Presentation on theme: "IB Internal Assessment. State a detailed conclusion that is described & justified, relevant to the research question, & fully supported by the data presented."— Presentation transcript:
State a detailed conclusion that is described & justified, relevant to the research question, & fully supported by the data presented. State your results (answer to your question) Explain how/why hypothesis is supported or rejected Discuss the science behind your results Limitations to the methodology Realistic and relevant improvements to the methodology Could your exploration be extended?
KEY difference from Analysis: Focus of Evaluation incorporate the methodology and set the results within a genuine scientific context while making reference to your research topic
Not evaluated but… restate the research question for the moderator (IB grader) Do not list/repeat the steps of the procedure. State all final processed data with units – If you have 3 levels of IDV, then you will have 3 numbers (with units) to report. EXPLAIN why the lab produced these results – This is where most students struggle. – Why did you get these results? – Does your data fully support your conclusion? – Is there scientific research that you can compare your results to? – Provide citations/references for any information you had to look up or research as a footnote.
What do you mean by “explain?” “explain”- Make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas. Detail! – For example, if asked why your Elodea doesn’t grow as well in the dark vs. the light, you need to discuss the Light Dependent Reactions in detail (light exciting electrons in chlorophyll-a, ETC, formation of ATP & NADPH) as well as Light Independent Reactions (ATP & NADPH used to reduce CO 2 into glucose which can then be used by plant cells mitochondria for growth & cell division) – Be sure to provide references for where you looked this information up again
Discuss strengths & weaknesses of the investigation Limitation of data and sources of uncertainty Demonstrate clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in establishing your conclusion In order to do this, you must understand the difference between types of error. – Systematic: can in principal be eliminated if identified (error in the procedure that led to an uncontrolled variable) or uncalibrated equipment – Random: occur randomly due to variation in biological tissues (why you have trials!) or +/- of the equipment used – Blunders: your mistake (DO NOT USE THESE!)
Evaluate limitations and weaknesses in method Looking for procedural errors Think about the procedure & what you did to conduct the lab. Was there anything not controlled? – Ex: different brands of fans blowing to simulate wind – Ex: Different brands of cleaner used if trying to disinfect an area – Ex: Different amount of cleaner used if trying to disinfect an area – Ex: used potato cells from 2 different species of potatoes Was there something that would lead to your raw data or final processed data to not be as accurate as it could be? – Ex: not enough trials (ex: less than 5 trials or collected raw data varies a lot between trials) – Ex: not coming in at the same time everyday to collect raw data in an experiment where time is relevant (also a control issue)
“Weaknesses” are NOT human errors!! – Do not admit that you can’t count or read a number on a graduated cylinder – The scale, timer, graduated cylinder are plenty accurate enough! You must explain why systematic or random errors are limitations AND what affect they would have on your final, processed data Ex: because “x” was not controlled, the resulting rate I calculated is higher than it should be because…
Realistic improvement to limitations How would you re-write the procedure/method to fix each error? Be specific! – Ex: If more trials are needed because data not consistent, then state exactly how many more trials & why this number would fix the problem – Ex: if you want only 1 type of cleaner to be used as a disinfectant, then state exactly which one, exactly how much, & for exactly how long it is to be used. Realistic: consider the equipment we have here (or would reasonably have in a school) – If you want to enlarge an image to make it easier to see/count, we have dissecting & light microscopes, magnifying glasses, cameras & computers. We do NOT have an electron microscope. You must also explain how this will fix the limitation/error.
Clear and easy to follow Presented in a logical and coherent way Any mistakes should not hamper understanding Well structured & focused on the necessary information (concise) Without tangents; 6-12 pages long Excessive length will be penalized Use appropriate biology vocabulary correctly Tables and graphs presented appropriately Mistakes in titles, missing sample calculations dealt with here Appropriate citations for research and ideas
What is missing in this Evaluation? Didn’t list processed data (rates with units) “in direct proportion” is not correct No references! What was good? discussed warmer temp’s possibly leading to denaturing of enzymes
What was missing? need to discuss the uneven distribution of temperatures written into the procedure controls did not specify that maggots come from the same batch/be the same age (what effect could this have on processed data?) Was there any scientific literature to compare too? (may not have been) What was good? it did discuss the problem with maggots not going straight
What was missing? didn’t fix the uneven distribution of temperatures Why wasn’t 10 trials sufficient? If it wasn’t, then this should have been discussed as an error & then specify exactly how many trials should have been done What was good? it modified procedure so that the experimenter would not include trials where the maggot didn’t go straight