D
Overall Score
11/28
IB Grade: D
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
11/28
0
14
28
6.1·strength
Page 3
The opening anecdote engages interest by linking personal experience to the problem of urban light pollution.
Criteria A: Focus and Method
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Topic communication and explanation
Moderate
Research question formulation and focus
Moderate
Methodology appropriateness and completeness
Criteria Feedback
- Clear statement of the research question and linkage to the Lake Michigan context
- Adequate definition of key concepts (e.g., ALAN, diel vertical migration)
- Use of a reasonable range of secondary sources with proper in-text citations
- Broad scope of RQ covering all aquatic animals and multiple behaviours, limiting focus
- Limited rationale for source selection and no primary-data methodology described
- Repetitive phrasing in title and introduction, and some ecological terms not fully unpacked
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Application of source material
Good
Use of terminology and concepts
Criteria Feedback
- Generally relevant application of studies to Lake Michigan context
- Correct and consistent use of most biological terminology (phototaxis, melatonin)
- Effective use of figures and quotations to illustrate key points
- Many passages remain descriptive with limited critical integration of sources
- Some terminology errors and typos (‘die vertical migration’, ‘milkshake snake’ typo)
- Missing or incomplete citations (e.g., 9.6% claim, Baker et al. details)
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
4/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
Poor
Research analysis
Poor
Discussion and evaluation
Poor
Argument development
Criteria Feedback
- Coherent thematic analysis linking ALAN to behavioural outcomes (e.g., foraging, migration)
- Recognition of study limitations and a realistic research context in the ‘Limitations’ section
- Clear overarching argument that light pollution disrupts aquatic rhythms
- Analysis often halts at assertion without quantitative or alternative-explanation exploration
- Evaluation of source reliability and conflicting evidence is thin
- Argument transitions are abrupt and rely heavily on description
Criteria D: Presentation
1/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Structure appropriateness
Good
Layout and formatting
Criteria Feedback
- Logical overall structure with headings and a table of contents
- Consistent inclusion of title, word count and page numbers
- Frequent formatting errors: broken URLs, misformatted captions, missing page numbers in TOC
- Informal tone and first-person language detract from academic voice
- Abrupt transitions between sections and mislabelled figures