Back To Chemistry

IA Playbook

Chemistry IA Criteria Guide

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

Assessment criteria

See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.

This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.

Criterion A: Research design (6 marks)

How clearly the investigation establishes its context, question, variables, and method.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address research design, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion B: Data analysis (6 marks)

How accurately the submission records, processes, displays, and interprets evidence.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address data analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)

How well the conclusion answers the research question using the processed evidence and relevant subject knowledge.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address conclusion, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

How thoughtfully the submission judges the investigation and proposes realistic improvements.

Stronger evidence

The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Early-stage evidence

Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.

Markband guide

Criterion A: Research design (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for research design.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address research design, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion B: Data analysis (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for data analysis.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address data analysis, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for conclusion.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address conclusion, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

MarksWhat the draft currently shows
0The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for evaluation.
1-2Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address evaluation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
3Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained.
4-5The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
6The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Narrow the chemical relationship

Choose one variable relationship or synthesis/trend question that is manageable and experimentally sound.

Step 2

Write a reproducible method

Specify apparatus, conditions, and steps so another student could repeat the work with minimal ambiguity.

Step 3

Treat data as chemistry evidence

Show calculations, uncertainties, and processing clearly so the reader can judge the reliability of the result.

Step 4

Evaluate the method honestly

Explain what limited the data, what mattered most, and what improvement would have the biggest impact on the outcome.

Submission Checklist

  • Research question is precise and chemically meaningful.
  • Methodology is detailed enough to reproduce.
  • Data processing is accurate and uncertainty-aware.
  • Conclusion and evaluation directly follow from the chemistry evidence.

Quick Wins

  • List hazards, variables, and repeat strategy before you start writing the report.
  • Use a clean calculation trail so the marker can follow every transformation.
  • Match each improvement to a specific weakness instead of giving generic advice.

Did You Know?

Turn Chemistry Data Into A Stronger IA

Marksy gives independently written feedback flagging weak analysis or evaluation. Every criterion mark is an estimate, not an official result. 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.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get an estimated mark and feedback for every IA criterion.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criterion feedback highlights

Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback

See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.

Marksy list of fixes for an IB draft

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.

Grade My Chemistry IASee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Chemistry IA