C
Overall Score
14/28
IB Grade: C
Was this exemplar helpful?
Criteria A: Focus and Method
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Topic communication and explanation
Excellent
Research question formulation and focus
Good
Methodology appropriateness and completeness
Criteria Feedback
- Research question is clearly stated, focused and consistently referenced throughout.
- Topic is communicated accurately with clear explanations of cardiac physiology and HCN4 function.
- Methodology lacks detailed justification for selecting the three specific mutations.
- Some digressions (neuronal action-potential material) dilute the focus and precision.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Application of source material
Excellent
Use of terminology and concepts
Criteria Feedback
- Accurate and consistent use of specialist terminology (e.g., “dominant‐negative effect”, “diastolic depolarisation”).
- Figures (especially voltage‐gated channel diagrams) are well‐presented and support conceptual understanding.
- Application of source material remains largely descriptive, with limited re‐interpretation of data in relation to the research question.
- Occasional omissions in integrating figure details (e.g., Fig. 1) and minor citation errors reduce analytical depth.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
4/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Research analysis
Poor
Discussion and evaluation
Poor
Argument development
Criteria Feedback
- Comparative evaluation of multiple studies (e.g., Milano vs Schweizer) demonstrates thoughtful analysis relevant to the question.
- Limitations of individual studies (sample size, model choice) are identified and briefly evaluated.
- Critical synthesis is often superficial, with analysis tending to restate author conclusions rather than offering deeper interpretation.
- Argument occasionally drifts due to digressions, and some conclusions lack full support from preceding critique.
Criteria D: Presentation
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Structure appropriateness
Good
Layout and formatting
Criteria Feedback
- Clear overall structure with title page, table of contents, headings and logical section sequencing.
- Layout is consistent with IB formatting conventions; figures are captioned and word count/title are correctly placed.
- Minor structural issues—brief ‘Results’ repetition and an unfinished section disrupt flow.
- Non‐uniform figure sizing and occasional line‐break artifacts slightly impede readability.