IA Playbook
Build a reproducible investigation, handle uncertainties carefully, and write a conclusion that the data can support.
This guide keeps the Chemistry IA focused on a clear research question, a method detailed enough to replicate, processed data that is presented cleanly, and evaluation that responds to real weaknesses rather than generic lab notes.
Chemistry IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How clearly the report sets out its research question in context and explains a method someone else could repeat.
Stronger evidence
The question is set in a specific, well-chosen context, method considerations are explained, and the method is detailed enough for someone else to repeat.
Early-stage evidence
The research question appears without context, method considerations are only mentioned, and the method is too thin for someone else to repeat.
How clearly and precisely the report records and processes data, including uncertainties, in ways that answer the question.
Stronger evidence
Recording and processing are clear and precise, uncertainties are handled appropriately, and the processing is correct and relevant to the question.
Early-stage evidence
Recording and processing are hard to follow and imprecise, uncertainties are barely considered, and processing has major gaps or errors.
How well the conclusion answers the research question from the analysis and compares the result with accepted science.
Stronger evidence
The conclusion is justified, fully consistent with the analysis, and supported by a relevant comparison with accepted science.
Early-stage evidence
A relevant conclusion is given, but the analysis does not support it and the comparison with accepted science is superficial.
How well the report judges the weaknesses of its method and suggests realistic improvements.
Stronger evidence
The report explains how much each specific weakness affected the results and explains realistic improvements that target them.
Early-stage evidence
Only generic weaknesses are named, and realistic improvements are simply listed.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | The research question appears without context, method considerations are only mentioned, and the method is too thin for someone else to repeat. |
| 3-4 | The question sits in a broad context, the main method considerations are described, and the method could be repeated apart from a few gaps or unclear steps. |
| 5-6 | The question is set in a specific, well-chosen context, method considerations are explained, and the method is detailed enough for someone else to repeat. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Recording and processing are hard to follow and imprecise, uncertainties are barely considered, and processing has major gaps or errors. |
| 3-4 | Recording and processing are either clear or precise but not both, uncertainties are considered with notable gaps, and processing has some significant errors or omissions. |
| 5-6 | Recording and processing are clear and precise, uncertainties are handled appropriately, and the processing is correct and relevant to the question. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | A relevant conclusion is given, but the analysis does not support it and the comparison with accepted science is superficial. |
| 3-4 | The conclusion is relevant but not fully consistent with the analysis, and it makes some relevant comparison with accepted science. |
| 5-6 | The conclusion is justified, fully consistent with the analysis, and supported by a relevant comparison with accepted science. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1-2 | Only generic weaknesses are named, and realistic improvements are simply listed. |
| 3-4 | Specific weaknesses in the method are described, with realistic improvements that match them. |
| 5-6 | The report explains how much each specific weakness affected the results and explains realistic improvements that target them. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Choose one variable relationship or synthesis/trend question that is manageable and experimentally sound.
Step 2
Specify apparatus, conditions, and steps so another student could repeat the work with minimal ambiguity.
Step 3
Show calculations, uncertainties, and processing clearly so the reader can judge the reliability of the result.
Step 4
Explain what limited the data, what mattered most, and what improvement would have the biggest impact on the outcome.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your Chemistry IA against the rubric, flags weak analysis or evaluation, and shows exactly what to improve before you submit. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.