This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Biology Extended Essay Exemplar: Seasonal Allergy and Blood Type in South Korea | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Biology SL 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...
B
Overall Score
21/28
Was this exemplar helpful?
Want a report just like this?
Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Topic communication and explanation
Excellent
Research question formulation and focus
Good
Methodology appropriateness and completeness
Criteria Feedback
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
Good
Application of source material
Good
Use of terminology and concepts
Criteria Feedback
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
Moderate
Research analysis
Poor
Discussion and evaluation
Poor
Argument development
Criteria Feedback
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Unlock all criteria
Upgrade to PRO to see detailed feedback for all criteria in this exemplar.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Structure appropriateness
Good
Layout and formatting
Criteria Feedback
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Unlock all criteria
Upgrade to PRO to see detailed feedback for all criteria in this exemplar.
