Guidance for the Independent Investigation in the Sciences 1. General Information The Individual Investigation is the only practical or research-based investigation that will be formally assessed during your Diploma course and contribute to your final grade (20% of your overall grade). 10 hours of practical or research work are allocated to this task and you will produces a write-up of about 6 to 12 pages (Times New Roman, Arial or Calibri, font size 11 to 12, line spacing 1.5 to 2). The Individual Investigation may take the form of a practical investigation which you will design and carry out in the lab or a research-based investigation that will use databases, simulations or modelling software as the source data. Obviously, the latter will rely not on lab work, but on computer-based work. Alternatively you could blend of any of the above approaches. Any Individual Investigation should be meaningful, good Science appropriate for the IB Diploma level. As such, you will be expected to carry out a well-designed, manageable investigation in a thorough manner. 2. Assessment criteria The assessment uses five criteria to assess your report for the Individual Investigation with the following maximum levels. The highest possible levels total is 24. Personal engagement, PE Exploration, EX Analysis, A Evaluation, EV 2 6 6 6 4 Communication, C Consistent with instructions from the IB, your teacher will be using the best-fit approach in deciding the appropriate mark for a particular criterion. The teacher s marking of all II work will be validated by the IB through external moderation after the final submission of all II reports. The assessment criteria with all markbands and relevant descriptors are included at the end of document. The criteria Exploration, Analysis and Evaluation are more relevant to specific sections of your report. Personal engagement and Communication are applied to the report as a whole which is why more general comments are included below. a) Personal engagement, PE This criterion assesses the extent to which you engage with your investigation and make it your own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. Regarding the designing, implementation and presentation of the investigation, these could include showing evidence of: personal interests & curiosity justification of your investigation relevance to local or global issues enthusiasm independent & creative thinking personal initiative b) Communication, C This criterion assesses whether your investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes. You will aim for the following: clear presentation appropriate headings relevant information and data well structured, coherent report concise writing appropriate and correct use of subject-specific terminology correct and consistent use of decimal places & uncertainties correct use of units (e.g. cm 3, not ml) clear, helpful annotations of tables & graphs correct use of referencing style, including intext citations and quotes (MLA style) appropriate and correct use of subject-specific conventions report not exceeding page limit graphs, data & background information facilitate a ready understanding
3. Suggested structure for reports based on practical Independent Investigations 1 Title This should be a clear title; specifically indicating what your work is all about, thus establishing a sense of uniqueness. The degree of saturation of lipids in refined and un-refined Ghanaian palm oil is better than Iodine number of oils. 2 Introduction 2.1 Motivation Tell the reader about the problem (observation, news item, personal experience, article, report, claim, prejudice, etc.) that caught your interest and got you thinking about carrying out a scientific investigation. Place emphasis on explaining how this problem is significant for you. 2.2 Scientific Background Information Provide details about what research you have undertaken to educate yourself about the problem specified above. Include relevant scientific information. Reference sources as appropriate, but avoid referencing facts that are common knowledge, e.g. the world is spherical (wikipedia). This section ought to enhance your (and the reader s) understanding of the scientific context and, equally importantly, establish what specific insight you were not able to gain from your initial research. Building on this you should explain how and why your investigation will be worth your time because it will address this lack of information. This, ultimately, is the justification for your investigation. Consequently your 3 Research Question should, in a perfectly logical manner, be a natural continuation of your scientific reasoning. The RQ needs to be relevant (to your problem and the scientific context) and fully focused (addressing a manageable scientific question that can be adequately and thoroughly investigated [within 10 hours] and written up [within the limit of 12 pages]). Identify organisms (scientific names!) studied, chemicals and/or reactions used, or phenomena investigated. example How does the concentration of ascorbic acid and ph of the fruit juice and the amount of CO 2 produced vary with the time yeast is allowed to ferment the following fruits: orange, pineapple, grapefruit, and lemon at different temperatures? How does repeated heating affect vegetable oil? How does repeated heating (140 C for 5 minutes) and cooling (30 C for 20 minutes) of un-refined palm oil from Ghana affect its peroxide value over ten heating and cooling cycles? comments A very poor RQ. Multiple independent variables [temperature, time and type of fruit] and dependent variables [concentration of ascorbic acid, ph and amount of CO 2] have been selected. This RQ completely lacks focus because it covers too many variables, and, consequently, is entirely unmanageable. This RQ lacks focus because much specific information has been omitted. The oil used has not been identified, nor the temperature to which the oil is heated or the number of times for which the oil is heated, nor the aspect that is being measured, e.g. the peroxide value of the oil. This RQ identifies one independent variable (repeated heating and cooling) and one dependent variable (peroxide value of the oil), as well as the context (Ghana) and the substance investigated (un-refined palm oil). Good.
The research question needs to specify the independent and the dependent variable. The wording used here should be applied consistently throughout your report. E.g. avoid referring to rate of degradation of paracetamol in the RQ and identifying order of reaction of paracetamol degradation as the dependent variable in a later section. A hypothesis is not required and should not be used unless it really enhances your report. Often hypotheses create confusion, lead to a loss of focus, or remain scientifically unsubstantiated. A well written section on the scientific background information should provide enough information regarding what you want to find out, and what expectations you have, if any. 4 Methodology 4.1 Methodological Background Information and Research Having established what you aim to find out (RQ, above) you now need to consider how to go about your investigation. Again, you will need to carry out research. Identify the methods (Plural!) you considered, reference those methods and explain which one(s) you chose and why. In broad terms tell the reader how and why you needed to adapt the methods you used. 4.2 Variables 4.2.1 Independent Variable, IV This is the factor you change/manipulate/vary (often in a systematic, quantifiable manner). 4.2.2 Dependent Variable, DV This is the factor you expect to change (in a quantifiable way) in response to the above changes/manipulations/variations. 4.2.3 Controlled Variables, CVs Those are factors which (given your scientific understanding) would have an effect on your DV and which, therefore, you wish to keep constant in order to carry out a fair test. Briefly explain how the controlled variables would affect the outcome of your investigation and how you keep them constant. 4.2.4 Monitored Variables Those are factors which also would impact on your DV but which, you are not able to keep constant, e.g. air pressure, room temperature, humidity etc. While you cannot control these factors you can at least monitor them to see if there are any changes. Any changes would impact on your data analysis. Briefly explain how the monitored variables would affect the outcome of your investigation and how you monitor them. 4.3 Procedure and Apparatus / Equipment Provide details of your method. This section needs to be written in a way that would enable another person to repeat your investigation in an identical manner. Include, as appropriate, photographs, a list of chemicals (with formulae and concentrations), names of organisms, materials and equipment (indicated sizes and uncertainties for all items used to measure quantities) and a step-by-step description of what you did, and why. Uncertainties need to be realistic and must be applied consistently throughout your report. E.g. the uncertainty of a stopwatch operated by you is not ±0.01s, but ±0.1s, which corresponds to your reaction time. Explain such instances.
The range and intervals used for your IV, as well as the quantity of measurements collected for your DV (e.g. number of repeats) depend on the context. You need sufficient relevant data to answer your RQ. 4.4 Safety, Ethical or Environmental Issues In your method section document what safety, ethical or environmental consideration are relevant for your investigation and how you addressed those. Should no ethical considerations be of relevance say so. Be aware of the IB animal experimentation policy and general lab safety manuals. Title, Introduction, Research Question and Methodology are primarily used to assess you on the criterion Exploration, EX [6 marks]. You will aim to meet the following expectations: topic clearly identified background information provided is entirely relevant to the investigation clear evidence of thorough understanding of underlying Science fully focused RQ methodology for the investigation is appropriate to address the RQ methodology takes into consideration all significant factors methodology must allow for the collection of sufficient relevant and reliable data indication of anticipated data processing safety, ethical and environmental issues relevant to the methodology fully discussed. 5 Data Collection 5.1 Qualitative Data Record all observations that pertain to your investigation. Remember that these observations do not only have an effect on how your data will be interpreted. You will also refer back to these observations in your evaluation. No weakness/problem/limitation mentioned there should be speculative or appear out of nowhere. Instead, any weakness/problem/limitation should be based on a specific observation you made. 5.2 Quantitative Data Include raw data (the readings you collected, not derived values). In cases where there are very long tables of raw data only include a sample to show how you organized your data collection. Pay attention to uncertainties. These need to be consistent with the uncertainties of the equipment as stated earlier, and uncertainties need to remain consistent throughout your report, unless error propagation dictates otherwise. 6 Data Processing and Presentation Carry out calculations and statistical tests, or graph your data as appropriate and relevant. Derived values must not appear out of nowhere. The reader needs to be able to follow your logic and the steps you have taken. Explain and justify your data processing. Remember that all processing and presentation needs to improve your ability to interpret the data in an attempt to answer your research question. Avoid redundant graphs. Give thought to uncertainties and how these need to be presented. Ensure that all graphs and table can be understood easily and all necessary information is provided (headings, units, uncertainties, explanations of error/uncertainty bars etc.).
7 Interpretation of Processed Data What does your data reveal? What trends or patterns are there? Can any quantities/values be derived from the processed data? What are the outcomes of statistical tests and what do those mean? To what extent, if at all, do limitations/weaknesses/errors in your investigation affect how the data you collected needs to be interpreted? How confident can you be in your data? Why? This section will prepare the reader (and you, of course) for deducing a valid and detailed conclusion to the research question. Data Collection, Data Processing and Presentation and Interpretation of Processed Data are primarily used to assess you on the criterion Analysis, A [6 marks]. You will aim to meet the following expectations: sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data collected data is authentic correct units used uncertainties considered raw data appropriate to RQ processing relevant & sufficient for RQ data processing can be followed easily if applicable: propagation of uncertainties error bars, statistics etc. as appropriate processed data presented in a clear & appropriate manner interpretation of data addresses RQ 8 Conclusion and Evaluation 8.1 Conclusion The conclusion needs to address and, if possible, answer your research question. Describe and justify your conclusion and make sure it is fully supported by the data presented. Avoid sweeping or indiscriminate statements that go beyond the scope of your investigation and your data. Be well aware of the limited scope of what you were able to do with 10 hours. For example, if you burnt different alcohols with a spirit burner refrain from making general judgments about the suitability of those alcohols as a source of energy in combustion engines. 8.2 Comparison with Scientific Context Correctly describe and justify your conclusion through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context. Consult reliable scientific sources. Compare and contrast your investigation and the work carried out by others, and judge to what extent such comparisons are valid. 8.3 Strengths and Weaknesses Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error. Provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in establishing your conclusion. Depending on your essay some of this may have already happened in earlier sections of your report. In particular strengths may have been discussed in the interpretation or conclusion section as these would ideally allow you to be more confident in your results. Any weaknesses/problems/limitations you write about must not be speculative but need to be backed up by a specific piece of evidence (observation/qualitative data!). Identify each weakness, explain scientifically how it impacts on your investigation, deduce the direction of the error (i.e. whether this weakness led to values to be too high or too low) and explain how significant this weakness is (i.e. whether this is a minor problem or a major issue). Never say: I might have touched the agar plate and
thereby introduced additional bacteria into the petri dish. Instead, in the Qualitative Data section, there would have been a mentioning of you accidentally touching the agar, as well as the observation that in this one petri dish the growth of bacteria colonies resembled the appearance of a finger print. Furthermore, there would have been an unusually high colony count in your raw data. In your analysis you would have discarded this high count as an anomaly (and provided a reason). In less obvious cases the implications would perhaps have appeared also in the Interpretation section. Referring back to the observation you would be discussing this problem, its impact on the outcomes and how this can be avoided in the future. These comments on improvements are basically part of the final section of your report: 8.4 Improvements and Extensions Remember that each suggestion for an improvement should be inspired by a specific observation you noted earlier in your report. Furthermore, discuss realistic and relevant suggestions for the extension of your investigation. Don t start talking about entirely different investigations. Stay focused and think about your investigation. Conclusion and Evaluation are primarily used to assess you on the criterion Evaluation, EV [6 marks]. You will aim to meet the following expectations: RQ addressed conclusion supported by data presented (linked to the research question) conclusion justified through comparison of accepted scientific context results compared with other results and comment on percentage error and percentage uncertainty, as appropriate clear distinction between precision and accuracy types of errors discussed (systematic and random), as appropriate strengths and weaknesses of the investigation discussed sources of error in the investigation stated and discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for improvement discussed realistic and relevant extensions of the investigation suggested 9 Bibliography Include a bibliography consistent with the MLA style.
4. Assessment criteria 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 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 insight. 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. 2 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or insight. 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. 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 Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations. Mark Descriptor 0 The student s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 1 2 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. 3 4 The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research question is described. 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. 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 The student s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 1 2 The report includes insufficient relevant raw data to support a valid conclusion to the research question. 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. 3 4 The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question. 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. 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 The student s report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. 1 2 A conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to the research question or is not supported by the data presented.
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. 3 4 A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented. 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. 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. 1 2 The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes. 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; use of units, decimal places. For issues of referencing and citations refer to the Academic honesty section.
5. Internal Assessment marking sheet The below table will be used by your teacher to holistically mark your work. Personal Engagement, PE 1 2 1 st 2 nd evidence of personal engagement justification limited with little independent thinking, initiative or insight does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity personal input / initiative there is little evidence there is evidence is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or insight demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity Exploration, EX 1-2 3-4 5-6 1 st 2 nd topic & RQ of the investigation background information methodology safety, ethical or environmental issues unfocused RQ of some relevance stated relevant RQ described, but not fully focused relevant RQ described, and fully focused superficial or of limited mainly appropriate and entirely appropriate and relevance, does not aid relevant, aids relevant, enhances understanding understanding understanding addresses RQ to very mainly appropriate to highly appropriate to limited extent, addresses RQ, considers addresses RQ, considers considers only few some relevant factors all, or nearly all, relevant factors 1 relevant factors limited awareness some awareness full awareness Analysis, A 1-2 3-4 5-6 1 st 2 nd relevant raw data 2 insufficient relevant but incomplete sufficient relevant data processing basic, too inaccurate, too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion appropriate and sufficient for broadly valid conclusion, but significantly inaccurate & inconsistent appropriate, sufficient & accurate, enabling conclusion consistent with data measurement uncertainty little consideration some consideration full and appropriate consideration interpretation of processed data conclusion incorrect or insufficient, enabling only invalid or very incomplete conclusion interpretation enabling broadly valid, but incomplete or limited conclusion correct, enabling completely valid and detailed conclusion Evaluation, EV 1-2 3-4 5-6 1 st 2 nd scientific context outlined, but not relevant to RQ, or not supported by data conclusion makes only superficial comparison with conclusion described, relevant to RQ, and supported by data conclusion described, with some relevant comparison strengths and weaknesses outlined, but restricted described, including some impact on conclusion improvement and extension outlined very few realistic and relevant suggestions described some realistic and relevant suggestions described and justified, entirely relevant to RQ, and fully supported by data conclusion correctly described and justified, through relevant comparison discussed, with clear understanding of impact on conclusion discussed realistic and relevant suggestions Communication, C 1-2 3-4 1 st 2 nd presentation of the investigation unclear, hindering understanding clear, any errors do not hamper understanding structure unclear: incoherent or disorganized clear: coherent, necessary information is present relevance and conciseness understanding is obscured by inappropriate or irrelevant information relevant and concise, thereby facilitating a ready understanding subject-spec. terminology many errors appropriate and correct, any errors do & conventions 3 not hamper understanding levels total: /24 1 factors refers to the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data 2 raw data refers to quantitative and qualitative raw data 3 conventions refers to labelling of graphs, tables, images; units, decimal places; referencing, citations Compiled by Christian Schmelz with contributions by Kwaku Boateng, version March 2016