Biology IA Exemplar: How does the charge of detergent headgroup… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology HL Internal Assessment Example

How does the charge of detergent headgroup (anionic, cationic and non-ionic) affect the permeability of Beta vulgaris cell membrane at 30.0ºC, as measured by the absorbance of betacyanin pigment leakage using colorimeter at 565nm?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 around a focused and specific research question with clear biological context, controlled conditions, and an appropriate dependent variable.
The student's rationale for comparing the detergents is scientifically grounded and shows strong understanding of how membrane disruption produces the measured effect.
The method contains enough procedural detail for another reader to follow the investigation with only minor clarification needed.

The design does not fully isolate headgroup charge from other detergent-specific variables such as chain length, size, and CMC.
A few procedural details are still missing or ambiguous, especially around solution preparation, rinsing of beetroot cylinders, and how repeated trials were managed.
Some cross-referencing and operational details are not precise enough for fully seamless replication.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The raw and processed data are presented clearly, with labelled tables, summary statistics, and graphs that make the trend easy to follow.
The student shows transparent processing by stating formulas, reporting standard deviations, and presenting statistical tests and pairwise comparisons.
The report demonstrates a real awareness of variation and uncertainty rather than treating the measurements as exact.

The removal of anomalous values is not fully defensible because the exclusion rule is not convincingly pre-established or validated.
Uncertainty is discussed, but not in a way that is fully integrated into the interpretation of treatment differences and statistical conclusions.
The analysis compares the specific detergents effectively, but it cannot fully support a claim about charge alone because the treatments are confounded by other detergent properties.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Excellent

C.2Scientific context comparison

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.

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 around a focused and specific research question with clear biological context, controlled conditions, and an appropriate dependent variable.
The student's rationale for comparing the detergents is scientifically grounded and shows strong understanding of how membrane disruption produces the measured effect.
The method contains enough procedural detail for another reader to follow the investigation with only minor clarification needed.

The design does not fully isolate headgroup charge from other detergent-specific variables such as chain length, size, and CMC.
A few procedural details are still missing or ambiguous, especially around solution preparation, rinsing of beetroot cylinders, and how repeated trials were managed.
Some cross-referencing and operational details are not precise enough for fully seamless replication.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The raw and processed data are presented clearly, with labelled tables, summary statistics, and graphs that make the trend easy to follow.
The student shows transparent processing by stating formulas, reporting standard deviations, and presenting statistical tests and pairwise comparisons.
The report demonstrates a real awareness of variation and uncertainty rather than treating the measurements as exact.

The removal of anomalous values is not fully defensible because the exclusion rule is not convincingly pre-established or validated.
Uncertainty is discussed, but not in a way that is fully integrated into the interpretation of treatment differences and statistical conclusions.
The analysis compares the specific detergents effectively, but it cannot fully support a claim about charge alone because the treatments are confounded by other detergent properties.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Excellent

C.2Scientific context comparison

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.

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.