Overall Score: 15/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
15/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 2
Footnotes show formatting artifacts (e.g. “lt;sup>”); review and correct citation formatting to meet academic standards.
5.2·weakness
Page 10
Table 7 is blank and missing data; correct formatting and ensure the invertebrate data are populated.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Good
Methodological considerations
Good
Methodology description
Criteria Feedback
- Research question set within a very specific context (sites, timeframe, human disturbance), enhancing clarity and relevance
- Comprehensive equipment list, clear step-by-step procedure largely reproducible with few ambiguities
- Quantified risk assessment with likelihood and severity scores, showing strong attention to safety
- Critical details omitted (net mesh size, sweep dimensions) limiting full reproducibility
- Step 9 procedure is incomplete and truncated
- Background rationale lacks explicit citations to support ecological claims
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data tables clearly present raw and processed values with units and error bars
- Means and bar graphs with error bars aid comparison and show logical organization
- Detailed uncertainty discussion revisits variability metrics thoroughly
- Uncertainty derivations (e.g., ± values) are unexplained and sometimes arbitrary
- Simpson’s index is misinterpreted and calculated values fall outside the expected range
- Units formatting is inconsistent across tables (pH vs nitrate errors)
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Conclusion relevance and consistency
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion is directly relevant to the research question and linked back to the hypothesis
- Some comparisons made to accepted ecological context (oxygen demand, temperature effects)
- Contradictory species counts in conclusion vs earlier data undermine consistency
- Limited integration of quantitative uncertainty when justifying conclusions
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses are identified and linked to corresponding improvements
- Future study proposal (seasonal sampling) shows thoughtful critical reflection
- The relative impact of each methodological limitation is not fully explained
- Ethical field handling procedures (minimal handling time, specimen return) are omitted