Suggested Outline for IB Chemistry IA Lab report: FEEDBACK SHEET

Name: Student Self-Assessment

Introduction (Personal Engagement):

This should show evidence of curiosity, personal and initiative – even if it just relates
to straightforward IB Chemistry syllabus coverage.

Key phrases:
“I wondered if…”
“I can imagine that… this might lead to …”

Personal Engagement is mostly credited for work throughout:

e.g:
Adapting a standard method in an unfamiliar way
Applying a chemical problem to the real world
Showing engagement in data collection – repeating data where appropriate (rather
than mindlessly) and carrying out more trials in areas of interest or uncertainty

Justification of your choice of research topic should avoid overlong and

contrived personal narratives.
Personal Engagement is not a required section of the report; it is actually a
holistic criterion assessed using evidence across the whole report.

Identification of the topic of the investigation

Be sure to include a descriptive title at the top of page 1.

Description of the Research Question:

Needs to be focused and relevant. It is best to phrase this as a question; make sure
that your independent and dependent variables are clearly identified.

How will X affect Y? Why?

What is the relationship between …?
What will be the effect of X on Y? At what point does this relationship break down?
What is the best way to achieve…?

Avoid the use of vague terms such as `efficiency' and `suitable'. Remember
that in chemistry the word `amount' refers to amount of substance in moles.
Can I extract X from Y? is not likely to be very successful (no quantitative data)
Which brand of X contains the most Y? is not likely to produce sufficient quantitative
data, and anyway is of commercial concern rather than chemical concern

Background information (including hypothesis if applicable)

This should clearly describe the system under investigation, including

relevant chemical equations and theoretical context directly related to the re-
search question in hand.

Avoid lengthy discussions of material that is not directly related to your

research question.
Establishing a Scientific Context:

What will this investigation tell you?

Application of theory in a real ‘wet’ experiment? Determining the best method to

establish a theoretical relationship? Seeing how theory from different topic areas
can be applied to an experiment? Seeing the extent to which a relationship can be
established when there are other hard-to-control variables at work?

Method:

Must be clearly outlined (detailed enough that someone else could follow it).
Include a labelled photo or diagram of your equipment especially if you have used
a non- standard method or adapted a standard one.
The rationale behind the method should be included:
What options for method were there?
Why was this method chosen?
Why were these stoichiometric quantities / concentrations chosen? (Prior trials,
theoretical calculations).

In most cases your method will be based on/adapted from an established

technique - the source of this method must be acknowledged with a citation.

Briefly describe in paragraph form the process of developing your methodology.

This will help explain the amount of data collected and give some insight into your
decision making (linked to PE). If there were alternative methods possible, explain
why you chose the method that you did and why the others were rejected.

A common error is to omit important details relating to items of equipment

- have you included brand name/model number, range of instrument, type, and
uncertainty (or tolerance) where appropriate?

Calibration procedures for equipment such as pH meters may, if necessary, be

included briefly in your method.
Outline any chemical hazards and risks and suitable control measures to be taken.
This will include chemical disposal (safety and environmental concerns). Cite the
MSDS (Hazcard) for this information.
Variables:

Put them in a table:

Variable How is it to be Rationale - why control is

controlled/manipulated needed and why this method
(for control – what was chosen
value will be held?)
Independent
variable
Dependent
variable
Controlled variable
Controlled variable

In the middle box you could draw a distinction between the proximate variable
(e.g. the variable you actually measure such as time for a colour change) and the
ultimate variable (the thing you actually want to know, after processing, such as
relative rate of reaction).

Rationale for methods and quantities may include ethical, safety or

environmental factors.

A common error is to identify variables in a list and then not address them
explicitly in the method.
Recording Raw Data (actual measurements recorded in lab):

Data tables need informative titles outlining what the data is (i.e. not just ‘Table
1’). All columns labelled with variables, units (in headings) and uncertainties (in
headings). Variables in full (‘initial rate’ not ‘rate’; ‘time for colour of iodine to
disappear’ not ‘time’). Record numerical data and errors to the correct no of
sf/dp. Report data with academic integrity (honesty).

QUALITATIVE data also included, ie, relevant observations, with your raw data.
VALUES of controlled variables should be included (e.g. don’t just assume room
temperature for all solutions)

Explain your rationale for estimates of uncertainties: e.g. I have used twice the
smallest increment or I’ve chosen the mid point of the data set or I’ve estimated
the time uncertainty as 0.5 s as a reasonable reaction time

Graphs obtained using a sensor which show no processing are raw data.
Data obtained from secondary sources:
If you follow this route, DO NOT ASSUME that all errors/uncertainties are
negligible.

There are likely to be discussion points surrounding the limitations of the data and
the methodology used.

Similarly, do not assume there are no ethical concerns surrounding data. Where is
it from? Who is it available to?

Processed Data (calculations made):

Ensure numerical data has been appropriately and correctly processed and units
shown in a sample calculation (otherwise this will impact on your conclusion).

You need not do to reams of processing – do an example including propagation of

uncertainties and then tabulate the rest.

Absolute uncertainties should be stated to 1 s.f. (if random uncertainty more than
2%) but 2 s.f. (if random uncertainty more than 2%).

The related quantity should be rounded to the same degree of precision, e.g. 24
±0.05 cm3 is incorrect, 24.00 ±0.05 cm3 is correct.

Generally speaking, standard deviation calculations and t-tests are not appropriate
in most chemistry analyses.

Identify any outliers and decide how to treat such data points.

Labels, table headings, units, uncertainties etc. as before.

Significant Figures (or decimals) (in Raw and Processed Data):

In raw data, sig figs should be consistent with the quoted uncertainty, and should
be consistent within a given column. (Don’t write the uncertainty is 0.1 cm3 and
then quote figures to 0.001 cm3.)

In processed data, sig figs should be consistent with the uncertainty propagated to
obtain that data. (If the total uncertainty is 10%, you can’t quote 5 sig figs in your
answer.)
Presentation of Data (Graphs etc):

Graphs should be a full page.

Axes labels, graph titles (NOT ‘graph 1’, but a meaningful title).

Don’t assume MS Excel will give you the best marker points (they are usually too
large), scale, axes, trendline etc. All these things can be edited. If in doubt draw it
by hand and scan it in.
Analysing Data:

Don’t invent correlation where none exists!

Don’t use the phrase ‘positive correlation’. If it is directly proportional (straight

line through origin) say so.

Don’t use ‘exponential’ or hyperbolic unless it really is.

If you need to describe it in some detail, then do so: At values of X below 10, Y
increases steadily with X. At higher values of X, the increase of Y slows down.

Use data to support conclusions.

Remember the graph line is your final statement of the pattern, NOT the raw data.

Sometimes it is helpful to include graphs with and without anomalous results

included, to show the difference they make.

One useful purpose of error bars is to help you determine a plausible maximum
and minimum gradient for your data.

Conclusions can be tentative: I suggest there is a relationship between X and Y, but

I have only established it for three values of X.

Interpretation of Conclusions/Analysis:

You may be trying to establish a known relationship between variables. You can
apply theoretical chemistry to this. HOWEVER, if your data doesn’t quite fit, think
about reasons (non-standard conditions, other confounding variables, etc).

If your investigation is open-ended and you really don’t know the ‘right’ answer –
it is OK to speculate. Often there are multiple plausible explanations, which might
lead to different answers. Sometimes several factors are at work, pushing the data
in different directions. Don’t overstate any apparent trends.

Consider the reliability (precision) of your results between trials and the validity
(accuracy) of your results in comparison to the literature (or manufacturer's
value(s)) or background theory (if any).
Determine whether your answer is close enough to the literature value (within the
limits of your random uncertainties). If it is not – you should suggest possible
systematic errors.

Were there any methodological issues that prevented you reaching a firm
conclusion?

Avoid merely giving a prose description of your data.

Don't just include Excel line/curve equations and/or regression coefficients

without commenting on their significance.

Evaluation and Improvements:

Use a table for this:

Weakness/Limitation What effect might it Improvement to remove this

have on the weakness
data/method?
(mention here
random/systematic)

Many students only identify procedural weaknesses (why the planned method was
not properly implemented); be sure to identify any relevant methodological
weaknesses (why the designed method itself was flawed or limited).

Identify and evaluate the relative magnitude of the major source(s) of random
and/or systematic error.

This should focus on reducing the magnitude of the major source(s) of random
and/or systematic error.

Classic wrong answer: You establish that the random uncertainties only account
for a 2% error. However, the answer you achieve is 25% away from the literature
value. It is therefore POINTLESS to assert that decreasing the random uncertainty
(e.g. with more precise glassware) is worthwhile. Instead you should be looking for
systematic uncertainties.
Extensions to the Investigation:

What could you usefully do to extend your investigation? Other variables, more
data within a certain range, alternative method?

Try to focus on questions that remain unanswered from your investigation

and be very specific in your suggestions for extension or further investigation.

Bibliography must be included.

Cite diagrams, literature values, theoretical background, MSDS/Hazcards

(especially if it goes beyond syllabus).

Communication

Structure of report

Don't forget to insert page numbers.

Ensure that your method contains sufficient detail that another student could
repeat exactly what you did to obtain similar results.

Your report must contain at least one worked example calculation (including
error analysis), so the reader can understand how the data was processed.

Inclusion of appendices to circumvent the 12 page limit is not permitted.

Cover sheets and tables of contents are not required.

Ensure that information included in the background information is focused

specifically on the research question and the methodology used.

Don't include photographs or diagrams that are unnecessary (e.g. a photograph of

a common titration set-up).

Use of scientific vocabulary

Ensure that terms such as amount (moles), mass and weight are used correctly.
Technical aspects and conventions

Use of cm3 and dm3 instead of mL and L is strongly recommended.

Take care with labelling graph axes, use of units, decimal places and significant
figures.

Ensure that APA citations (both in-text and in the Works Cited list) are
handled correctly.

Carefully check that chemical formulas, equations (with state symbols) and units are
correctly formatted (superscripts, subscripts ,etc.).

Equations should be sequentially numbered - refer to the equation number

where appropriate in the body of your text.

Tables and figures (including graphs) should be sequentially numbered.

Mathematical equations can be constructed using the Equation Editor in Word.

Figures and/or tables should include a descriptive caption and citation, if

appropriate.

Useful web sites are Google Scholar and semanticscholar.org.

If you are having difficulty sourcing the information you need, you could
try posting a descriptive question on a question and answer site like the
Chemistry Stack Exchange or Quora.