What's New in the 2025 Advanced Higher Chemistry Project Assessment Task?

The SQA has quietly rolled out a new version of the Advanced Higher Chemistry Project Assessment Task, and if you're teaching or studying this course, it's worth knowing what's changed.

Version 4.0 (September 2025) replaces the 2020 edition, and while the overall structure remains familiar, there are some significant shifts in expectations, particularly around evidence, data presentation, and evaluation.

Let's break down what's different and what it means in practice.

The Big Picture

The 2025 document applies from session 2025–26 onwards. It's noticeably longer than its predecessor, with expanded marking instructions and more detailed candidate guidance. This isn't just administrative additions, the extra detail most likely reflects higher expectations in detail within your project.

What's Actually Changed?

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the key updates:

Section	2020 (v2.0)	2025 (v4.0)
Procedures (3a)	Must be clear, detailed, correct style	Must be clear and explicitly allow the aim to be achieved
Apparatus (3e)	Accepts procedure, list, or results	Only procedure or results accepted (list alone not enough)
Raw Data (3f)	Accepts photos, diagrams, or statements of results	Requires original chromatograms/photos—stricter evidence
Data Analysis (4)	Allows scatter, line, or bar graphs	Only scatter or line graphs; no bar graphs. More detailed descriptors
Evaluation (7)	Mentions uncertainties, less detail	Expanded section with explicit steps for handling uncertainties (relative/absolute error)
Referencing (3h)	Older examples (e.g. 2013 RSC)	Modern examples, citations in numerical order (e.g. merckindex.rsc.org)
Candidate Guidance	Starts on page 27, shorter	Starts on page 29, longer, more structured

What This Means in Practice

For Procedures

Yon need to make sure your chosen procedure is clear (so that another student could repeat it if required) AND actually allows you to achieve your aim. It is unlikely you would select a procedure that wouldn't allow you to do this but there must be some instances in which this has happened for the SQA to feel the need to highlight it.

For Apparatus

The bar for evidence has risen. A simple list of apparatus on it's own won't allow you to access the 3e mark anymore, there has to be supporting information within your procedure and/or results section. This is unlikely to make a difference or most of you and would only really affect those students who gave an apparatus list and nothing else in this section. As long as you still have your detailed procedure as well as your list you should be fine. and raw data needs to be presented in its original form. If you're doing chromatography, you need the actual chromatogram. Photos of lab setups are encouraged where relevant.

For Raw Data

Your raw data needs to be presented in its original form. If you're doing chromatography, you need the actual chromatogram stuck in or a photograph of it. Sketches of chromatograms are no longer accepted. Photos of lab setups are encouraged where relevant.

For Graphs

Bar graphs are out. This pushes students toward continuous data and appropriate statistical analysis. If your experiment naturally generates categorical data, you'll need to think about how to present it differently or reconsider your experimental design. This one could present an issue for those of you that would be looking at investigating different brands or types of substances. In this instance you may be best to investigate based on changing mass or pH for example which would give numerical data that would allow for a scatter graph to be generated. However, the results section of the project is marked hollistically. This means the marker will look at the entirety of your data processing in order to award the marks. So as long as you have a sufficient amount of data, processed to an advanced higher standard you shouldn’t need to worry about a graph. The way i suggest thinging about it is if your amount of data and data processing is very similar to what you did at higher level, then you’ve probably not done enough. So gather more data to process; analyse more samples and or/add in a control.

For Evaluation

The evaluation section now gives more examples on evaluative statements. This will most likely be helpful for you if you are struggling for ideas. BUT remember! If your results are good don't write negative evaluative statements, as all evaluative statements need to be backed up by your results. So pick out outliers and results that don't look quite right and discuss them.

For References

The guidance now models current academic practice more closely. References should be numbered in order of appearance and follow a consistent format. This is good preparation for university, where sloppy referencing has real consequences.

What Teachers Need to Know

The 2025 version places stronger emphasis on:

• Ongoing lab book maintenance: Students should be making entries as they work, not retrospectively tidying up at the end

• Independent planning: There's less room for following a template meaning that the students need to develop their own approach.

• Academic rigour: The assessment now sits more firmly in the transition zone between school and university

This means you'll need to monitor lab books more actively and resist the temptation to provide too much scaffolding. Yes, students will struggle initially, but that's part of developing genuine research skills.

What Students Need to Know

The new assessment rewards:

• Precision in writing: Vague procedures or data descriptions will lose marks

• Original evidence: Take photos, keep your chromatograms, record observations as they happen

• Appropriate data presentation: Know when to use a scatter graph versus a line graph, and why bar graphs don't work for continuous data

• Critical evaluation: Don't just mention uncertainties in your evaluation. Calculate them, compare them, and explain what they mean.

  
  

Start your lab book early. Update it regularly. Don't try to reconstruct it from memory the night before submission.

Why the Change?

The 2025 update reflects a deliberate shift toward university-level expectations. The SQA is likely trying to close the gap between Advanced Higher and first-year undergraduate work, which means higher standards for evidence, analysis, and academic integrity.

This is actually good news. Students who engage seriously with these requirements will find the transition to university science courses much smoother. The skills being assessed, such as designing experiments, handling data, evaluating limitations and citing sources, are exactly what's needed at the next level.

Final Thoughts

These changes might feel like an extra burden, but they're pushing in the right direction. The Advanced Higher project has always been the most authentic part of the qualification -the bit that most closely resembles actual scientific work. The 2025 update simply raises the bar.

For teachers: now's the time to review your resources and make sure you're not inadvertently over-scaffolding. For students: treat this as genuine research practice, not just another assignment to tick off.

The full assessment task document is available on the SQA website (linked). If you haven't looked at it yet, it's worth a read and the expanded guidance section is actually quite helpful once you get past the formal language.

What's your experience with the new assessment task? Have you spotted any other changes worth noting? Let me know in the comments.

---

Back to Blog Posts Home Page