Biology IA Exemplar: To what extent does temperature (25.0, 30.0,… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology SL Internal Assessment Example

To what extent does temperature (25.0, 30.0, 35.0, 40.0 and 45.0 ±0.5°C) affect the rate of catalase activity (cm/s) in Solanum tuberosum tissue, as measured by the volume of foam produced (𝑐𝑚^3) produced when reacted with a 5.0% hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) solution over a standardized 60-second enzymatic period?SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Good

A.3Methodology description

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student chose a focused, biologically appropriate investigation with a clear independent variable and a sensible temperature range.
The student justified the temperature choices using relevant enzyme theory, which shows thoughtful planning rather than simple description.
The student's method includes enough procedural detail for another student to broadly reproduce the investigation.
The student included several relevant controls and replication measures to support a fair test.

The dependent variable is not fully consistent across the report, since the question refers to foam volume while the method and data measure foam height.
Some controls are described inconsistently or too vaguely, especially pH, sample diameter, and temperature equilibration.
A few procedural details are not fully aligned, which weakens complete reproducibility.

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

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student presents both raw and processed data in a way that lets the reader follow the transformation from trial values to means and rates.
The student includes repeated trials, standard deviations, and a graph, which shows a solid attempt to analyze the pattern in the results.
The student makes an effort to consider uncertainty and variation rather than treating the data as exact.
The student's overall trend is communicated clearly enough to show the expected rise and fall in foam production across temperatures.

Some terminology and presentation are inconsistent, especially where foam height is treated as if it were foam volume.
The uncertainty treatment is not always secure, and the meaning of the error bars is not made clear.
There is an important calculation issue in the inferential statistics, so the significance claim is not fully reliable.
A few of the processed values and labels need tighter checking to ensure precision and consistency.

Criteria C: Conclusion

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

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.

Criteria D: Evaluation

4/6

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

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Good

A.3Methodology description

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student chose a focused, biologically appropriate investigation with a clear independent variable and a sensible temperature range.
The student justified the temperature choices using relevant enzyme theory, which shows thoughtful planning rather than simple description.
The student's method includes enough procedural detail for another student to broadly reproduce the investigation.
The student included several relevant controls and replication measures to support a fair test.

The dependent variable is not fully consistent across the report, since the question refers to foam volume while the method and data measure foam height.
Some controls are described inconsistently or too vaguely, especially pH, sample diameter, and temperature equilibration.
A few procedural details are not fully aligned, which weakens complete reproducibility.

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

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student presents both raw and processed data in a way that lets the reader follow the transformation from trial values to means and rates.
The student includes repeated trials, standard deviations, and a graph, which shows a solid attempt to analyze the pattern in the results.
The student makes an effort to consider uncertainty and variation rather than treating the data as exact.
The student's overall trend is communicated clearly enough to show the expected rise and fall in foam production across temperatures.

Some terminology and presentation are inconsistent, especially where foam height is treated as if it were foam volume.
The uncertainty treatment is not always secure, and the meaning of the error bars is not made clear.
There is an important calculation issue in the inferential statistics, so the significance claim is not fully reliable.
A few of the processed values and labels need tighter checking to ensure precision and consistency.

Criteria C: Conclusion

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

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.

Criteria D: Evaluation

4/6

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.