Biology IA Exemplar: How does varying concentration of lead (II)… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology SL Internal Assessment Example

How does varying concentration of lead (II) Nitrate, 0.00, 0.20M, 0.40M, 0.6M ,0.8M ,1.0M (±0.01M) affect the photosynthetic activity of Elodea canadensis plant measured by the volume of oxygen production in ml (±0.1) using a 25 ml gas syringe for a period of 30 minutes (±0.1s).SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student framed a focused, quantitative question with clear variables, organism, range, and timing.
The student's background context is specific and scientifically relevant, linking lead exposure to photosynthetic mechanisms.

Some important control conditions are not specified precisely enough to ensure a fully reproducible design.
The method leaves ambiguities about solution preparation, repeat structure, and the exact measurement procedure.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student presents raw data in a clear table and shows a reasonable processing pathway from raw values to means, variability, and graphing.
The student makes a genuine attempt to consider uncertainty using repeat trials, standard deviation, standard error, and error bars.

Some processing choices are not fully justified, especially where values are excluded or uncertainty quantities are combined inconsistently.
Several statistical results contain calculation or transcription issues, which weakens confidence in the processed data.

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Improvements

Moderate

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Moderate

A.3Methodology description

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student framed a focused, quantitative question with clear variables, organism, range, and timing.
The student's background context is specific and scientifically relevant, linking lead exposure to photosynthetic mechanisms.

Some important control conditions are not specified precisely enough to ensure a fully reproducible design.
The method leaves ambiguities about solution preparation, repeat structure, and the exact measurement procedure.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Moderate

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student presents raw data in a clear table and shows a reasonable processing pathway from raw values to means, variability, and graphing.
The student makes a genuine attempt to consider uncertainty using repeat trials, standard deviation, standard error, and error bars.

Some processing choices are not fully justified, especially where values are excluded or uncertainty quantities are combined inconsistently.
Several statistical results contain calculation or transcription issues, which weakens confidence in the processed data.

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Improvements

Moderate

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.