Overall Score: 10/24
IB Grade: 3
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
10/24
0
12
24
5.1·strength
Page 8
The materials list is comprehensive, covering all apparatus and reagents needed for the investigation.
5.2·suggestion
Page 8
The risk assessment is thorough; consider adding details on ethanol waste disposal procedures to fully address laboratory safety.
Criteria A: Research Design
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Excellent
Methodological considerations
Good
Methodology description
Criteria Feedback
- Research question situated in a clear, specific biochemical context with relevant literature justification
- Comprehensive identification and control of variables; justification for replicate number and concentration increments
- Thoughtful preliminary trial demonstrating planning for plateau determination
- Method description contains ambiguities (e.g. mixing order of iodine, ethanol, starch)
- Cuvette fill given as “¾ full” without specifying path length or exact volume
- Controlled‐variable table omits full specification for starch solution volume
Criteria B: Data Analysis
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Communication of data recording and processing
Poor
Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Raw and processed data are tabulated clearly and graphs include appropriate titles, labels, and error bars
- A one-way ANOVA is attempted, showing engagement with relevant statistical tools
- Absorbance units are missing and table headings are cluttered
- Instrument uncertainties and their propagation are omitted, error bars represent only SD
- Computational slips in standard deviation and ANOVA calculations introduce inaccuracies
Criteria C: Conclusion
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Conclusion relevance and consistency
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion restates key trend and links findings to the research question
- Brief comparison to accepted scientific context highlights mechanism considerations
- Conclusion is not fully consistent with the analytical data (no reaction‐rate calculations)
- Discussion lacks quantitative comparison to literature values for deeper justification
Criteria D: Evaluation
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses (e.g. pH control, particle deposition) are identified
- Realistic improvements (buffers, increased trials, better instruments) are proposed
- The relative impact of each weakness on validity is not explained
- Improvements are described without discussing how they would quantitatively enhance reliability