Overall Score: 18/24
IB Grade: 6
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
18/24
0
12
24
5.1·suggestion
Page 1
Figure 1 caption is minimal; consider expanding to explain what key features illustrate the Leidenfrost effect and why this image supports the context.
5.2·suggestion
Page 13
Work cited list shows a variety of sources but formatting is inconsistent; apply a uniform citation style (e.g. MLA or APA) throughout.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Excellent
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Excellent
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- Research question clearly stated in title and situated within a specific scientific context (Leidenfrost effect and boiling curve)
- Detailed, largely unambiguous methodology with numerical values and uncertainties that allow reproducibility
- Controls are not only listed but their relevance to heat transfer is explained, with justifications for trial numbers and intervals
- Minor ambiguities remain (heated area diameter unspecified) hindering exact replication
- Risk assessment identifies hazards but lacks detailed mitigation measures (e.g., protective equipment)
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Good
Consideration of uncertainties
Excellent
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data are presented in clear, well‐labelled tables and graphs with units and uncertainties
- Processing (averages, standard deviations, piecewise fitting) is appropriate and accurate for HL level
- Communication of data recording and processing is generally clear
- Propagation of the ±2 °C temperature uncertainty into derived parameters (e.g. gradient uncertainty) is omitted
- Uncertainty on exponential fit parameters is not calculated
- Minor formatting slips (small axis labels, typo in equation) detract from overall precision
Criteria C: Conclusion
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and support
Excellent
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion fully consistent with analysis, clearly describing lifetime variations and identifying the Leidenfrost point
- Relevant comparison is made to literature evaporation‐time curves, situating findings in accepted scientific context
- Comparison would be strengthened by a quantitative check of the Leidenfrost point against literature values
- Minor stylistic phrasing issues prevent maximal polish
Criteria D: Evaluation
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Methodological weaknesses
Excellent
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses (droplet fragmentation, emissivity mismatch) are identified and linked to precision/accuracy impacts
- Suggested improvements (confinement film, plate emissivity calibration) are realistic and directly address identified errors
- Improvements are described but not fully explained or expanded (e.g. direct measurement of plate emissivity)
- Discussion of additional mitigation strategies (e.g. protective gear in risk assessment) is limited