IB Biology SL Internal Assessment Exemplar
Study of the effect of running session times (6:00, 10:00 , 12:00 , 16:00, 20:00) on heart rate response in a male participant aged 18 during 5 minute exercise intervals
Overall Score: 12/24
IB Grade: 4
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
12/24
0
12
24
5.1·suggestion
Page 1
The figure on exercise timing lacks a descriptive caption and axis labels. Adding a clear title, axis units, and legend will improve reader comprehension.
5.2·suggestion
Page 5
Nested list symbols appear as “\circ” markers due to formatting errors. Correcting bullet symbols and indentation will improve readability.
5.3·suggestion
Page 6
Pre-exercise setup omits specification of treadmill speed and incline. Including these parameters in the procedure will ensure full reproducibility.
5.4·suggestion
Page 7
Qualitative observations are presented without reference to circadian timing. Linking these findings back to specific session times would strengthen their relevance.
Criteria A: Research Design
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Excellent
Methodological considerations
Excellent
Methodology description
Criteria Feedback
- Research question set in a precise circadian physiology context
- Methodological considerations are well justified for sampling times and controls
- Procedure description is clear enough to allow reproduction
- Introduction synthesises peer‐reviewed sources to justify the design
- Hypothesis section is incomplete and contains extraneous punctuation
- Controlled variables table omits some methods and explanations
- Dependent variable description cuts off before the calculation formula
- Treadmill speed and gradient are not specified
- Safety table lacks clear column separation
Criteria B: Data Analysis
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Good
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Raw and processed data are presented with most headings, units and uncertainties, making the presentation clear
- Sample calculation and SD formula are transparent and aid comprehension
- Appropriate use of ANOVA and t-test demonstrates relevant data processing
- Uncertainty values are inconsistently populated and propagation methods are sometimes inappropriate
- Graph lacks error bars for all points
- ANOVA table contains placeholders rather than full F and p statistics
- T-test type and assumptions are not specified
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and consistency
Good
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion directly answers the research question with numerical trends
- Findings are fully consistent with ANOVA and t-test results
- Invokes circadian biology to contextualise observed effects
- Comparison to literature is descriptive without quantitative alignment
- No critical evaluation of discrepancies between results and published norms
Criteria D: Evaluation
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Identifies specific methodological weaknesses linked to validity
- Proposes realistic improvements directly addressing identified limitations
- Does not analyse the relative impact of each limitation
- ‘Strengths of the investigation’ section is empty
- Improvement explanations lack depth and quantitative justification