Biology IA Exemplar: How does fertilizer type (urea and NPK applied… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology HL Internal Assessment Example

How does fertilizer type (urea and NPK applied as dilute aqueous solutions, compost mixed 1:1 with soil, and a no-fertilizer control), applied at regular intervals (every 3 days), affect the mean final stem length (cm) of Phaseolus vulgaris var. nanus after 12 days of growth?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 student's research question is focused, specific, and fully operationalised, so the investigation has a clear biological purpose and an appropriate timeframe.
The student identifies and explains several important controls, including cultivar consistency, germination synchrony, environmental conditions, and replication.
The student's method is detailed enough that another student could reproduce most of the investigation, with clear treatment structure and measurement procedures.

Some key details are still missing, especially around soil quantity, compost characterisation, and the exact preparation of the fertilizer solutions.
The design does not fully separate fertilizer type from nutrient dose, which weakens the strength of the comparison.
A few procedural points remain ambiguous, such as whether fertilizer solution was included within or added on top of the daily water volume.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student communicates the raw and processed data clearly with labelled tables, appropriate units, and summary statistics.
The student includes standard deviations and error bars, which helps the reader judge variation within each treatment.
The student uses suitable statistical tools, including checks of assumptions and a one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc comparison.

Some uncertainty handling is incomplete, especially for equipment uncertainties and compost variability.
The report is not fully consistent in how spread is shown, because the graph and text do not always use the same error definition.
The post-hoc reporting is not fully transparent because the actual pairwise outputs are not shown, making the interpretation harder to verify.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

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 student's research question is focused, specific, and fully operationalised, so the investigation has a clear biological purpose and an appropriate timeframe.
The student identifies and explains several important controls, including cultivar consistency, germination synchrony, environmental conditions, and replication.
The student's method is detailed enough that another student could reproduce most of the investigation, with clear treatment structure and measurement procedures.

Some key details are still missing, especially around soil quantity, compost characterisation, and the exact preparation of the fertilizer solutions.
The design does not fully separate fertilizer type from nutrient dose, which weakens the strength of the comparison.
A few procedural points remain ambiguous, such as whether fertilizer solution was included within or added on top of the daily water volume.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student communicates the raw and processed data clearly with labelled tables, appropriate units, and summary statistics.
The student includes standard deviations and error bars, which helps the reader judge variation within each treatment.
The student uses suitable statistical tools, including checks of assumptions and a one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc comparison.

Some uncertainty handling is incomplete, especially for equipment uncertainties and compost variability.
The report is not fully consistent in how spread is shown, because the graph and text do not always use the same error definition.
The post-hoc reporting is not fully transparent because the actual pairwise outputs are not shown, making the interpretation harder to verify.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

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.