This subject report is listed under Chemistry in the 2012 examination archive. The catalogue session is May 2012. The information below helps you identify the document before opening the complete PDF. Subject, year and session labels come from the archive catalogue; the original cover remains the reference if a label differs. A file is not automatically suitable for your current syllabus simply because its subject name matches.
For coursework research, read this document as a reference rather than a template to submit. Notice how the question, evidence and explanation connect. If a paired commentary or subject report is available, compare it with the original work instead of assuming a polished essay received a particular mark. Historical examples may belong to an earlier assessment framework.
The public preview contains file information and, where reliable text extraction is available, a limited opening excerpt. It is not a summary of unseen questions or a replacement for the original document. Create a free email account to read or download the complete file. No payment is required to unlock this archive resource.
This original usage overview is based on the archive metadata. It does not claim to summarise the complete file.
Opening excerpt
Opening text only, limited to at most 20% of pages, two page-equivalents and 2,200 characters. Clearly labelled personal identifiers have been removed. Text extraction may omit equations, tables or figures.
May 2012 extended essay reports
Page 1
CHEMISTRY
Overall grade boundaries
Grade: E D C B A
Mark range: 0 - 7 8 - 15 16 - 22 23 - 28 29 - 36
The range and suitability of the work submitted
Over 1500 candidates submitted an extended essay in chemistry this May session. As usual
there was a wide range of achievement. Some of the essays were genuinely excellent but as
in the past, many scored less well for several different reasons. The two most common
reasons for students failing to perform well were a poor choice of initial research ques tion and
failing to address specific criteria. Although there are probably some exceptions, both of these
failings can generally be attributed to poor supervision. Assistant examiners commented that
many candidates seemed to be unaware of what is required to address each criterion.
Candidates lost marks unnecessarily through failing to comply with very clear guidelines such
as, for example, including an abstract that exceeded 300 words.
One of the key functions of the supervisor is to guide students through out the whole of the
research and writing process of the extended essay. Unless there is a sharply focused
research question the rest of the essay will suffer . Supervisors are failing their students if they
do not adequately discuss the choice of topic wit h them and help them formulate a well -
focused research question that it is capable of being addressed in 40 hours of work and in
4000 words. As in previous years many of the topics involved the concentration of vitamin C,
aspects of aspirin analysis, the u se of biodiesel, aspects of water hardness and water purity,
the caffeine content of particular consumer products and the use of luminal in forensic
science. All of these topics are capable of producing good essays if the particular research
question is w ell formulated and also shows some degree of originality rather than questions
along the lines of “does this contain what it says on the label?” Examples of some of the best
research questions received which led to really good essays this year included:
“How do the concentration of sodium chloride in aqueous solution and the pH of a
File information
Subject
Chemistry
Document type
Subject report
Year
2012
Session
May 2012
Level
Not labelled in the archive
Paper
Not labelled
Examination zone
Not labelled in the archive
Language
English
File size
95 KB
Pages
5
FREE FULL RESOURCE
Read the complete document.
Register or sign in with your email to unlock the full PDF. No payment, password or membership is needed.