AN39 | State Uncertainty in Final Relationship to 1 Significant Figure. | ○ 0 | The uncertainty in final relationship is not stated to 1 significant figure (see AN37). |
| AN40 | Convert Uncertainty in Final Relationship into %Uncertainty. | ○ 0 | The percentage uncertainty in final relationship is not calculated (see AN37). |
| AN41 | State %Uncertainty in Final Relationship to 1 Significant Figure. | ○ 0 | The percentage uncertainty is not stated to 1 significant figure (see AN37). |
| Code | Criterion | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO1 | The research question is answered by describing the IV-DV relationship gradient trend. | ● 1 | The conclusion describes a positive linear relationship: as temperature increases, the volume of O2 produced increases proportionally. |
| CO2 | The IV-DV relationship gradient equation is explicitly stated. | ● 1 | The gradient equation y = 0.82x - 1.4 is restated in the conclusion. |
| CO3 | The IV-DV relationship gradient units are quoted in the conclusion. | ● 1 | The gradient units are quoted as cm3/degrees C in the conclusion. |
| CO4 | Comment on gradient R2 value in terms of strength of correlation. | ● 1 | The R-squared value of 0.987 is discussed as showing a strong positive correlation (above 0.7 threshold). |
| CO5 | Accuracy of relationship is justified based on cited research. | ○ 0 | The accuracy of the relationship is discussed but no comparison to published literature values or similar studies is cited to validate the findings. |
| CO6 | Hypothesis is re-stated and compared with final results... | ● 1 | The hypothesis is restated and compared with results. The positive linear relationship was correctly predicted. The underlying chemistry of increased kinetic energy leading to more successful collisions is re-explained with in-text citation. |
| CO7 | % Uncertainty in Final Relationship from min-max trendlines is re-stated. | ○ 0 | The percentage uncertainty in final relationship is not restated in the conclusion because the max/min gradient analysis was not performed. |
| CO8 | The magnitude of the %Uncertainty to potentially change the trend direction is commented on. | ○ 0 | No discussion of whether the uncertainty could potentially change the trend direction, as the uncertainty analysis was not completed. |
| CO9 | Any concerns making the result invalid have been commented on. | ● 1 | The conclusion acknowledges that without a full uncertainty analysis, the validity of the precise gradient value cannot be fully confirmed, but the overall positive trend is reliable based on the R-squared value. |
| Code | Criterion | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| EV1 | Strengths of methodology are highlighted, based on trial run modifications if possible. | ● 1 | Strengths are identified including the use of a water bath for consistent temperature control and the modification from trial runs to use petroleum jelly on joints. |
| EV2 | Equipment choice is evaluated to reduce Instrumental Uncertainties. | ○ 0 | Equipment is discussed but no specific alternative equipment with lower instrumental uncertainties is suggested. |
| EV3 | Comparison of Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty vs % Uncertainty in Final Relationship. | ○ 0 | The propagated instrumental uncertainty is not compared with the actual uncertainty in the final relationship, as neither calculation was completed. |
| EV4 | Major Methodological improvements suggested to improve accuracy by removing Systematic errors. | ● 1 | A systematic error in heat loss during transfer of H2O2 from water bath to reaction flask is identified, with the suggestion of using an insulated reaction vessel. |
| EV5 | Weaknesses in method stated in a table with a column for 'Relative significance'. | ○ 0 | Weaknesses are listed but not in a table format with a relative significance column. They are presented as prose paragraphs instead. |
| EV6 | Weaknesses in method stated in a table with a column for 'Error Type'. | ○ 0 | Error types are not categorised as systematic or random in a structured format. |
| EV7 | Weaknesses in method stated in a table with a column for 'Problems'. | ○ 0 | Problems are discussed in prose but not organised in a table with a dedicated problems column. |
| EV8 | Weaknesses in method stated in a table with a column for 'Suggested Solutions'. | ○ 0 | Solutions are suggested but not presented in a table format alongside the corresponding problems. |
| EV9 | Improvements suggest increased Repeated data points and removal of outliers to reduce Random Errors. | ● 1 | The improvement section discusses increasing repeats from 3 to 5 trials to allow more confident outlier identification and reduce the range of uncertainty in repeats. |
| EV10 | Improvements suggested to expand the IV data range. | ○ 0 | A suggestion to extend the temperature range is made ('could test higher temperatures') but no specific values are proposed and feasibility is not discussed. |
| EV11 | Improvements suggested to narrow the IV data intervals. | ○ 0 | No suggestion is made to narrow the IV data intervals from the current 10 degrees C steps. |
| EV12 | Minor Methodological improvements suggested to improve accuracy. | ● 1 | Minor improvements include using a more precise gas syringe, allowing longer equilibration time in the water bath, and pre-rinsing equipment with distilled water. |
| EV13 | Suggested extension investigations that will adapt and improve this specific investigation. | ○ 0 | An extension investigation is suggested (testing with different catalysts) but it does not build upon the existing experiment to improve the accuracy of the original aim. |
Dear Student,
Your IB Chemistry Internal Assessment report has been scored. Here is a summary of your results:
IB Score: 12.5 / 24
Binary Score: 47 / 91 criteria met
Research & Design: 3.9/6 (18/28 criteria met)
Analysis: 2.8/6 (19/41 criteria met)
Conclusion: 4.0/6 (6/9 criteria met)
Evaluation: 1.8/6 (4/13 criteria met)
Your full results, including per-criterion feedback, are available at the link below:
Reference code: RPT-X7K2. Please quote this code in any correspondence about your results.
Results emailed automatically once scoring completes.