Biology IA Exemplar: To what extent does the concentration of tea… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Biology SL Internal Assessment Example

To what extent does the concentration of tea tree oil (Melaleuca alternifolia) (0.0%, 20.0%, 40.0%, 60.0%, 80.0%, 100.0%) inhibit bacterial growth of E.coli, measured using the Mean Diameter of Zone of Inhibition (±0.1mm) over an incubation period of 24 hours at 25°C?SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Excellent

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student framed a focused and biologically relevant investigation question with clear variables, organism choice, and conditions.
The student justified the model organism and several design choices with appropriate scientific reasoning and preliminary trial evidence.
The student included enough procedural detail for the main investigation to be largely reconstructable.

There are a few internal inconsistencies in the stated control and measurement precision.
Some important design details are still missing, such as disc dimensions, loaded volume per disc, inoculum standardization, and disc spacing.
A few methodological steps are described ambiguously, which reduces full reproducibility.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's data are organized clearly in raw, processed, and graphical form, making the investigation easy to follow.
The student uses appropriate processing tools such as means, standard deviations, outlier identification, regression, and correlation.
The student shows good awareness of uncertainty through repeated trials, error bars, and discussion of variability in the measurements.

Some data-handling decisions are not explained clearly enough, especially where flagged values may have been excluded from summary statistics.
There are inconsistencies in the reported statistical values and in how measurement precision is described.
The uncertainty discussion is helpful but does not fully separate instrument uncertainty, biological variation, and preparation uncertainty.

Criteria C: Conclusion

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Excellent

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

5/6

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

Excellent

A.3Methodology description

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student framed a focused and biologically relevant investigation question with clear variables, organism choice, and conditions.
The student justified the model organism and several design choices with appropriate scientific reasoning and preliminary trial evidence.
The student included enough procedural detail for the main investigation to be largely reconstructable.

There are a few internal inconsistencies in the stated control and measurement precision.
Some important design details are still missing, such as disc dimensions, loaded volume per disc, inoculum standardization, and disc spacing.
A few methodological steps are described ambiguously, which reduces full reproducibility.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's data are organized clearly in raw, processed, and graphical form, making the investigation easy to follow.
The student uses appropriate processing tools such as means, standard deviations, outlier identification, regression, and correlation.
The student shows good awareness of uncertainty through repeated trials, error bars, and discussion of variability in the measurements.

Some data-handling decisions are not explained clearly enough, especially where flagged values may have been excluded from summary statistics.
There are inconsistencies in the reported statistical values and in how measurement precision is described.
The uncertainty discussion is helpful but does not fully separate instrument uncertainty, biological variation, and preparation uncertainty.

Criteria C: Conclusion

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and consistency

Excellent

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

5/6

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.