INTERNAL ASSESSMENT EXAMINER GUIDELINES MAY 2020

BIOLOGY

Some general points

Calculating the overall criterion mark

Read the report through first to get a general impression before establishing the marks.
Evidence for the criteria will appear in several parts of the report.
It must be stressed that the overall mark per criterion is not an arithmetic mean of the
different components.

Moderators need to use a best-fit approach in deciding the appropriate mark for a particular
criterion. The mark awarded should be one that most fairly reflects the balance of
achievement against the criterion. It is not necessary for every single component of a level
descriptor to be met for that mark to be awarded.

Read the level descriptors for each criterion (starting with the lowest level) until a descriptor
that most appropriately describes the level of the work being assessed is reached. If a piece of
work seems to fall between two descriptors, both descriptors should be read again and the
one that more appropriately describes the candidate’s work should be chosen. Ask yourself
can you see any reason why the higher level should not be awarded?

Where there are two or more marks available within a level, moderators should award the
upper marks if the candidate’s work demonstrates the qualities described to a great extent;
the work may be close to achieving marks in the level above. Moderators should award the
lower marks if the candidate’s work demonstrates the qualities described to a lesser extent;
the work may be close to achieving marks in the level below.

Only whole numbers should be recorded; partial marks (fractions and decimals) are not
acceptable.

Do not expect the candidates to respond to the criteria in a standard format. It will be
necessary to read through the report once to situate where the candidate has responded to
the criteria and a second time to mark it against the criteria.

The teacher should mark from low to high, but moderators may mark from the teacher’s
marks (looking for evidence, going up or down or accepting the teacher’s marks).

Internal Assessment Moderators may mark by initially giving careful consideration to

the teacher’s mark and comments and then looking to see if there is clear evidence to
adjust the mark upwards or downwards. If it is felt that the teacher has made a sensible
interpretation of the criterion in question then support the mark. Nevertheless this support
is not automatic.

Mark positively. Look for what is present in a piece of work and not for minor omissions.
Don’t ask “have they said everything?” There is always more to say. Instead ask “have they
said enough?” to meet the mark band.

In the event of a piece of work that is presenting difficulties please contact your team
leader.
 2
The impact of one component of a criterion that is not addressed or that does not
reach the standard required (scores zero).
This can be a problem where the other components are quite well addressed.
For the criteria Exploration, Analysis and Evaluation: The best-fit is impacted by a maximum
of one mark level overall. So 4, 4, 5, 0 might look like a 4 overall when considering the 4, 4 and
5 but it becomes a 3 because of the zero. However if the marks are 2,1,2,0 then a best fit of 2
or 1 can be retained. The candidate has demonstrated that three of the criteria have been
addressed (weakly) reducing the mark still further would be unfair.

This would not impact on Communication or Personal Engagement as these are marked
holistically.

In the event of two components in a criterion not being addressed please contact your team
leader for advice.

Awarding a zero for a criterion

This is always a difficult call and it does happen, but rarely. Obviously in the case of an
incomplete report where there is no evidence at all for a criterion, a zero is awarded.
When there is evidence that there has been some effort to address a criterion the work has to
be incomprehensible or totally irrelevant to award the zero mark.

For investigations whose focus is not entirely biological

If the Investigation contains material that strays beyond biology, still mark positively. We are
going to be tolerant where the work strays too much into Geography, Psychology or
Chemistry. Do not simply fail to credit work, instead give full credit to the scientific thinking
and process evidenced.

If the work is so far removed from Biology that you feel unqualified to mark it then contact
your team leader for further advice or alert Assessment. A crosscheck will be needed that the
student is not submitting the same work for two sciences! It is also possible that the wrong
piece of work has been uploaded.

Be Open-Minded and try to reward independent Thinkers and Risk Takers.

A student may have produced work that fulfills a criterion in a way these guidelines have not
foreseen. Let the work in front of you define the outcome.

Certain characteristics will impact more than once

Communication is a holistic criterion and parts that impact on it will already have impacted,
to some degree, on the other criteria where the report is difficult to follow.
Limited data and poor consideration of uncertainties will impact on Exploration, Analysis and
Evaluation. Although the best-fit method of assessment works its way up from low to the
appropriate level, moderators often think of ‘penalizing’ the student for this or that fault.
Again, look only at what the student has done. However, as experienced teachers we all know
that a weak student might have a poor design plan, limited method, and maybe inadequate
communications. You should see overlapping weaknesses from different perspectives.

The problem of limited data

How much data is limited data?
There is not going to be standard rule. All we can say is that which can reasonably be expected
to be collected in 10h of investigative work. We all know through experience that some
biological investigations are going to generate data more quickly than others. So a catalase
 3
investigation is going to generate data more quickly than a photosynthesis investigation,
depending upon the methods of data collection involved. We would hope that the teacher
would counsel their students and make sure that they engage in feasible investigations. But
we would like to see the students being adventurous in the choice of their investigation so we
cannot expect that every investigation will generate lots of data. And we would hope that the
teacher informs us of problems encountered. The reports that we get from the candidates are
supposed to be accounts of what happened which may not turn out as they planned initially.
We might hope to see evidence of what the candidates encountered on their trials and how
they responded to them. We should not automatically expect 5 trails for a range of 5 levels in
a continuous variable. Nevertheless, sufficient data would be necessary for adequate
processing to be evidenced. For example standard deviations need to have sample sizes of 5
or more. Even so it is still possible to have less replicates and express variation as a range.

It is also possible that a potentially feasible investigation fails to give a lot of data through no
fault or inexperience of the student. So we are not going to expect perfect textbook data. The
data are going to be rough, sometimes very rough and inconclusive. Nevertheless, we might
expect a degree of adaptability of the student and we might hope to see this expressed in the
account of the method (this will provide evidence for PE criterion too).

How will the amount of data collected, impact on the other criteria?

Analysis
The amount of data is going to be variable and this will impact on the type of processing that
can be done with it.

If the data is limited, through no fault of the candidate, then maybe all that can be done is
mean and range, perhaps an attempt at correlation. This is fairly easy processing. If the
processing carried out is commensurate with the level expected then there should be no
problem in achieving the highest level.

If, on the other hand, there is no apparent reason why more data could have been collected
then the mark for analysis will be impacted.

If the data is more plentiful, perhaps we might expect to see standard deviation, standard
error and tests of significance. Can we fairly assess these? There is a risk that those who have
a lot of data and, therefore, have more evidence upon which to judge them, may pay for this.
In the case of large data sets, the moderators should, therefore, carefully consider what has
been done by the student, rather than penalize small errors in the processing. Large errors in
the processing are a different matter as they will influence interpretation and the conclusion.

I hope you can appreciate this dilemma. It is a difficult judgment call to make (perhaps the
most difficult).

Evaluation
In the evaluation criterion the lack of data will impact on the conclusion and the evaluation of
the data. Here we can look for evidence that the student is aware that the amount of data is
limiting the conclusion that can be made.
 4
THE CRITERIA

PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT
LOOK OUT FOR
• The originality of the design of the method (choice of materials and methods)
• Statement of purpose
• The relationship with a real world problem
• The difficulty of collecting data (evidence of tenacity)
• The quality of the observations made
• The care in the selection of techniques to process the data
• The reflections on the quality of the data
• The type of material referred to in the background or in the discussion of the results
• The depth of understanding of the limitations in the investigation
• The reflections on the improvement and extension of the investigation
• Preliminary investigation
• All aspects weak or unaddressed and an unfinished report can score zero for this
criterion

This criterion should be treated holistically. Evidence for it will come at multiple points in the
reports.

It should include a clear statement of why this investigation is important, its purpose, its
justification. E.g. How does it relate to the real world? Saying “I want to confirm Mendel’s law
of segregation” does not reveal genuine Personal Engagement. Addressing a personal interest
requires some explanation and relationship with the research question. Being a swimmer and
then doing a standard investigation on vital capacity does not reveal PE though investigating
the vital capacity of a population of active swimmers and non-swimmers would be better. The
key to PE is “making the investigation their own investigation.”

Personal input can be reflected, at the simplest level, by having completed the investigation
but those following classic experiments with no sign of application cannot expect to score
highly here. There must be some sign that there is a commitment to the investigation. This
may not result in a lot of data being collected if it was technically difficult to achieve.

Evidence for independent thinking can also be seen in the design of the method and the choice
of materials as well as in the choice of methods for the analysis of the data and its
presentation.

Evidence for insight may be found in the choice of sources for the background and in the
setting of the scientific context for the conclusion. It will also be apparent in the interpretation
of the data, the conclusions drawn and the evaluation of the method and data.
 5
EXPLORATION
Research question & Topic (note this not a reference to a topic in the programme)
LOOK OUT FOR
• The presence of the independent variable or the two variables being correlated
• Range of the independent variable
• The presence of the dependent variable (or derived dependent variable)
• The subject material
• Where relevant, the scientific name of the organism used

The topic of the investigation does not mean the topic in the biology programme guide. The
programme is quite extensive so there will probably be some link to the programme but there
does not have to be a direct link (e.g. an investigation on insect flight would be valid).

The research question may not necessarily include the actual dependent variable but a
derived value. E.g. What is the effect of X on the rate of Y? Where the rate would be derived
from the measured values. The link between the dependent variable and the investigation
would need to be established in the background.

It is understood that for certain investigations there would be no independent variable (e.g.
studying the relationship between the distribution of two species in a named ecosystem).

The research question does not need to be a question as such; it does not require the standard
form “How does y vary with x?”. However, when there is a more general research topic being
investigated, it should be expressed in a form that makes clear what the quantities are and
their relationship, thus guiding an appropriate investigation method.

Examples of research questions that could be generated from online databases:

• What is the mean survivorship of a rural (name) population of humans compared to an
urban (name) population?
• What has been the impact of antibiotic (name) treatment on survivorship in an urban
area (name) of a developed nation (name)?
• How has migratory behaviour of a species of bird (name) been influenced by weather
patterns during the period (years)?

The research question needs to be unique. In cases where a group of candidates have been
collaborating to generate a database, then the candidates involved must generate their own
unique research question.

Examples where candidates may have been collaborating to develop their own database:
• Collaborate to generate very large database of physiological information (height, weight,
gender, age, physical activity level, lung capacities, blood pressure, pulse, recovery times)
over several age ranges using a wide variety of specified exercises. An individual
Research Question could then be: What is the effect of warming up exercises (specify) on
the performance of students (age range, gender) carrying out isometric (specify) and
isotonic (specify) exercises?
• A large scale field study, perhaps over several years: An individual Research Question
could then be: What is the influence of the flow rate of water in the (name) river in
(location) on the distribution of Ecdyonurid mayflies?
 6
Background
LOOK OUT FOR
• Relevance
• Focus
• The context of the range of the independent variable
• The context of the dependent variable
• The discussion of other factors that would need controlling
• In the case of databases, an explanation of choice of data sources.

General accounts of the broad area of study (general textbook recounting of membrane
structure, enzyme activity, principles of respiration) rather than evidencing background
reading around the exact research question are not going to meet the 5-6 descriptor
statement.

The background could provide information that will lead to the setting of variables.
So in an investigation on catalase, the fact that catalase produces oxygen gas (setting the
investigation in context) and the dependent variable measures this, could be discussed in the
background. The way the measurement is taken (by pressure sensor, oxygen probe or
floatation of filter paper discs) would be part of methodology.

The discussion of the variables could occur here or within the method:
• Explaining the rational (given the limitations of the equipment and time available)
behind the range and intervals used for the Independent Variable.
• Defining/explaining the Dependent Variable – its relationship to the system being
investigated.
• Considering which variables need to be / can be controlled.
• Considering which variables may not be controlled but need to be monitored.
For example room temperature may not vary very much during the course of the
experiment but it needs to be recorded in temperature sensitive investigations. Setting
the air conditioning controls is not sufficient to control an experimental set up.

Citations
In Exploration and Evaluation, if there is an attempt to situate the investigation and its
conclusion in a scientific context, then that could score without a citation, if the student is
quoting broadly accepted facts or theories. If a precise fact is quoted without citation then this
is poor communication and it will impact on the Communication criterion.

If a moderator feels that something has been lifted from a source without adequate
citation then this may be a case of malpractice and would need to be referred to the IBO
for a problem report form.

If a moderator finds that the teacher has made a statement that s/he is not satisfied
that this is the candidate’s own work. Mark the work at face value and refer to the IBO
as an Exception.
 7
Method
LOOK OUT FOR
• The protocol for collecting the data
• The range and intervals of the independent variable
• The selection of measuring instruments (where relevant)
• Techniques to ensure adequate control (fair testing)
• The use of control experiments
• Method to control/monitor each variable
• The quantity of data collected, given the nature of the system investigated
• The type of data collected
• Provision for qualitative observations
• Pictures/screenshots/photographs/ drawings
• In the case of databases and simulations, the use of screenshots to explain how the
data was captured.

This will be a record of the method finally used after trialling not a proposed plan.
Standard protocols for determining the dependent variable will probably be used but they
need citations.
It is not necessary for the variables to be explicitly identified separately using subheadings.
A materials list is not obligatory. Details of the materials can be given in the method.
The method employed will depend upon the nature of the investigation. This may be limited
by time and materials. Ask yourself what might reasonably be achieved in 10 hours in a school
(or field centre) environment.
The quantity of data expected needs to be realistic. As stated above not all investigations will
produce the same amount of data in 10 hours. These investigations may lead to inconclusive
data.
The method, as written, needs to make reasonable provision for sufficient data collected to
answer the research question in a 10-hour period of investigative work. This 10-hour period
will no doubt include a certain amount of designing, trialling followed by redesign, that could
be time consuming. What actually comes out of the investigation can be judged in Analysis.

The style of presentation of the method is flexible. Both prose and recipe style are acceptable
and although passive voice and an impersonal style are conventional they should not impact
on the marks.

For work involving databases or simulations the same rules should apply. The source of the
data needs to be clearly described, its reliability established and its sufficiency and relevance
to answering the research question considered. The candidate will also need to explain how
the data sampling is controlled and how it is extracted or filtered. Screen shots should be
considered to illustrate the method.
 8
Safety, Ethics and Environmental impact
LOOK OUT FOR
• Risk assessment
• Handling of chemicals or equipment
• Handling of microbes
• The application of the IB animal experimentation policy
• Judicious consumption of materials
• Use of consent forms
• Disposal of waste and alien/invasive species
• Impact on field sites

Risk assessment is an important part of experimental design but issues concerning Safety,
Ethics and Environmental impact may not apply each time, so an absence of their
consideration does not necessary mean zero. The impact of this component on the mark for
the criterion will depend upon whether there are significant factors concerning safety, ethics
and environmental impact that are, or need to be, considered. In the event of there being no
issue with safety, ethics or environmental problems a statement to this effect may be expected
to show that the candidate has at least considered them.

For work with databases, simulations or modeling systems this last aspect, will not be
relevant and it can be ignored. Nevertheless as we shall see this does not mean that
candidates will not address ethics. There can be ethical issues to using database and it is to
the candidate’s credit if they are raised.

If there is an issue then stating it is evidence of awareness by the candidate but it does not
mean that it has been addressed. For example, evidence of the use of consent forms will be
expected where relevant. The fact that a consent form has been used is good ethical practice
but it does not itself imply that safety issues have been neutralised.

As always, experimentation that constitutes a severe risk in these areas should be

marked at face value and referred to the IBO. Raise the piece of work as an Exception.

ANALYSIS
Raw data
LOOK OUT FOR
• Data collected that is in line with the method.
• Sufficient data (a sample of data may be shown where the data set is very large)
• Quality of data
• Qualitative observations (pictures/drawings correctly labelled)
• Relevant data
• Tables with unambiguous titles, clear headings, units and uncertainties (also
impacts on Communication)

Sufficient data to permit processing, should be collected. However, it is understood that the
quantity of data collected will vary with the investigation. Assessment should be based upon
what can reasonably be expected in up to 10 hours of work using high school facilities. It will
be necessary for the moderator to judge whether the investigation is collecting a trivial
amount of data or not. For example, producing data to establish the rate of photosynthesis
 9
from a plant may be more difficult than measuring leaf sizes from samples of plants growing
in the shade or the sun.

Variation in decimal places and consistency between degrees of precision and recorded data
is sloppy but does not make analysis impossible to follow. It should impact more on
conventions in Communication. This may not be the case for Chemistry and Physics where the
propagation of errors is expected.

Data tables do not require a full descriptive title if they are set in the context of the report.
So long as the data is comprehensible, the presentation of data tables (e.g. consistent decimal
places, efficient column headings, units in the column headers) will impact on the
Communication criterion.

Raw data from data logging may be expressed as a graphical readout. It should be
accompanied by the necessary information such as units and degrees of precision (if relevant)
in the axis titles. In biology the biggest issue for uncertainties is in the variation in the
biological material (expressed as standard deviations, standard error or max-min range). We
expect the students to appreciate the limitations of their instruments and, where they may
have a choice, to select the appropriate one. However, stating degrees of precision will, impact
more on conventions in Communication than in Analysis.

Qualitative observations are expected to accompany the raw data. Their impact will depend
upon the nature of the investigation. E.g. fieldwork should always have some form of site
description this could take the form of maps, sketches or photographs.

In the drive to stay within the limit of 12 pages a candidate may only present a representative
sample of the raw data e.g. when large amounts of data have been collected using data
logging. A representative graphical read out revealing how data is derived, is acceptable. In
this way the derived data becomes the raw data. It may be that no raw data is presented in the
body of the report but it is presented in an appendix. This could impact on Communication
and it will depend on whether the raw data is so extensive its inclusion in the body of the
report would distract from the presentation. If it could reasonably be presented in the body
then Communication would be impacted. For example a sample of the data could be presented
rather than the whole data set.

Processing
LOOK OUT FOR
• Appropriate processing tools selected
• How easy it is to follow the data processing: sample calculation helps
• Statistical analysis: justification for choice of test,
• Appropriate graphing techniques including adequate scale, title and labelled axes
• Mistakes in calculations and graphing

This is the transformation of the raw data in order to come to a conclusion.

Math skills are important and this is stressed in the Nature of Science but this is not a maths
course being assessed. Students will be using statistics as a tool, so statements of null
hypotheses and alternative hypotheses should impact more on Communication than Analysis.
The candidates will be using GDCs or statistical programs for the calculations. Therefore,
expecting examples of full calculations is superfluous or irrelevant. For example, MSExcel
gives only the p-value for the t-test. So the students cannot use the t-statistic on a probability
 10
table as they are built into the program. Degrees of freedom are also calculated by the
program, so they really do not need to present them.
HOWEVER, we do need to be able to follow their processing and their reasoning so that we
can verify the validity of their interpretations and calculations. Thus correctly tabulated data
will need appropriate titles or they should be set in a context such that they are unambiguous.
This will not only impact on Communication but it could also impact on Analysis. Screen shots
from the programs will help illustrate the processing and the correct interpretation of the
statistical test performed on a spread sheet.

In statistical tests sample size is important. >30 is considered a large sample, 15-30 a small
sample and 5-14 a very small sample. <5 is usually considered too small a sample to apply
tests like the t-test. We can accept samples as small as 5 for the calculation of a statistical test.
If candidates can show that they appreciate the limitations of their sample size in the
interpretation of their results then that should be a positive sign.

Graphing, even that of raw data, is part of processing especially if it is used to derive values
(e.g. gradients for rates).
Graphing of raw data when the graphing of processed data would be more appropriate can be
considered insufficient but it is not wrong.

Dot-to-dot plotting of data is acceptable. Nevertheless, going further and placing a trend line
on the data, especially if it is accompanied by error bars, a correlation coefficient (r) or the
coefficient of determination (R2) value, can be a useful step in processing and interpretation
(e.g. comparison with an accepted model).

In order to be confident enough for a trend line to be drawn on a graph then sufficient data
needs to be obtained. Given the variability in biological systems this is very difficult at this
level. A trend line may be used to show how the limited data collected fits a given model (e.g.
pH optimum for an enzyme or light saturation of a photosynthetic system) but we cannot
criticise a student for producing a dot-to-dot graph where there are continuous variables.

r-values in biology are useful; we are often looking for correlations. R2-values are also useful
they permit an evaluation of the goodness of fit a trend line has to the data. Note: r (the
correlation coefficient) is not the same as R2 (the coefficient of determination).

Standard deviation or standard error can be useful assuming there are sufficient number of
replicates to be able to calculate one, otherwise range bars are acceptable for max-min values.

The types of graphs produced by the candidate should be appropriate for the data being
analysed.

Inadequate labelling of graphs (axes, legends, titles) and data tables (e.g. headers) will impact
on Analysis, especially if the result is incomprehensible, as well as layout and conventions in
Communication criterion. The proportions of the graph will not only impact on presentation
(Communication criterion) but also on their usefulness in the analysis of the data.

Statistical analysis would be expected too. The layout of this would depend upon the tools
used. Percentages, means, standard deviations or other statistics at the end of the column or
row of data they represent will be sufficient. For more complex processing using spread
sheets, screen shots are acceptable. For other less orthodox processing a worked example
may be necessary.
 11
The questions that the moderator should be asking are:
Is the processing appropriate?
Can the processing be followed?
Is the processing correct?

Uncertainties
LOOK OUT FOR
• Degrees of precision of instruments used
• Variation in the material used
• Standard deviations, standard errors, trend lines, R2 values, r values, error bars.
• Ranges (maximum-minimum)
• Appropriate response to outlier data

We do not expect all of the above. This is just a guide to the ways in which a student may
evidence consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.

Uncertainties for counts (±1) are not necessary. However data derived from these counts may
possess a degree of precision (e.g. percentage germination of a sample of 25 seeds will have
an error margin of ±4% or a heart rate after a 15 s palpation ±4 beats per min). Nevertheless,
the propagation of uncertainties is not systematically expected in biology.
It is likely that the consideration of the impact of uncertainties will be discussed in the
Evaluation under strengths and weaknesses.

Where relevant, uncertainties should appear in the column headings along with the units.
However, this will impact on the subject specific terms and conventions component of the
Communication criterion.

Error bars, if used on the graphs, should be identified preferably in the title of the graph.

Outliers should not be excluded from processing just because they do not “fit well” in the
general trend of the data. Their exclusion requires a justification. Even if they have been
identified mathematically.

Interpretation
LOOK OUT FOR
• Explanation of trends,
• Comparisons, correlations,
• Identification of optima, maxima (plateau)
• Interpretation of statistical calculations (e.g. significance testing)

The process of making sense of the data that will then lead into a conclusion.
The data collected and processed may not finally lead to clear patterns or trends. The efforts
of the candidate to make sense of the data objectively should be rewarded.
 12
EVALUATION
Conclusion
LOOK OUT FOR
• Reference to research question
• Reference to a hypothesis (if one has been stated)
• Scientific justification from the processed data

This is the element that ties together the whole investigation. A statement of whether the data
answer the research question or not. Thus, it should refer back to the research question and
be scientifically justified with comparisons made to the known scientific knowledge that is
properly referenced.
If a hypothesis is proposed then do the data support it?
It is understood that for an investigation of this sort it is likely that the data may support but
not lead to a strong conclusion.
The results may also be inconclusive.

Scientific context
LOOK OUT FOR
• Scientific background that helps to explain the outcomes of the investigation with
literature references
• Comparison with general models and proposed biological explanation

This needs to be relevant. It may refer to the context exposed in the background. Citations will
be expected for specific facts but not for accepted scientific knowledge. Their inclusion will
impact on presentation in the Communication criterion.

Weaknesses and strengths

LOOK OUT FOR
• A discussion of the strengths – general or specific
• Discussion of the reliability of the data
• Identified weaknesses in the method and materials
• The evaluation of the relative impact of a weakness

These need to consider both the successes and the difficulties in the methodology and the
quality of the data. Weaknesses do not include errors due to sloppy manipulative skills or
hypothetical events for which there is no evidence.

Suggested improvements & Extensions

LOOK OUT FOR
• Relevant, precise and feasible improvements and extensions.
• Understanding of the methodology used.

Both suggested improvements and extensions should be precise, focused and relevant to the
investigation. The improvements must be related to the weaknesses that have been identified
and they should be feasible in the context of a school environment or field course.
 13
The extension suggested should follow on from the research in a meaningful way and show
how it will enhance understanding of the topic or research question. Is it clear why knowing
this may be important?

COMMUNICATION
Presentation
LOOK OUT FOR
• Research question presented early on
• Graphs and diagram size and proportions
• Graph and table conventions
• Citations presented in text, as footnotes or end notes.
Citations
Both foot notes1 or in-text citations (Bloggs, 1990) should be accepted.
Diagrams taken from online and data from other sources must carry citations too.

In the biology guide under Acknowledging the ideas of another person it says: "Candidates are
not expected to show faultless expertise in referencing, but are expected to demonstrate that
all sources have been acknowledged." So if a candidate, at least, adds a bibliography, even if it
is not cross-referenced with footnotes, s/he has acknowledged sources. It is sloppy but it is
not a case of malpractice. A lot of their sources are likely to be from web-based material so
volume, page numbers etc. will not apply.

We would expect citations for specific facts raised in the background or the conclusion.
However, for accepted scientific knowledge situating the investigation, a citation would not be
necessary. Thus, stating that "enzymes have an optimum pH outside of which they will reduce
or lose their activity through denaturation" would not require citation but that for the
statement "beta amylase has an optimum pH of 5.5" one might expect a citation.

For the presentation of references (in footnotes, in text or as a collective bibliography) the
first component of the Communication criterion is impacted. For the form of the citation
(author, title, journal, URL, date last visited etc.) the last component is impacted
(conventions).

If it is felt that material has been plagiarised then that would need to be referred to higher
authorities. Here we have to distinguish between simply sloppy communication and
deliberate malpractice.

Bibliography
If footnotes are given and they contain full reference material, this should be accepted as
bibliographic reference.
 14
Structure
LOOK OUT FOR
• Logical sequence
• Essential information in the body of the report
• Ambiguity
• Unnecessary use of appendices.
• Presence of a bibliography

Language
The errors of expression and spelling made by candidates should not impact on the mark
unless it causes ambiguity or it becomes incomprehensible. The structure, relevance and
conciseness of the report are important rather than the language used. We should not be
penalising language. Many candidates will not be working in their first language.

Relevance and conciseness

LOOK OUT FOR
• Repetition in discussion
• Efficiency of tabulation
• Unnecessary graphs
• Over large graphs
• Irrelevant material
• Overrunning the 12 page limit when it could be avoided

Maximum Page length

Official statement from IBO:
The report should be limited to around 6-12 pages, without automatic penalties for a report that is slightly
longer, as long as the report remains relevant and concise. The Communication statement The report is
relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the
investigation is more likely to be met by a report of about this length. A sensible stance in relation to
presentation with regard to font size and margin width should be held, to ensure that good communication
skills are demonstrated. In the same way, graphs should not be reduced to such a size that they become
uninformative, simply to stay within the page limit.
It will be difficult to accept reams of extra work in appendices once the IA reports start to be uploaded;
teachers marking the work should annotate it if they judge the processed results to be a true reflection of
the raw data from, for example, a data logger. Candidates should not add on appendices in addition to a
write up of about 12 pages and should not send in excessive quantities of raw data from data loggers
(although showing an example of how raw data have been processed will be helpful to the moderator). Full
calculations are not expected to be shown, examples will suffice, and a worked example from a calculation
carried out on a spread sheet or a programmable calculator will not be expected.

So:
Under 12 is okay. But under 12 with small font (e.g. 8 point) and postage stamp sized graphs
to save on space, will impact on layout.
For a 13th page in a report, which has good layout and no irrelevance, we can be
understanding.
Over 12 with a verbose style or an inefficient presentation of data would not achieve a high
mark for conciseness.

We do not take into consideration the presence of the teacher’s comments in the page length.
We encourage teachers to make comments to justify their marking. Comment boxes or
 15
marking grills may cause the page length to increase. Please be aware of this when
considering page length.

Terminology and Conventions

LOOK OUT FOR
• Correct use of scientific terms (spelling is not penalised so long as there is no
ambiguity)
• Correct presentation of a citation
• Use of correct scientific units
• Non-decimal units (they are not appropriate)
• Appropriate formatting of data: Units in column headings, appropriate graphs,
correct and consistent number of decimal places
• Correct presentation of scientific names

Conventions
Accept ml or cm3, L or dm3.
Non-decimal system units (e.g. °F, cups and inches) are not appropriate.

Correct and consistent number of decimal places, based up on the degree of precision, is
expected. Minor slips in data tables can be forgiven if it is clear that, overall, the candidate is
trying to maintain consistent decimal places between the raw data, any degrees of precision
expressed and the processed data.
Presentation of scientific names: in italics and correct use of case in letters e.g. Homo sapiens

Bibliography
Any of the styles accepted by extended essays will be valid (e.g. MLA style).
A retrieval date is expected for online sources unless it is an article from a publication that has
all the publishing information.

Chef, Science Vitamin C oxidation & orange juice. https://foodcrumbles.com/vitamin-c-

orange-juice/
Would require a retrieval date

Hobday A. (1995) Body-size variation exhibited by intertidal limpet: influence of wave

exposure, tidal height and migratory behaviour. J. of Exp Marine Biology and Ecology 189(1-
2), pp. 29-45 available at:
https//pdfs.semanticsscholar.org/c4d3/f16efba46e507659e072ef462f9e56d5ea.pdf
Would not require a retrieval date