# Internal assessment requirements

> IB Chemistry HL · IB Chemistry HL (2025 syllabus)
> Source: https://www.owlsprep.com/study/ib-chemistry-hl-u7-internal-assessment-requirements/

This module covers all official requirements for the IB Chemistry HL internal assessment (IA), including assessment criteria weightings, report structure, administrative rules, and common mistakes to avoid to secure maximum marks.

**Prerequisites:** Basic understanding of IB Chemistry practical work

## Learning objectives

- Understand the overall structure and weighting of IB Chemistry HL IA
- Break down the 6 assessment criteria and their requirements
- Identify administrative rules and academic integrity expectations
- Avoid common pitfalls that result in lost marks

## Overview and Weighting

The IB Chemistry HL internal assessment is a mandatory, student-led research project marked internally by your teacher and externally moderated by IB examiners. The total score from all six criteria contributes exactly 20% of your final course grade.

| Assessment Criterion | Maximum Marks |
| --- | --- |
| Personal Engagement | 2 |
| Exploration | 6 |
| Analysis | 6 |
| Evaluation | 6 |
| Conclusion | 3 |
| Communication | 4 |

**Worked example:** Calculate the total mark for an IA with the following scores: Personal Engagement (2), Exploration (5), Analysis (5), Evaluation (4), Conclusion (3), Communication (4).

1. Sum the marks for all six criteria to get the total out of 27:
2. $$2 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 4 = 23$$

> **info**
>
> Total marks are scaled by IB to the 20% course weight, so every mark counts towards your final grade.

## Assessment Criterion Breakdown

Each criterion assesses a distinct aspect of your investigation, and understanding what examiners look for in each is critical to scoring full marks. Personal Engagement assesses your personal input and motivation, while Exploration checks that your research question is focused and methodologically sound.

**Personal Engagement** — The criterion that assesses your independent input, personal motivation, and adaptation of the investigation to your own interests.

*Example:* Tying an investigation of reaction rate to your interest in home brewing.

**Worked example:** How do you modify a generic research question 'How does temperature affect rate of reaction' to meet the Personal Engagement criterion?

1. Step 1: Add a personal context that motivated your investigation to show independent interest.
2. Step 2: Refine the question to add specific variables and a focused system, instead of a generic prompt.
3. Final modified question: 'How does temperature between 20°C and 70°C affect the activation energy of yeast fermentation, motivated by my home brewing hobby?'

## Report Structure and Administrative Rules

Non-compliance with administrative rules is a common cause of unexpected lost marks, even for strong investigations. IB expects a standard report structure and enforces a strict word limit.

1. Title page with research question, candidate number, and word count
2. Introduction with background and motivation
3. Methodology for data collection
4. Data analysis and processing
5. Evaluation of methodology and results
6. Conclusion linking findings to the research question
7. Bibliography and citations

> **warning**
>
> Any text in the main body beyond 3000 words will not be marked by moderators, regardless of its quality.

**Worked example:** Your main body is 3250 words. How do you reduce the word count without losing key content?

1. Step 1: Move full tables of raw experimental data to an appendix (raw data does not count towards the word limit).
2. Step 2: Cut redundant background chemistry content that is not directly relevant to your specific research question. For example, you do not need a full page explanation of collision theory for a rate investigation.
3. Step 3: Remove repetitive descriptions of individual trials. You can state 'each measurement was repeated 3 times to reduce random error' instead of describing each trial separately.

## Authenticity and Academic Integrity

IB takes academic integrity for the IA extremely seriously. Plagiarism, collusion, or copying work from other sources results in severe penalties, including a grade of 0 for the entire IA component.

**Worked example:** You find an existing investigation online that tests the same research question you want to explore. Is it acceptable to use their methodology as a starting point?

1. Step 1: It is acceptable to use an existing methodology as a starting point, but you must modify it to show your own independent input.
2. Step 2: Cite the original source clearly in your bibliography, and document all changes you made to the methodology for your investigation.
3. Step 3: All data analysis, processing, and evaluation must be your own original work, even if you use an existing methodology or public data set.

> **tip**
>
> Your teacher is allowed to give you feedback on one draft of your IA, so use this opportunity to fix gaps before final submission.

## Common pitfalls

- **Wrong:** Exceeding the 3000 word limit for the main body of the report
  - Why it fails: IB examiners do not mark any content beyond the word limit, so you will lose marks for any cut-off text
  - Correct: Move non-essential raw data and supporting calculations to appendices, cut redundant background content, and trim verbose phrasing to get under the limit
- **Wrong:** Failing to cite all sources, including data sets for secondary IAs
  - Why it fails: This counts as plagiarism, which leads to academic integrity penalties and a potential 0 for the IA
  - Correct: Use a consistent citation style for all sources, including websites, data sets, and existing investigations you referenced
- **Wrong:** Submitting a vague, unfocused research question
  - Why it fails: Unspecific questions lose marks in the Exploration criterion, as they show a lack of planning
  - Correct: Refine your question to include specific variables, their range, and the exact chemical system you are testing
- **Wrong:** Only discussing random measurement error in your evaluation, ignoring systematic error
  - Why it fails: Evaluation requires you to discuss significant methodological limitations, so this limits your score to 3 or lower out of 6
  - Correct: Identify 2-3 significant systematic errors relevant to your investigation and explain how they impact your results
- **Wrong:** Copying a procedure directly from a lab manual or website with no modifications
  - Why it fails: This loses marks in Personal Engagement and Exploration, as it shows no independent input
  - Correct: Modify the procedure to test a different variable range, use a new measurement method, or adapt it to answer your own specific question

## Cheatsheet

| Requirement | Official Rule |
| --- | --- |
| Total course weight | 20% of final IB Chemistry HL grade |
| Total maximum marks | 27 |
| Maximum word count (main body) | 3000 words |
| Personal Engagement | 2 marks |
| Exploration | 6 marks |
| Analysis | 6 marks |
| Evaluation | 6 marks |
| Conclusion | 3 marks |
| Communication | 4 marks |
| Primary/secondary data | Both are allowed |
| All sources must be cited | Required for academic integrity |

## What's next

Understanding the core requirements of the IA is the first step to designing a high-scoring investigation. Next, you will develop a focused research question aligned to the assessment criteria, plan your methodology and data collection, then write each section of your report to match examiner expectations. Starting early and leaving time for revisions based on teacher feedback is critical, as this allows you to fix gaps before submission. A strong IA combines solid chemistry with clear communication and personal input, so aligning every section of your work to the markscheme will help you secure the highest possible marks.

---

From [OwlsPrep](https://www.owlsprep.com) — free study guides for A-Level, IB, AP and IGCSE, written against the official syllabus. Canonical page: https://www.owlsprep.com/study/ib-chemistry-hl-u7-internal-assessment-requirements/