Names

TITLE

1. RESEARCH DESIGN
1.1 Introduction (one page with references)
□ I have provided additional background (context, previous works/explorations, what you
expect and personal engagement) which is focused and deepens the understanding of the
investigated research question.
1.2 Variables
□ I have clearly stated and defined the variables (dependent/independent/controlled)
involved in my investigation.

1.3 Research question and hypothesis

□ My research question investigates the relationship between two correlated variables “How
does X affect Y?”.
□ I have provided a justification for the relationship between the dependent and
independent variables hypothesized using appropriate scientific context.
 1.4 Methodology
□ My choice of investigation methodology is justified. I have explained why the methodology
chosen and any modification is appropriate to answer the research question.
□ I have explained and justified key steps of the methodology and I have ensured that my
report is clear on why specific conditions are used in the methodology and what the importance of
these conditions are.
□ Another student may potentially repeat the work by following the methodology that I have described.
□ I have assessed and reported any associated Health and Safety considerations including Ethical and
Environmental risks, which may not be immediately obvious.
□ My methodology allows for the collection of enough data (5 values with 3 trials each).
□ My presented methodology is an honest representation of the work undertaken in the lab, stating the
procedure I used and not the one that I should have used in retrospect.
2. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
□ My qualitative and quantitative data are presented appropriately.
□ The origin of the presented data is clear.
□ I have presented my results with clearly labeled and appropriate tables, graphs,
figures, and schemes that enhance the reader’s understanding of my work and directly answer
my research question.
□ My data-analysis protocol is clearly shown. I have provided an example of my calculations.
□ I have taken into consideration the uncertainties in my measurements and the error propagation in
the various mathematical operations used.
□ I have correctly interpreted my processed data using in-text citations when appropriate to help the
reviewer follow my work and thinking process.
3. CONCLUSION
□ I presented the most relevant information, the associated uncertainties and stated a
conclusion that directly addresses the research question.
□ My conclusion is justified by the data and the data-analysis I have presented in the
report.
□ I have compared my conclusion to the established scientific context, such as journal articles, science
textbooks, encyclopedia articles or other peer-reviewed sources.
□ I have considered the extent of my agreement or disagreement with the established scientific
understanding, and I have explored the reasons that may have contributed to my conclusion.
4. EVALUATION
□ I have considered the weaknesses related to the control of variables, the choice of
equipment, the choice of methodology and any choices regarding the data-analysis processes
used. I have considered how these choices affected my conclusion and whether I would have
made different choices given the opportunity.
□ I have considered the limitations of my investigation. I took into consideration any
assumptions made in the data-analysis, the range of the collected data, and the boundaries of the
system investigated. I have considered the extent to which the obtained results are applicable.
□ Considering the above, I have proposed realistic changes that could lead to more accurate
results and/or extend the range and/or scope of the investigation.
 Criteria

1. Research design

Marks Level descriptor

0 ● The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

● The research question is stated without context.

1–2 ● Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research
question are stated.
● The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for
the investigation to be reproduced.

● The research question is outlined within a broad context.

3–4 ● Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to
answer the research question are described.
● The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation
to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.

● The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context.

5–6 ● Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to
answer the research question are explained.
● The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation
to be reproduced.

2. Data analysis

Marks Level descriptor

0 ● The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

● The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise.
1–2 ● The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of
uncertainties.
● Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with
major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

● The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise.
3–4 ● The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but
with some significant omissions or inaccuracies.
● The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with
some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

● The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise.
5–6 ● The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of
uncertainties.
● The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out
appropriately and accurately.
3. Conclusion

Marks Level descriptor

0 ● The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 ● A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the
analysis presented.
● The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

● A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent
3–4 with the analysis presented.
● A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific
context.

● A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with
5–6 the analysis presented.
● A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

4. Evaluation

Marks Level descriptor

0 ● The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 ● The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.

● Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

● The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.

3–4 ● Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses
or limitations, are described.

● The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or

5–6 limitations.
● Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses
or limitations, are explained.

Marks: / 24

Grade: