A genuine student IA database/simulation report
A genuine student IA database/simulation report
On the linking page I showed how I adapted a research article I had published in a reputable scientific journal without altering any of the actual chemistry so that it completely fulfilled the IA assessment criteria to obtain a Grade 7. This was obviously somewhat of a staged exercise.
I'm pleased to now provide a genuine example of an excellent databased IA based on a simulation from Bastien Buwalda, a student at The Australian International School in Singapore. It was submitted for the November 2022 session and Bastien has given me his permission to reproduce it here. It is worth mentioning that Bastien obtained the maximum number of 45 points for his Diploma. My thanks also to his teacher James Midgley who provided the contact.
Here are my comments and thoughts on Bastien's IA.
James knows his student well so is completely happy that it is all Bastien's own work. It is highly sophisticated piece of work and is in fact a master class in how to address all the IA criteria. In some ways addressing the criteria seems the rationale for the whole IA as it ticks every single one of the boxes in terms of what must be addressed to score full marks. To obtain that standard including the fluid way in which it is set out and expressed suggests to me that it would have taken a lot longer than 10 hours work – but that is not really an issue. So applying IA criteria both James and I feel it is worth 24/24 and indeed it was awarded a Grade 7 by the IB. (It should be noted that it was submitted and assessed on the old 2014 criteria as no IAs will be assessed on the new 2023 criteria until May 2025.)
How about the underlying chemistry? Here is where I have a slight problem. As Bastien correctly points out, simulations are inherently flawed as they rely on an algorithm which is constructed by humans. Reaction kinetics by definition depends upon experimental data and order of reaction cannot be determined any other way – all that can be arrived at is a theoretical model. Human progress is made when experimental results are not predictable. The discovery of cis-platin could never have come from a model arrived at by ChemReaX neither would ChemReaX have predicted Fleming’s attributed discovery of penicillin. In other words scientific progress actually depends upon serendipity which is an anathema to computer generated models. The IA says you must show you how you actually controlled the controlled variables. There seems to be a weakness in the IA here (on page 3). The likely impact of the controlled initial pressure (which is set at 1 bar for every simulation) does not make sense to me as it seems to be related to temperature, not pressure. The rate constant is not actually a variable. For a simulation I can see that you can put in different values for the rate constant and see what effect it has but this is artificial. By its very definition for a chemical reaction it is a constant, not a variable, provided the temperature remains constant. Perhaps the fact that the simulation allows you to alter it is a real weakness in the whole methodology?
However this is nit-picking.. It is a very well-constructed investigation and lucidly written report .It fully deserves the Grade 7 it was awarded. I'm confident that it would still gain Grade 7 if it were to be assessed under the new 2023 criteia.