IA Investigation - marking sheet

The following sheet may be useful for marking, please also refer to the blog post on annotations

Try printing this page to use it when marking student work.

This is not an official IB document but I found the breakdown of the criteria useful in my own marking.
Remember the most useful teacher annotations are made in the student's work, close to the place where the students work supports the mark awarded. Also make a clear reference to the criterion (PE, EX, AN, EV, C) and the mark.

This table can also be accessed in these formats.

IB Group 4 Sciences IA Investigation Criteria Marking Sheet
Name: ________________________ Experiment: ___________________________________ Date_______
PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT					PE = _____
	Evidence of personal engagement with exploration.	The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation.	Evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation.
2	Clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity.	Demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.	A lot
1	Limited with little independent thinking, initiative or insight.	Does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.	Little
0	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.
EXPLORATION					EXP = _____
	The topic of the investigation is identified and research question.	Background information provided for the investigation is.	Appropriateness of the methodology of the investigation.	Consideration of factors that may influence the relevance reliability and sufficiency of collected data.	Evidence of awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues
6	Relevant and fully focused.	Entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.	Highly	Nearly all factors considered.	Full - all potential hazards identified and dealt with appropriately
4	Relevant but not fully focused.	Mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.	Mainly	Some factors considered.	Limited
2	Some relevance but not focused.	Superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation	Limited	Few factors considered.	Some
0	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.
ANALYSIS					A = ______
	Raw data is	Data processing	Impact of uncertainties	Interpretation of processed data
6	Sufficient. Could support a detailed and valid conclusion.	Appropriate and sufficient accuracy enables a conclusion to the RQ to be drawn that is fully consistent with data.	Full and appropriate consideration.	Correct valid and detailed conclusion.
4	Relevant but incomplete. Could support a simple or partially valid conclusion.	Appropriate and sufficient. Could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing.	Some consideration.	Broadly valid limited conclusion.
2	Insufficient to support a valid conclusion.	Basic, inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion	Little consideration.	Incorrect or insufficient invalid or very incomplete
0	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.
EVALUATION					EV = ______
	Conclusion data	Conclusion theory	Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are	Realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
6	Described in detail and justified, entirely relevant to the RQ fully supported by the data.	Justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.	Discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.	Are discussed.
4	Described, relevant to the research question and supported by the data.	Some relevant comparison to accepted scientific context.	Described and provide evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.	Some described.
2	Outlined but may not be relevant to the research question or may not be supported by the data.	Erroneous or superficially compared to the accepted scientific context.	Outlined but are restricted to an account of the practical or procedural issues faced.	Very few outlined.
0	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.
COMMUNICATION					C = ______
	Presentation of the investigation	Structure	Relevance	Terminology
4	Clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.	Well-structured and clear: the necessary information 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.	The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding.
2	Unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes	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.
0	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.	Standard not reached.

IBDP Biology - Student pages

INTHINKING REVISION SITES

www.StudyIB.net

IA Investigation - marking sheet