IB Biology Extended Essay Exemplar
What is the predominant seasonal allergy in the demographic group; ages 16+, and by then, is there a correlation of their specific blood type and a higher incidence of the allergy in South Korea?
Loading scores...
Was this exemplar helpful?
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Comprehensive introduction accurately explains biological basis and contextual relevance of the topic.
Research question clearly stated and appropriately focused on a defined demographic.
Explicit null hypothesis provides a strong methodological anchor.
Integration of both primary and secondary methods with a stated selection rationale.
Background is occasionally verbose with tangential historical detail.
Research question phrasing is grammatically awkward and scope drifts between national and international sampling.
Methodology description omits critical details on sampling frame, response rate, and bias mitigation.
Overly detailed ANOVA table in the main text overwhelms narrative flow.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Integration of multiple peer-reviewed sources to substantiate biological mechanisms.
Effective presentation of data through well-categorized tables and clear figures.
Generally accurate use of key immunological and statistical terminology.
Comprehensive and scholarly reference list.
Occasional misinterpretations of statistical outcomes (confusing prevalence and incidence).
Imprecise or colloquial terminology (e.g., “linear aggression” instead of regression).
Limited critical evaluation of the relative reliability and methodology of secondary sources.
Ambiguous parenthetical notation in tables leading to potential confusion.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
8/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
Multi-tiered analysis including prevalence calculations, descriptive statistics, and ANOVA.
Clear linkage of analytical results to the research question and existing literature.
Logical argument structure guiding the reader from data presentation through to conclusions.
Synthesis of primary and secondary evidence in the conclusion demonstrates coherent argument development.
Incorrect interpretation of ANOVA critical values and decision rules.
Discussion often remains descriptive, lacking in-depth quantitative evaluation of effect sizes or confidence intervals.
Inconsistencies between early suggestions of correlation and the final acceptance of the null hypothesis.
Argument is occasionally undermined by contradictory claims (e.g., Type O incidence vs null result).
Limited concrete proposals for methodological refinement such as power analysis or sample-size targets.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Clear and consistent overall structure with logical section progression and comprehensive table of contents.
Appropriate placement and labeling of tables and figures near the relevant discussion.
Consistent application of layout elements such as font, spacing, and page numbering.
Section headings support reader orientation and document coherence.
Visible raw LaTeX commands in the body text reduce professionalism and readability.
Inconsistent citation formatting with mixed styles and truncated URLs.
Table of contents lacks dot leaders and proper indentation for subheadings.
Minor alignment and decimal-precision issues in tables and graphs.