Biology IA Exemplar: How does increasing the duration of time 10,… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology SL Internal Assessment Example

How does increasing the duration of time 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes (± 0.5 s) affect the plasmolysis of Solanum tuberosum (potato) cylinders by measuring the change in mass of the potato cylinders using electronic balance when submerged in 0.8 mol dm-3 (± 0.01 mol dm⁻³) of sucrose (C12H22O11) solution at room temperature 20°C ± (1°C)?SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is specific, focused, and operationalised with a clear organism, variable, and measurable outcome.
The student shows a sound biological context by linking the investigation to osmosis and water potential.
The student's method is generally reproducible and includes several relevant controls and repeated trials.

There are a few inconsistencies in the scientific framing, especially around hypertonic versus hypotonic wording and temperature.
Some methodological details are still missing or unclear, such as solution preparation, exact sample structure, and timing sequence.
The student explains several controls, but not always clearly enough in terms of how they ensure sufficient and valid data for the question.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Poor

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student's raw data table is clearly organised and makes the investigation easy to follow.
The student processes the data appropriately by calculating mass change, percentage change, means, and standard deviations.
The student's graph communicates the overall trend in mass change across time and includes error bars.

Some parts of the presentation are not fully precise, including the inconsistent uncertainty values and the incorrect x-axis unit label.
The statistical treatment is incomplete because the regression is mentioned but not actually reported with results.
The student's handling of uncertainty is present but not yet rigorous enough, especially for the derived values and the interpretation of the error bars.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Moderate

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Moderate

D.2Improvements

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.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is specific, focused, and operationalised with a clear organism, variable, and measurable outcome.
The student shows a sound biological context by linking the investigation to osmosis and water potential.
The student's method is generally reproducible and includes several relevant controls and repeated trials.

There are a few inconsistencies in the scientific framing, especially around hypertonic versus hypotonic wording and temperature.
Some methodological details are still missing or unclear, such as solution preparation, exact sample structure, and timing sequence.
The student explains several controls, but not always clearly enough in terms of how they ensure sufficient and valid data for the question.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Poor

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student's raw data table is clearly organised and makes the investigation easy to follow.
The student processes the data appropriately by calculating mass change, percentage change, means, and standard deviations.
The student's graph communicates the overall trend in mass change across time and includes error bars.

Some parts of the presentation are not fully precise, including the inconsistent uncertainty values and the incorrect x-axis unit label.
The statistical treatment is incomplete because the regression is mentioned but not actually reported with results.
The student's handling of uncertainty is present but not yet rigorous enough, especially for the derived values and the interpretation of the error bars.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Moderate

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Moderate

D.2Improvements

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.