IB Environmental systems and societies (ESS) - Old SL Internal Assessment Example

The research question is clearly focused, specifying independent and dependent variables unambiguously and making it answerable within the ESS context.

The introduction outlines Poland’s waste issue but lacks depth on ecological impacts or current management policies; adding analysis of environmental consequences would strengthen context.

Although light exposure is listed as controlled, the method lacks quantitative control of light intensity; specifying light measurements or using a light meter would improve control.

The variables table is thorough, clearly categorizing independent, dependent, and controlled variables, enabling transparency and repeatability of the method.

Refine the hypothesis to include quantitative expectations (e.g., percentage increase in growth) to facilitate clearer evaluation against results.

The hypothesis is clearly stated and links biodegradable waste to expected increases in germination and growth, providing a testable prediction.

The materials list is comprehensive, specifying quantities and equipment needed, which supports replicability of the experiment.

Include calibration procedures for the pH meter and scale to ensure measurement accuracy and to document instrument reliability.

Consider randomizing pot placement daily and using at least three seeds per treatment to account for biological variability.

Using only one seed per treatment and no randomisation weakens statistical validity; increasing replication and random assignment is recommended.

Expand risk assessment to include potential pathogens in kitchen waste and outline mitigation (e.g., sterilization, gloves) to ensure safety.

Ethical section covers consumption and biodegradation but omits safety measures for handling waste and tools; discuss hygiene and disposal protocols.

Could the high germination in pot 4 be due to factors beyond eggshell treatment, such as microclimate? Consider alternative explanations.

No error bars or indication of variation are included; incorporating measures of variability would improve interpretation of treatment effects.

The raw data table is detailed, presenting both plant height and germination counts for all treatments across 90 days.

The soil pH table is comprehensive but dense; summarizing key trends graphically would more effectively convey relationships.

Add a bar chart comparing final biomass across treatments to visually highlight differences and support conclusions.

Include error bars and the control treatment line in the graphs to represent variability and facilitate direct comparisons.

The line graph for eggshell treatments omits the control group, making it difficult to assess relative improvements.

The conclusion asserts global applicability without addressing study limitations; temper claims and reference data limitations.

In the conclusion, discuss the reliability and generalisability of results by acknowledging sample size and environmental constraints.

Proposed improvements are relevant but remain broad; specify experimental conditions, sample sizes, and metrics for waste reduction targets.

The strengths and improvements table concisely summarises key evaluation points, demonstrating reflective analysis of the study.

It lacks evaluation of potential drawbacks (e.g., pathogen risks, nutrient imbalances); a balanced appraisal would strengthen the solution.

The application section successfully links findings to municipal waste statistics and advocates for sustainable gardening solutions.

Suggestion: Remove or clarify the code “20 01 08” in the title to avoid confusion and improve concision.

Simplify the introduction narrative to focus on key data and avoid verbose descriptions, improving reader engagement and coherence.

Photographic evidence effectively illustrates plant growth and supports quantitative data, enhancing reader understanding.

Add concise captions indicating pot number, treatment type and dose next to each photo to clarify the visual data.

The Works Cited list shows inconsistent formatting and varying levels of detail; standardising citation style will improve professionalism.

Adopt a recognized citation format (e.g., APA, MLA) and ensure each entry includes author, title, source and access date.