Personal engagement 2 marks 8%

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and
makes it their own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and
skills. These could include addressing personal interests or showing evidence of
independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation
of the investigation.

Criterion Statement Aspect Check

P1.1 Have you used citations to support your Exploration

argument and discussion? Are they relevant?

P1.2 Have you used data, published and otherwise, and Exploration
observations to support your argument? The data
and observations should not be ‘add ons’. They
should be integral to your write up.

P1.3 If you have anomalies and trends in your data have Exploration
you used theories and citations to explain these?
These should extend beyond your RQ

P2.1 Your RQ should not be a repeat of someone Personal significance

else's work but should be based on prior
research

P2.2 Is your RQ based on your personal interests? Personal significance

P2.3 Is your RQ relevant to local issues? Personal significance

P2.4 Is your RQ novel or unusual? Personal significance

P3.1 Did you approach the RQ in a novel and Initiative

innovative way e.g. did you design a piece of
equipment or change an accepted methodology
to suit your RQ?

P3.2 Did your method use known protocols which Initiative

were adapted for your investigation (with good
reason)?
Exploration 6 marks 25%

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for
the work, states a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques
appropriate to the Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses
awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.

Criterion Statement Aspect Check

E1.1 Is your RQ clearly stated? Research question

E1.2 Is your RQ a precisely formulated question? Research question

E1.3 Can you formulate a hypothesis from your Research question

RQ?

E2.1 If you did any prelim experiments have you Background

made reference to them in your background?

E2.2 Does your background info set the RQ in context? Background

Is it relevant?

E2.3 Have you rested your RQ in your background and Background

referred to it?

E2.4 Have you described and explained the Background

background biological theory?

E2.5 Are your citations that you have used in Background

background relevant to the RQ

E2.6 Do you demonstrate that you understand the Background

background info?

E2.7 Have you used the background info to state the Background
null and experimental hypothesis?

E2.8 Have you used a sketch graph of expected Background

results if relevant?

E3.1 Is your IV correctly identified with units/range and Method

explanation of how the range was chosen?

E3.2 Is your DV correctly identified with units? Method

E3.3 Have you identified all control variables and Method

presented them in a table?

E3.4 Have you discussed how the CV’s will impact on Method
the experiment if not controlled?

E3.5 Have you addressed these impacts? E.g stated Method

how you will control the variable

E3.6 Have you stated how you will manipulate your IV, Method
 including units and uncertainties (+/-) of all
equipment where necessary

E3.7 Have you stated the method of recording results Method

including units and all uncertainties?

E3.8 Is there an equipment list including sizes and Method

uncertainties. Better still an annotated photo or
diagram of the experimental setup.

E3.9 Have you explained the specific method of Method

controlling your variables clearly?

E3.10 Does your method answer your RQ? Method

E3.11 Could your method be replicated by another Method

experimenter?

E3.12 Have you cited any published protocols for Method

methodology if they exist?

E4.1 Have all safety issues been considered and Safety, ethics, environ
recorded?

E4.2 Have you considered any ethical issues and Safety, ethics, environ
recorded this?

E4.3 Have you considered any environmental issues Safety, ethics, environ
and recorded this?

Analysis 6 marks 25%

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the
student has selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant
to the research question and can support a conclusion.

Criterion Statement Aspect Check

A1.1 Is the data collected relevant and appropriate to Raw data

your RQ?

A1.2 Do you have a minimum of 5 increments (2 if Raw data

comparing means) over a suitable range in your
IV?

A1.3 Have you done the recommended 5 repeats (3 Raw data

min) or 15 if comparing means at each
increment to ensure reliability?

A1.4 Have you recorded relevant quantitative data? Raw data

A1.5 Is all your data recorded correctly and honestly? Raw data

A2.1 Have you shown sample calculations to Data processing

 determine your DV if necessary?

A2.2 Have you included a standard deviation? You Data processing

must have 5 repeats!

A2.3 Have you performed the correct statistical test Data processing
for your investigation and does this address the
RQ?

A2.4 Do your statistical tests include degrees of Data processing

freedom, critical values and probability levels
and have these been used to accept/reject null
hypothesis?

A2.5 Is your mathematics correct? It will be checked Data processing

A2.6 Have you stated all formulae (or Excel Data processing
equivalent)?

A3.1 Have uncertainties been removed/adjusted to Impact of uncertainty

reflect calculations performed?

A3.2 Have you discussed the size of the Impact of uncertainty

uncertainties compared to the data collected?

A3.3 Have you included error bars (unless they are Impact of uncertainty
insignificant)?

A3.4 Have you stated the source of the error bars Impact of uncertainty
e.g. SD or min max values?

A4.1 Have you identified patterns and trends in the Interpretation of

data and referred to them? processed data

A4.2 Have you discussed the amount of variation in Interpretation of

the data i.e. the size of the SD? processed data

A4.3 Have you identified and discussed anomalies? Interpretation of

processed data

A4.4 Do patterns in the data relate to the RQ? Interpretation of

processed data

A4.5 Are the data points joined to illustrate the trend? Interpretation of
processed data
Evaluation 6 marks 25%

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of
evaluation of the investigation and the results with regard to the research question and the
accepted scientific context.

Criterion Statement Aspect Check

EV1.1 Have you discussed the possible impacts of Conclusion

qualitative data?

EV1.2 Is your conclusion based on, and does it refer to Conclusion

your interpretation of your raw and processed
data?

EV1.3 How strongly do you support your hypothesis Conclusion

using your statistical tests?

EV2.1 Have you given a scientific explanation of the Scientific context

results?

EV2.2 Is this explanation justified with explicit Scientific context

reference to your data?

EV2.3 Have you made a comparison between Scientific context

published data and theoretical text?

EV2.4 Have you restated the scientific context i.e. do Scientific context
not rely on what is in the background?

EV3.1 Have you discussed and trends or patterns in Limitations of data

the data or are you not certain of a trend? sources and error

EV3.2 Does the range /increments of IV allow you to Limitations of data

answer the RQ? sources and error

EV3.3 Has your DV been measured correctly or does Limitations of data

it need to be changed? sources and error

EV3.4 Are there any problems with your method Limitations of data
(systematic errors), i.e. identified CV’s? sources and error

EV3.5 Has qualitative data had any impact on the Limitations of data
validity of the conclusion reached? sources and error

EV4.1 Have you stated any improvements that would Suggestions for
help you answer the RQ? improvement and
extension

EV4.2 Have you been specific about these Suggestions for

improvements and stated equipment that will be improvement and
needed if necessary? extension

EV4.3 Have you cited any published protocols or Suggestions for

techniques if they are the improvement? improvement and
 extension

EV4.4 Have addressed all identified limitations and Suggestions for

sources of error? improvement and
extension

EV4.5 Have you suggested any further investigations Suggestions for

based on the conclusion but relevant to the improvement and
RQ? extension

Communication 4 marks 17%

This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that
supports effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes.

Criterion Statement Aspect Check

C1.4 Is your report consistently in the third person? Presentation

C1.5 Have you given citations for all sources? Presentation

C1.6 Are your citations consistent in format? Presentation

C2.1 Is there an obvious clear structure to your report Structure

e.g.clear headings and titles?

C2.2 Are graphs and tables consistently titled e.g Structure

Graph 1?

C2.3 Are your graphs, tables and images included as Structure

near as possible to their first reference?

C2.4 Are all tables and graphs complete on pages Structure

i.e. no breaks across pages?

C2.5 Did you use space effectively to make your Structure

report clear?

C2.6 Are your graphs clear, is the colouring Structure

appropriate?

C3.1 Are all the graphs and data relevant to the RQ? Focus

C3.2 Are all the images and media relevant to the Focus
RQ?

C3.3 Are all the included citations relevant to the Focus

RQ?

C3.4 Are all of your arguments and discussions Focus

relevant to the RQ?

C3.5 Is your report between 6 and 12 pages long? Focus

C4.2 Are the table headers present and correct IV in Terminology and
first and DV and subsequent values in next? conventions

C4.3 Are your uncertainties correct? Terminology and

conventions

C4.4 Are the decimal places consistent with the Terminology and
precision/uncertainty of the equipment? conventions

C4.5 Are decimal points consistent throughout e.g. Terminology and

the precision of the mean values are consistent conventions
with the data they are derived from?

C4.6 Is your raw data clearly distinguished from Terminology and

processed data? conventions

C4.7 Is your graph appropriate to your IV? Terminology and

conventions

C4.8 Are the graph axes clearly labelled Terminology and

conventions

C4.9 Are the graph axes scaled appropriately? Terminology and

conventions

C4.10 Are your images annotated where they need to Terminology and
be? conventions

C4.12 Have you avoided excessive use of jargon? Terminology and

conventions

C4.13 Have you explained non-standard technical Terminology and

terms i.e. demonstrated that you understand conventions
them?