IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

IN GENERAL:
 No student/teacher/school name, nothing identifiable
 6-12 pages in total
 Bibliography included
 Excessive amounts of raw data can be attached as an appendix beyond the 12 page limit, but the
moderators are not required to read that, so make sure the 6-12 pages contains everything
necessary for understanding
 Page format – not prescribed, but has to be easy to read (e.g. margins 1-2.5 cm, single/double
spacing)
 Page numbers are always good to have
 Table of contents is not required
 Word count is not important
 Font
 Style not prescribed, but has to be easy to read (e.g. Times New Roman, Calibri)
 Size not too big and not too small (e.g. 11±1)
 Use appropriate subject-specific scientific terminology, watch out for spelling and grammar
 You can use your own photos or drawings (e.g. to illustrate qualitative results)

The following list should be used as a guideline of what an IA should contain:

1. TITLE
What is your IA about?

 Research question or a proper title (RQ rephrased into a statement)

 Does not need to take up an entire page!

2. INTRODUCTION
What do you find interesting that you would like to know more about, and how will you test that?

 Explain a problem or question to be tested by a scientific investigation.

 Explain a clear and focused reason why you chose explore what you chose (for your IA) – how
you got to the idea and how you developed/adapted the procedure, including observations,
citations, or other studies that have lead you to this, why it’s relevant to you and how it’s
applicable elsewhere
 Provide appropriate and relevant scientific background information on the topic

 RESEARCH QUESTION
 Has to be introduced/restated (depending on the title) as a clear and focused question!
 Should include a brief mention of your independent and dependent variables and if applicable
the name of the organism studied (both scientific and common)
 Has to be focused, researchable, answerable, arguable, non-biased (avoid yes/no questions)

 HYPOTHESIS
 Formulate and explain a testable hypothesis using correct scientific reasoning.
 This should be phrased as a predicted answer to your research question, based on your
current knowledge (this is not what you expect to happen, rather what you think will
happen – you always seek to test the hypothesis, not to prove it correct)

(INDEPENDENT VARIABLE)
If/When ____________________________________,then (DEPENDENT VARIABLE)
____________________________________,

(use your knowledge to explain your prediction)

because _____________________________________________________________________________.

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria) 1/7
IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

 VARIABLES

 List variables and explain how to manipulate them.

 Explain how sufficient relevant data will be collected.

 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (min. 5 increments) – what you set up to test the effects of
 DEPENDENT VARIABLE (min. 5 repetitions/replicates) – specify what data you will
collect and how, as well as how will you record it
 what you will use to measure the consequences of the independent variable
(what will change that you can measure)
 has to be quantitative = measurable (qualitative is immesurable, but good as a
visible/tangible observation)
 CONTROLLED VARIABLES – everything that (you make sure) will be the same of all
experiments (specify how will you control it and/or how could it affect your experiment
if it’s beyond control)

 A table or a bulleted list is preferable

 Bear in mind that variables as such are not necessarily applicable if you are researching
correlation (e.g. in ecology or genetics)

 METHODOLOGY

 Design a logical, complete and safe method using appropriate materials and equipment.

 MATERIALS – list all the major pieces of apparatus, equipment and substances used
 SET UP – labeled drawing/diagram/photo that shows the apparatus you used (not
necessary, but useful for experiment-based investigations)
 SAFETY, ETHICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS – outline any safety concerns &
how they will be addressed (Animal Experimentation Policy!), where your materials are
coming from, what will happen to them afterwards, how wastes will be disposed of, etc.
 PROCEDURE – precise list of steps used (passive voice) – the reader should be able to
recreate your exact experiment and get the same result (write the “cookbook” in a
numbered list)

3. DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

TRANSFORMING & PRESENTING DATA – samples of calculations, data processing (statistical analyses), any
visuals (graphs, etc.) that make the data easier to understand

 Correctly collect, organize, transform and present data in numerical and/ or visual forms.

 RAW DATA COLLECTION

 Any qualitative observations recorded during the experiment should be mentioned
 Quantitative data includes raw data collected by measuring the dependent variable (and
anything relevant about the controlled variables, if applicable)
 Raw data displayed in a graphic form is still just raw data!
 TRANSFORMING & PROCESSING DATA
 Overview of processing should be very short and indicate what you did to process the
data to facilitate interpretation
 Include sample calculations for one raw data set for every type of processing done

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria) 2/7
IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

 STATISTICS examples (specific tests may or may not be applicable, but some of these or
others have to be presennt):
 Descriptive: mean, median, mode, % change (difference)
 Treatment of error: range, min/max value, standard deviation, significance of
error
 Statistical tests: t-test/ANOVA/correlation coefficient/2/etc. (depends on data
collected)
 If you are using a statistical tool which contains its own “internal” hypothesis,
make sure not to mistake or confuse that with your RQ hypothesis!
 PRESENTING PROCESSED DATA
 Tables:
 Numbered and with a precisely labeled title
 Well designed and clear – all rows & columns must have headers, units must be
given (uncertainties can be given in the title row, underneath the table or as
footnotes, as applicable), decimal places must be consistent
 Try to avoid splitting a table between pages if possible, if not – make sure the
title row carries over and it’s clear it’s the same table continued
 Graphs:
 Carefully chosen to best and most clearly display the trends in data
 Numbered and with a precisely labeled title
 Axes are labeled and units given (uncertainties can be given underneath the
table or as footnotes)
 Uncertainties can be given underneath the table/graph or as footnotes
 All tables and graphs should be described/explained in the text body (preferably
introduced before they are presented)

4. RESULTS
Use your knowledge to interpret the data from your experiment – what do the results mean, what do they tell
you? Put the numbers into words.

 Accurately interpret data and explain results using correct scientific reasoning.

 Summarize (briefly describe/explain) what the data (already presented in tables and/or graphs)
you observed during the experiment mean

5. CONCLUSION
Compare the hypothesis to the results obtained. Is the hypothesis supported by the evidence or not? How do
the results provide evidence for your conclusion? State whether the results answer your research question or
not & use the results to explain why (not). Are your results in line with other people’s research?

 Evaluate the validity of a hypothesis based on the outcome of a scientific investigation.

 Restate your hypothesis and discuss whether your data supports or rejects it, justify your
conclusion through the data obtained
 Put your results into accepted scientific context – use at other published scientific papers on the
same topic and compare relevant results to yours
 Restate your research question and discuss whether or not your research answered it

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria) 3/7
IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

6. EVALUATION
What worked well during the experiment? Were there any mistakes in the lab set up or while performing the lab?
Was there anything else? Were the results clear enough or did it affect the results? How?

 Evaluate the validity of the method based on the outcome of a scientific investigation.
 Explain improvements or extensions to the method that would benefit the scientific investigation.

 State the strengths and limitations/weaknesses of your lab design, discuss why
 Mention any potential pre-trails and/or modifications to your experiment
 Offer realistic suggestions that would improve the limitations/weaknesses you identified

Is there something that could be done better or to get better results? Could there be another experimental
approach for testing the same hypothesis?

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
List all textbooks, scientific papers, etc. you used (quoted) during any of the steps (APA citation format
suggested, but any is ok as long as it is consistent).

 List all the sources you used in your research.

 Best if listed at the very end

 Keep consistent about the formatting style (APA recommended for science, MLA is also
acceptable, as is any other you choose – so long as it is the same throughout the write-up)

MARKING CRITERIA

Levels of performance are described using multiple indicators per level. In many cases the indicators occur together
in a specific level, but not always. Also, not all indicators are always present. This means that a candidate can
demonstrate performances that fit into different levels. To accommodate this, the IB assessment models use
markbands and advise examiners and teachers to use a best-fit approach in deciding the appropriate mark for a
particular criterion. The indicators per level per criterion can be found in Table 1 on the last page.

Additional guidance per criterion:

Personal Engagement (2)

• A statement of purpose • The quality of the observations • The depth of understanding of

• The relationship with the real made the limitations in the
world • The care in the selection of investigation
• The originality of the design of techniques to process the data • The reflections on the
the method (choice of materials • The reflections on the quality of improvement and extension of
and methods) the data the investigation.
• Evidence of trial runs • The type of material referred to
• The difficulty of collecting data in the background or in the
(evidence of tenacity) discussion of the results

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria) 4/7
IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

Exploration (6)

• The protocol for collecting the Microbiology: Safety/Ethical/Environmental Issues:

data
• The range and intervals of the • Only culture known non- • Evidence of a risk assessment,
independent variable pathogenic strains of microbes. even if the investigation is
• The selection of measuring For example, do not culture considered “safe”.
instruments (where relevant) from hands or swabs of door • An appreciation of the safe
• Techniques to ensure adequate handles. handling of chemicals or
control (fair testing) • Do not test for antibiotic equipment (e.g. the use of
• The use of control experiments resistance. There are enough protective clothing and eye
• The quantity of data collected, antibiotic resistant strains protection)
given the nature of the system circulating in the environment • An appreciation of the particular
investigated without more being selected for. safety issues when working in
• The type of data collected • Apply strict rules of hygiene and the field
• Provision for qualitative aseptic techniques. • Consideration of basic hygiene
observations • Do not culture microbes at 37°C. • The application of the IB animal
Incubation should be carried out experimentation policy
below 30°C. • A reasonable consumption of
• Always label cultured plates so materials
they can be clearly identified • The use of consent forms in
and never open them for human physiology
inspection. experimentation and a
• Tape the lids on but do not tape consideration of the welfare of
all the way round a Petri dish. the volunteers
Taping all around the dish • The correct disposal of waste
encourages anaerobic • Attempts to minimize the
conditions that are best avoided. impact of the investigation on
• Never assume that what is field sites.
growing in the culture is the
strain that was inoculated, even
if non-pathogenic strains have
been used.
• Always sterilize used cultures
and dispose of the cultures
using local health and safety
regulations.

Evaluation (6)

• A conclusion that is well or data that was • Sensible, realistic

supported by the data. consistent. improvements
• A conclusion that refers back • Discussion of the reliability or • Details on the improvements
to the research question. the data. (e.g. not just that the
• An explanation based upon a • Identified weaknesses in the investigation needs to be
scientific context. method and materials. repeated but how many
• A discussion of the strengths • The evaluation of the relative times)
– this might be quite general impact of a weakness on the • Realistic extensions that
or implicit or it might refer to conclusion. clearly follow on from the
specific parts that worked investigation.

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria) 5/7
IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

Communication (4)

• The use of whole pages for table layout should be difficult to judge. This is often
titles. This is not necessary. considered first. due to the candidates not
• Whole pages for a list of • Raw data relegated to the reformatting the font.
contents. This is not appendix when there was no • Bibliography, footnotes,
necessary at all. reason for it. This upsets the endnotes or in-text citation
• Blank data tables presented flow of the report. missing. This would lead to
at the end of the method • Tables split over two pages the work being suspected of
section (unnecessary). or with a title on one page malpractice.
• Repetitive tables, when one and the table or graph on the • References with an
would do. There is often no next. incomplete format.
need for a raw data table as • Multiple graphs drawn when Sometimes just the URL was
well as a table with they could have been given with on date of
processed data. combined, this not only saves retrieval.
• Inefficient data table headers. space but it also improves • Scientific nomenclature was
The art of designing data comparisons. not always used and the
tables needs to be taught. A • Squashed graphs so the formats were not always
hand drawn sketch of the distribution of the data is respected.

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria) 6/7
IBDP G4 Internal Assessment: INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION – LAB DESIGN & WRITE-UP GUIDELINES

Table 1: IA marking indicators

CRITERION PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT (2) EXPLORATION (6) ANALYSIS (6) EVALUATION (6) COMMUNICATION (4)
Focus: Individuality, originality, creativity in Workable method, focus on the Recording & processing, treatment of Conclusion, identification of strengths Subject-specific vocabulary, correct
experiment design, personal interest, problem, sufficient data, health /safety data, analysis of processed data & weaknesses, improvements & format, graphs & tables quality and
independent thinking & research /ethical /environmental considerations extensions, variability & significance of labeling, consistency, units &
data recording of errors, logical and easy to
MARKBANDS read, consistent referencing
The student’s report does not reach a The student’s report does not reach a The student’s report does not reach a The student’s report does not reach a The student’s report does not reach a
0 standard described by the descriptors standard described by the descriptors standard described by the descriptors standard described by the descriptors standard described by the descriptors
below. below. below. below. below.
The evidence of personal
engagement with the exploration is
limited with little independent
thinking, initiative or creativity. The topic of the investigation is
identified and a research question of
The justification given for choosing the some relevance is stated but it is not The presentation of the investigation
research question and/or the topic focused. The report includes insufficient A conclusion is outlined which is not is unclear, making it difficult to
1 under investigation does not relevant raw data to support a valid relevant to the research question or is understand the focus, process and
demonstrate personal significance, The background information provided conclusion to the research question. not supported by the data presented. outcomes.
interest or curiosity. for the investigation is superficial or of
limited relevance and does not aid the Some basic data processing is carried The conclusion makes superficial The report is not well structured and is
There is little evidence of personal understanding of the context of the out but is either too inaccurate or too comparison to the accepted scientific unclear: the necessary information on
input and initiative in the designing, investigation. insufficient to lead to a valid context. focus, process and outcomes is
implementation or presentation of the conclusion. missing or is presented in an
investigation. The methodology of the investigation Strengths and weaknesses of the incoherent or disorganized way.
The evidence of personal is only appropriate to address the The report shows evidence of little investigation, such as limitations of the
engagement with the exploration is research question to a very limited consideration of the impact of data and sources of error, are outlined The understanding of the focus,
clear with significant independent extent since it takes into consideration measurement uncertainty on the but are restricted to an account of the process and outcomes of the
thinking, initiative or creativity. few of the significant factors that may analysis. practical or procedural issues faced. investigation is obscured by the
influence the relevance, reliability and presence of inappropriate or
The justification given for choosing the sufficiency of the collected data. The processed data is incorrectly or The student has outlined very few irrelevant information.
research question and/or the topic insufficiently interpreted so that the realistic and relevant suggestions for
2 under investigation demonstrates The report shows evidence of limited conclusion is invalid or very the improvement and extension of There are many errors in the use of
personal significance, interest or awareness of the significant safety, incomplete. the investigation. subject-specific terminology and
curiosity. ethical or environmental issues that conventions.
are relevant to the methodology of
There is evidence of personal input the investigation.
and initiative in the designing,
implementation or presentation of the
investigation.
The topic of the investigation is
identified and a relevant but not fully
The report includes relevant but
focused research question is A conclusion is described which is
incomplete quantitative and The presentation of the investigation
described. relevant to the research question and
qualitative raw data that could is clear. Any errors do not hamper
supported by the data presented.
support a simple or partially valid understanding of the focus, process
3 N/A The background information provided
conclusion to the research question. and outcomes.
for the investigation is mainly A conclusion is described which makes
appropriate and relevant and aids the some relevant comparison to the
Appropriate and sufficient data The report is well structured and clear:
understanding of the context of the accepted scientific context.
processing is carried out that could the necessary information on focus,
investigation.
lead to a broadly valid conclusion but process and outcomes is present and
Strengths and weaknesses of the
there are significant inaccuracies and presented in a coherent way.
The methodology of the investigation investigation, such as limitations of the
inconsistencies in the processing.
is mainly appropriate to address the data and sources of error, are
The report is relevant and concise
research question but has limitations described and provide evidence of
The report shows evidence of some thereby facilitating a ready
since it takes into consideration only some awareness of the
consideration of the impact of understanding of the focus, process
some of the significant factors that methodological issues involved in
measurement uncertainty on the and outcomes of the investigation.
may influence the relevance, reliability establishing the conclusion.
analysis.
4 N/A and sufficiency of the collected data.
The use of subject-specific
The student has described some
The processed data is interpreted so terminology and conventions is
The report shows evidence of some realistic and relevant suggestions for
that a broadly valid but incomplete or appropriate and correct. Any errors do
awareness of the significant safety, the improvement and extension of
limited conclusion to the research not hamper understanding.
ethical or environmental issues that the investigation.
question can be deduced.
are relevant to the methodology of
the investigation.
The topic of the investigation is
identified and a relevant and fully A detailed conclusion is described and
The report includes sufficient relevant
focused research question is clearly justified which is entirely relevant to
quantitative and qualitative raw data
described. the research question and fully
that could support a detailed and valid
supported by the data presented.
5 N/A conclusion to the research question.
The background information provided
for the investigation is entirely A conclusion is correctly described
Appropriate and sufficient data
appropriate and relevant and and justified through relevant
processing is carried out with the
enhances the understanding of the comparison to the accepted scientific
accuracy required to enable a
context of the investigation. context.
conclusion to the research question to
be drawn that is fully consistent with
The methodology of the investigation Strengths and weaknesses of the
the experimental data. N/A
is highly appropriate to address the investigation, such as limitations of the
research question because it takes data and sources of error, are
The report shows evidence of full and
into consideration all, or nearly all, of discussed and provide evidence of a
appropriate consideration of the
the significant factors that may clear understanding of the
impact of measurement uncertainty
influence the relevance, reliability and methodological issues involved in
6 N/A on the analysis.
sufficiency of the collected data. establishing the conclusion.
The processed data is correctly
The report shows evidence of full The student has discussed realistic and
interpreted so that a completely valid
awareness of the significant safety, relevant suggestions for the
and detailed conclusion to the
ethical or environmental issues that improvement and extension of the
research question can be deduced.
are relevant to the methodology of investigation.
the investigation.

Ms. Blanka Vrgoc (Adapted from MYP & DP/IA Science Criteria, and DP Biology Subject Reports) 7/7