Research question and IA Assessment rubric

1. Research Question: What is a research question?
Research Question
 Must have IV and DV
 Must be focus and specific
 Must be measurable and quantifiable
 Relationship between both variables
 Independent variable must be quantifiable
Not a research question. (We cannot compare 2 different Independent variable, comparing vit C content in apple
and orange
 Which antacid pills, pill A or pill B contain more calcium to neutralize stomach acid?
 To investigate which type of carbonated drinks, Pepsi, Coke, Sprite, Lemonade or 7up is more acidic/lower
pH
 To compare which fruits, lemon or orange contain more vitamin C content.
 To investigate which type of plastic release most PCB chemicals into water.
 To investigate how long it takes to decompose different organic waste.
 Which type of seeds, peas or long bean seeds will germinate faster in the presence of light?
 Which pond, or type of water (sea, fresh water, lake) contain more dissolved oxygen content?
Changing it to a research question, but still a poor research question (Dependent variable not clear)
 To investigate how the presence of oxalate content in pills affect its ability to neutralize stomach acid.
 To investigate the effect of temperature on the acidicity of carbonated drinks, Pepsi, Coke, Sprite,
Lemonade or 7up.
 To investigate how the concentration of impurity X found in carbonated drinks, Pepsi, Coke, Sprite,
Lemonade or 7up affect their acidity.
 To compare how the duration of storage over time affect the vitamin C content found in lemon and orange
 To investigate how cooking temperature on plastic affect the leaching of PCB chemicals into water.
 To investigate the effect of growth hormone (concentration) on the germination rate of different seeds
under the presence of light.
 To investigate the effect of UV B radiation on the growth rate of African Violet, grown under plant light
house.
Changing it to a better research question (Dependent variable clear)
 To investigate how the presence of oxalate content in pills affect its ability to neutralize stomach acid
measured using pH sensor
 To investigate effect of temperature on the acidity of carbonated drinks, Pepsi, Coke, Sprite, Lemonade or
7up measured using a pH sensor
 To investigate how the concentration of impurity X found in carbonated drinks, Pepsi, Coke, Sprite,
Lemonade or 7up affect their acidity using titration method.
 To compare how the duration of storage over time affect the vitamin C content found in lemon and orange,
measured using iodometric titration technique.
 To investigate how cooking temperature on plastic affect the leaching of PCB chemicals into water,
measured using Mass Spectrometer.
 To investigate the effect of growth hormone (concentration) on the germination rate of different seeds, by
measuring the root length over 2 week period

2.  To investigate the effect of UV B radiation on the growth rate of African Violet, grown under plant light
house, by direct combustion method/or measuring the size of leaves.
Examples of poor research question
 How will changing concentration affect rate of reaction?
 How will changing temperature affect rate of reaction?
 How will changing surface area affect rate of diffusion?
Example of good research question
 How will changing concentration of hydrochloric acid affect the rate of pressure change due to hydrogen
gas measured using pressure sensor in a reaction between hydrochloric acid and magnesium ribbon ?
 How will changing concentration of salt (sodium chloride) affect the rate of conductivity change due to its
diffusion across the Visking tubing measured using a conductivity sensor ?
 To investigate the effect of temperature on dissociation constant/ionic product Kw of water measure using a
pH sensor.
Poor Dependent variable – Too general and not focus/specific
Dependent variable - Rate of reaction
- Growth rate of plant
- Germination rate of seed
- Mass change of plants
Good Dependent variable
Rate of reaction can be defined more specifically or focus
Dependent variable – Rate of conductivity change due to diffusion of NaCl across a Visking Tubing measured
using pH sensor
Rate of pressure change due hydrogen gas released measured using pressure sensor
Rate of volume oxygen gas collected measured using oxygen sensor
Rate of absorbance change due to the formation of starch/iodine solution measured using a
colorimeter
Rate of conductivity change due to diffusion of NaCl across agar tube measured using
conductivity sensor

3. The internal assessment criteria
The new assessment model uses five criteria to assess the final report of the individual investigation with the following raw
marks and weightings assigned:
Personal
engagement
Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication Total
2 6 6 6 4 24
Personal engagement
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their 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 Report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1 Evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
Justification given for choosing the RQ and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.
Little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
2 Evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
Justification given for choosing the RQ and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.
Evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

4. Exploration
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work, states a clear and
focused research question and uses concepts and techniques appropriate to the DP level. Where appropriate, this criterion also
assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.
Mark Descriptor
0 Report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 Topic is identified and a RQ of some relevance is stated but it is not focused.
Background info provided is superficial or of limited relevance and doesnt aid the understanding of the context of investigation.
Methodology is only appropriate to address the RQ 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.
Shows evidence of limited awareness of significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to methodology of investigation.
3–4 Topic is identified and a relevant but not fully focused RQ is described.
Background info provided is mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.
Methodology is mainly appropriate to address the RQ 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.
Shows evidence of some awareness of significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of investigation.
5–6 Topic is identified and a relevant and fully focused RQ is clearly described.
Background info provided is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.
Methodology is highly appropriate to address the RQ 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.
Shows evidence of full awareness of significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of investigation.

5. Analysis
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has selected, recorded,
processed and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.
Mark Descriptor
0 Report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 Report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to the RQ.
Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion.
Shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on analysis.
Processed data is incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete.
3–4 Report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to RQ.
Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but there are significant inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in processing.
Shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on analysis.
Processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the RQ can be deduced.
5–6 Report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to RQ.
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 experimental data.
Shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on analysis.
Processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the RQ can be deduced.

6. Evaluation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s 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 Report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 Conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to RQ or is not supported by data presented.
Conclusion makes superficial comparison to accepted scientific context.
Strengths and weaknesses, such as limitations of data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an account of the
practical or procedural issues faced.
Outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions for improvement and extension of investigation.
3–4 Conclusion is described which is relevant to RQ and supported by data presented.
Conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to accepted scientific context.
Strengths and weaknesses, such as limitations of data and sources of error, are described and provide evidence of some awareness of
the methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.
Described some realistic and relevant suggestions for improvement and extension of investigation.
5–6 Detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to RQ and fully supported by data presented.
Conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to accepted scientific context.
Strengths and weaknesses, such as limitations of data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of
the methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.
Discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for improvement and extension of investigation.

7. 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 Report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
1–2 Presentation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes.
Report is not well structured and is unclear: the necessary info on focus, process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or
disorganized way.
Understanding of the focus, process and outcomes is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant info.
Many errors in the use of subject-specific terminology and conventions*.
3–4 Presentation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.
Report is well structured and clear: the necessary info on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
Relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.
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; use of units, decimal places. For issues of referencing
and citations refer to the “Academic honesty” section in the guide.

8. IA Criteria
Criteria Aspects
Level Achieved
( )
Comment
Marks obtained
(Max Marks: 2)
Personal
engagement
Justifying the
choice of
research
question
Demonstrates
personal
significance,
interest or
curiosity.
Evidence of
personal input
and initiative in
the designing,
implementation
or presentation.
Criteria Aspects
Level Achieved
( )
Comment
Marks obtained
(Max Marks: 6)
Exploration
Topic of
investigation is
well identified.
Relevant, clear
and fully
focused research
question.
Appropriate
background
information.
Appropriate
methodology to
address the
research
question.
Relevance ,
reliability and
sufficiency of
the collected
data.
Evidences of
full awareness
of the significant
safety, ethical or
environmental
issues .

9. Criteria Aspects
Level
Achieved
( )
Comment
Marks obtained
(Max Marks: 6)
Analysis
Relevant and
sufficient
quantitative data .
Relevant and
sufficient
qualitative raw
data.
Appropriate and
sufficient data
processing.
Impact of
measurement
uncertainty on the
analysis.
Interpretation of
processed data.
Valid and detailed
conclusion.
Criteria Aspects
Level
Achieved
( )
Comment Marks obtained
(Max Marks: 6)
Evaluation Described and
justified conclusion
relevant to research
question.
Described and
justified conclusion
relevant to
scientific context.
Strengths of
investigation w.r.t
to limitation of the
data and sources of
error.
Weakness of
investigation w.r.t
limitation of the
data and sources of
error
Clear understanding
of methodological
issues.
Realistic and
relevant
suggestions for the
improvement.

10. Criteria Aspects
Level
Achieved
( )
Comment Marks obtained
(Max Marks: 4)
Communication
Well structured
and clear
presentation of
investigation.
Presentation of
information is
focussed, well
processed and
coherent.
Presentation of
information is
relevant, concise
and allows ready
understanding of
the process and
outcomes.
Use of subject
specific
terminology and
conventions.