IB Biology HL Internal Assessment Exemplar
The research question that this experiment aims to answer is: How does the river current velocity ms-1 (0.9877, 0.5157, 0.2147) affect the frequency of Mayfly Nymphs (order Ephemeroptera) in a Freshwater stream in the Nettlecombe River?
Overall Score: 14/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
14/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 2
Statements on mayfly feeding and habitat appear without in-text citations, weakening the scientific support. Add precise references when describing diet and ecological roles.
5.2·strength
Page 7
Risk assessment effectively addresses safety and ethical concerns, demonstrating good field practice.
5.3·strength
Page 8
The formula for velocity is clearly presented, which aids readers in understanding data derivation.
5.4·strength
Page 10
The graph effectively illustrates the negative trend between velocity and nymph abundance, aiding visual interpretation.
5.5·strength
Page 12
The ANOVA results are succinctly presented, listing SS, df, MS, F, and P-value, facilitating quick evaluation of statistical outcomes.
Criteria A: Research Design
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Good
Methodological considerations
Good
Methodology description
Criteria Feedback
- Specific and well‐contextualized research question linked to river management and biodiversity monitoring
- Clear listing of methodological controls with rationale in a table format
- Procedural description largely reproducible with equipment list and site photograph
- Some ambiguities remain in the description (e.g., exact flow‐meter positioning, foot-stomping force)
- Rationale for discrete velocity values is not fully justified with literature or natural flow data
- Monitoring frequency and instrument precision for abiotic factors (pH, light) are not fully explained
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Excellent
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data recording and processing are communicated clearly and precisely with labeled tables, units, and error bars
- Appropriate and accurate data processing (means, totals, ANOVA) with correct statistics reported
- Comprehensive breakdown of ANOVA calculations demonstrates strong understanding
- Consideration of uncertainties is incomplete (no propagation of instrumental or counting error)
- Error bars on the graph are undefined (SD vs. SE not specified)
- Validation of ANOVA assumptions and worked numerical examples are omitted
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and consistency
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion clearly restates hypothesis outcome and links directly to ANOVA results
- Justification of rejecting the null hypothesis is consistent with presented analysis
- Comparison to accepted scientific context is superficial and lacks quantitative literature support
- Occasional lapses in variable terminology reduce precision (e.g., referencing temperature instead of velocity)
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses are identified (e.g., variable stomping force, pH fluctuations, species misidentification)
- Realistic improvements are proposed that address identified limitations (e.g., controlled lab replication, additional velocity levels, seasonal sampling)
- Relative impact of identified weaknesses on validity is not analyzed
- Improvements are not fully explained in terms of how they would mitigate each limitation