Chemistry IA Evaluation
Review your Internal Assessment draft with a structure aligned to the IB IA rubric. See strengths and revision steps for research design, data analysis, conclusion and evaluation.
Focus
Checks whether the research question is clear, measurable and appropriately narrowed.
Rubric
Uses the Research design, Data analysis, Conclusion and Evaluation criteria in use since May 2025.
Output
Provides a score estimate, criterion-level feedback and the highest-priority improvement area.
Note
This tool does not replace official IB marking; use it as revision guidance.
Chemistry IA Evaluation
Get AI feedback on your scientific investigation against the IB criteria in use since May 2025: Research design, Data analysis, Conclusion, Evaluation. 24 marks in total, and the criteria are the same at SL and HL.
How effectively the report communicates the methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question.
The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
The research question is stated without context. Methodological considerations for collecting data relevant to the research question are only stated. The description of the method for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail needed to reproduce the investigation.
The research question is outlined within a broad context. Methodological considerations for collecting relevant and sufficient data are described. The method is described well enough to reproduce the investigation, with few ambiguities or omissions.
The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. Methodological considerations for collecting relevant and sufficient data are explained. The method is described well enough for the investigation to be reproduced.
How far the report shows that the data were recorded, processed and presented in ways that are relevant to the research question.
The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
The recording and processing of the data are communicated, but neither clearly nor precisely. There is limited evidence that uncertainties were considered. Some processing relevant to the research question is carried out, but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
The recording and processing of the data are communicated either clearly or precisely. Uncertainties are considered, but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. Processing relevant to the research question is carried out, but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
The recording and processing of the data are communicated both clearly and precisely. Uncertainties are considered appropriately. Processing relevant to the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.
How successfully the student answers the research question with reference to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.
The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
A conclusion relevant to the research question is stated, but it is not supported by the analysis presented. The comparison with the accepted scientific context is superficial.
A conclusion relevant to the research question is described, but it is not fully consistent with the analysis presented. The conclusion makes some relevant comparison with the accepted scientific context.
A conclusion relevant to the research question is justified and fully consistent with the analysis presented. It is justified through relevant comparison with the accepted scientific context.
How far the report evaluates the investigation's methodology and suggests improvements.
The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.
The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements that are relevant to the weaknesses or limitations identified are described.
The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. Realistic improvements that are relevant to the weaknesses or limitations identified are explained.