Biology IA Exemplar: How does exposure to different temperatures… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology HL Internal Assessment Example

How does exposure to different temperatures (4°C, 25°C, 40°C, 60°C, and 80°C) for 5 minutes affect the vitamin C concentration in pineapple juice (Ananas comosus), measured by the volume of juice required to decolourise a fixed volume of DCPIP solution?HL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Excellent

A.3Methodology description

Good

Criteria Feedback

The investigation is framed in a specific, biologically relevant context with a clearly focused question, defined temperature treatments, and a consistent exposure time.
The student explains the choice of temperatures and controls well, showing that the method was designed around a real processing/storage context rather than arbitrarily chosen values.
The procedure contains substantial detail, including replicates, sample volumes, DCPIP preparation, and apparatus, which makes the study broadly reproducible.

Some procedural details remain ambiguous, especially how samples reached and were verified at target temperature and how the 4°C treatment was achieved with the stated apparatus.
The endpoint description is not fully precise, and the wording around decolourisation versus a persistent faint pink colour needs clarification.
A few operational details are still missing or underexplained, such as the exact delivery method for the sample volumes and how the temperature control was maintained during measurement.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The raw and processed data are communicated in a clear, organised way through tables, a graph, labelled axes, error bars, and summary statistics.
Repeated trials are used consistently, which makes the dataset easy to follow and supports the reader’s confidence in the pattern of the results.
The student includes several relevant forms of processing, such as means, SD, CV, percentage change, regression, and ANOVA, which shows a substantial attempt to analyse the dataset.

The interpretation of the titre data is scientifically inconsistent, because a smaller volume needed to reduce fixed DCPIP should not be treated as a lower vitamin C concentration without calibration.
The uncertainty treatment is incomplete, particularly because the larger water-bath stability and endpoint subjectivity are not properly incorporated or discussed.
Although the presentation is generally clear, some precision claims are not fully justified and the processing does not always match the chemistry being measured.

Criteria C: Conclusion

2/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Poor

C.2Scientific context comparison

Poor

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.

Criteria D: Evaluation

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Excellent

D.2Improvements

Excellent

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.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Excellent

A.3Methodology description

Good

Criteria Feedback

The investigation is framed in a specific, biologically relevant context with a clearly focused question, defined temperature treatments, and a consistent exposure time.
The student explains the choice of temperatures and controls well, showing that the method was designed around a real processing/storage context rather than arbitrarily chosen values.
The procedure contains substantial detail, including replicates, sample volumes, DCPIP preparation, and apparatus, which makes the study broadly reproducible.

Some procedural details remain ambiguous, especially how samples reached and were verified at target temperature and how the 4°C treatment was achieved with the stated apparatus.
The endpoint description is not fully precise, and the wording around decolourisation versus a persistent faint pink colour needs clarification.
A few operational details are still missing or underexplained, such as the exact delivery method for the sample volumes and how the temperature control was maintained during measurement.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The raw and processed data are communicated in a clear, organised way through tables, a graph, labelled axes, error bars, and summary statistics.
Repeated trials are used consistently, which makes the dataset easy to follow and supports the reader’s confidence in the pattern of the results.
The student includes several relevant forms of processing, such as means, SD, CV, percentage change, regression, and ANOVA, which shows a substantial attempt to analyse the dataset.

The interpretation of the titre data is scientifically inconsistent, because a smaller volume needed to reduce fixed DCPIP should not be treated as a lower vitamin C concentration without calibration.
The uncertainty treatment is incomplete, particularly because the larger water-bath stability and endpoint subjectivity are not properly incorporated or discussed.
Although the presentation is generally clear, some precision claims are not fully justified and the processing does not always match the chemistry being measured.

Criteria C: Conclusion

2/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Poor

C.2Scientific context comparison

Poor

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.

Criteria D: Evaluation

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Excellent

D.2Improvements

Excellent

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.