What actually works for DP Chemistry on Monday

Week 3 of Term 1, my Year 12s hit equilibrium and the HLs immediately wanted to talk Kp while a couple of SLs were still sorting out ICE tables. That’s the IB reality: shared core ideas with different depth and mathematical treatment. Plenty of on-topic worksheets exist, but many miss IB fit—AP-style questions that ignore command terms, British A-level sets that assume different data-booklet values, or “real-world” contexts that waste time without moving toward DP assessment styles.

IB fit, for me, looks like prompts that mirror Paper 2 structure, clean unit handling, and explicit space for method. I also want the vocabulary to be intentional: distinguish “outline” from “explain,” push “evaluate” where synthesis is required, and keep HL-only items flagged so SL students aren’t blindsided. When I’m curating departmental packs, I look for problem sets that ladder from qualitative reasoning to two-step calculations, with a final item that asks students to justify a choice of method. I keep that kind of curation in ClassPods and tag items SL/HL so they’re easy to mix. If you want a place to browse science pieces and see what aligns, I usually start in the community library.

Last October, my Year 13 HLs were revising kinetics. I grabbed a glossy-looking worksheet and binned it five minutes later. Why? The what looked fine; the how didn’t match DP. Now I run the same five checks on every resource before it touches my scheme of work.

Check 1: Command terms. The verbs must map to IB expectations. If a long-response asks to “describe” a mechanism but wants rationale, it’s mis-keyed. Check 2: Data booklet dependence. Does the task cue the relevant tables or values students should know how to locate? Check 3: Units and sig figs. Calculations should produce sensible significant figures and use SI units the way IB markers expect. Check 4: Structure. Multi-part questions (a, b, c) should ramp reasoning. Check 5: Markscheme style. Look for point-based marking that rewards method as well as final value.

If a resource passes, I’ll adapt the contexts to our cohort (food chemistry examples land well) and slot it into the week’s plan. If you want to trial a quick auto-generated DP-style set to test these checks, there’s a simple demo here.

Last Friday, my Year 12 SL group groaned at a past-paper item on enthalpy of combustion. We paused, reset, and ran a Hess’s Law lesson that finally clicked.

Objective: Apply Hess’s Law to determine ΔH for a target reaction using given enthalpies of formation/combustion; justify the chosen pathway using IB command terms.

• 0–6 min – Starter: Two quick true/false on state symbols and standard conditions; one hinge MCQ on sign conventions. Mini whiteboards.
• 6–28 min – Main: Worked example: Calculate ΔH for formation of CO from C(graphite) and 1/2 O2 using given ΔHf and ΔHcomb values for CO and CO2. I model flipping and scaling equations, then annotating arrows as in the data booklet.
• 28–45 min – Guided practice: Pairs tackle ethanol combustion to CO and H2 with incomplete data; they must decide which intermediate makes sense and “explain” their choice.
• 45–58 min – Formative check: Individual short-response: “Determine ΔH for reaction X. Show working, state units with sig figs.” Quick mark with a two-point method tick.
• 58–70 min – Plenary: Students write one sentence using “Hence, deduce…” to connect Hess’s pathway to the sign of ΔH; cold-call three answers and log common slips.

I pulled the exit ticket into ClassPods so I could tag recurring errors (unit handling and arrow direction won the day). If you want a copy-ready version of this structure, you can spin one up in a few minutes.

Monday’s mock feedback is faster when I’m marking against the same lenses students practice. This is the rubric I print on the back of topic tests and paste into IA drafts for quick formative notes on calculation/short-response items.

• Concept accuracy (0–2): 0 = major misconception; 1 = partially correct with gaps; 2 = chemically sound.
• Use of command terms (0–2): 0 = ignores verb; 1 = attempts but shallow; 2 = matches depth (e.g., “explain” includes cause/why, “deduce” shows reasoning).
• Method and working (0–2): 0 = no coherent method; 1 = incomplete steps; 2 = clear, logical sequence.
• Data booklet, units, sig figs (0–2): 0 = not used/incorrect; 1 = minor slips; 2 = correct values, units, and sensible sig figs.
• Communication (0–2): 0 = disorganized; 1 = some structure; 2 = coherent with labeled quantities.

Question stems I rotate: “Outline the steps…,” “Hence, deduce…,” “Compare the values and comment on reliability…,” “Evaluate the method with one justified improvement.” If you prefer this embedded into a digital sheet with auto totals, duplicate a layout like this from a template.

Two weeks before mocks, my Year 13 bilingual group hit a wall on wording, not chemistry. Swapping “account for” to “explain why” in Spanish alongside English moved three students from silence to solid answers. Since then, I plan for language like I plan for titrations.

What helps: a dual-language glossary of command terms taped in books; sentence frames for short responses (“Because…, therefore…”) that reduce cognitive load; and a “terms to watch” box at the top of each worksheet. For pacing, I split heavy-calculation lessons into two passes: first conceptual maps, then arithmetic. I build teacher review with five-minute “red pen” loops where I model correcting one line of working and students mirror.

For revision/homework, I set a weekly mixed-deck: one multiple-choice that forces data-booklet use, one structured calculation, and one justification prompt. I park those decks in ClassPods so I can tag them HL or SL and track who’s struggling with sig figs across weeks. If you like having a bank you can pull from, the science library is a decent starting point to keep everything in one place.