IB Biology Internal Assessment Exemplar
How does the concentration of Allium Sativum oil affect maltose and glucose production from amylase?
Loading scores...
Was this exemplar helpful?
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
The research question is situated within a precise biochemical context with relevant literature citations.
Methodology description is detailed and allows for reproduction of the investigation with minimal ambiguity.
The protocol clearly links the choice of methods (Benedict’s test, colourimetry) to the research question.
Some methodological considerations (e.g., justification of inhibitor concentration ranges and calibration‐curve sufficiency) are described but not fully explained.
Minor ambiguities remain in solvent mixing technique and purity specifications.
Occasional implausible units (e.g., ethanol volume) need verification.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Data tables and graphs are laid out with axes and units, making the recording of data generally clear.
Instrument uncertainties and standard deviations are calculated, demonstrating awareness of precision issues.
Statistical processing (means, standard deviations, ANOVA) shows competence in data handling.
Raw data are incompletely presented (missing values for 7 % trials) and headings sometimes blur text and numbers, reducing precision.
Uncertainties are not propagated or visualized (no error bars), and colourimeter saturation effects are not discussed.
ANOVA is used without checking assumptions or proper justification for a one‐tailed test, and no calibration curve converts absorbance to concentration.
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
The conclusion directly addresses the research question and references both numerical means and ANOVA results.
Comparison with published results (Ahmed et al., 2020) provides relevant scientific context.
The conclusion admits contradictory qualitative vs. quantitative interpretations and lacks full consistency with the analysis.
The literature comparison is superficial, without detailed discussion of quantitative deviations or biochemical mechanisms.
Criteria D: Evaluation
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Specific methodological weaknesses are identified (pH control, colourimeter saturation, reagent consistency).
Realistic improvements are proposed that directly address the identified limitations.
Each suggestion is linked to the corresponding weakness, showing thoughtful reflection.
The impact of methodological weaknesses is discussed qualitatively rather than quantitatively (no error‐magnitude estimates).
Feasibility details (e.g., resource or time implications) for some improvements are not fully explored.