Biology Internal Assessment Checklist

Personal Engagement

• Originality of the design of the method (choice of materials and methods).

• A statement of purpose is expressed.

• Relationship with a real-world problem.

• Difficulty of collecting data (evidence of tenacity).

• Presence of preliminary investigations or trial runs.

• Quality of the observations made.

• Care in the selection of techniques to process the data.

• Reflections on the quality of the data

• Type of material referred to in the background or in the discussion of the results.

• Depth of understanding of the limitations in the investigation.

• Reflections on the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Exploration

• The topic has been identified.

• Presence of the independent variable or the two variables being correlated.

• Range of the independent variable.

• Presence of the dependent variable (or derived dependent variable e.g., a rate)

• Subject material.

• Where relevant, the scientific name of the organism used (following conventions, e.g., Drosophila
melanogaster).

• Relevance.

• Focus on the essential details.

• Context of the range of the independent variable.

• Context of the dependent variable.

• Discussion of other factors that would need controlling.

• In the case of databases, an explanation of the choice of data sources.

• Protocol for collecting the data.

• Range and intervals of the independent variable.

• Selection of measuring instruments (where relevant).

• Techniques to ensure adequate control (fair testing).

• Method to control or monitor each variable.

• Use of control experiments.

• Quantity of data collected, given the nature of the system investigated. Provision for replicate trials.

• Type of data collected; the data should be appropriate to answer the research question.

• Provision for qualitative observations.

• Use of screen shots to describe databases, simulations or mathematical models and their
manipulation.

• Only culture known non-pathogenic strains of microbes. For example, do not culture from hands or
swabs of door handles

• Do not test for antibiotic resistance. There are enough antibiotic resistant strains circulating in the
environment without more being selected for.

• Apply strict rules of hygiene and aseptic techniques.

• Do not culture microbes at 37°C. Incubation should be carried out below 30°C, preferably at around
25°C.

• Always label cultured plates so they can be clearly identified and never open them for inspection.

• Lids should be taped on but do not tape all the way round a Petri dish. Taping all around the dish

encourages anaerobic conditions that are best avoided.

• Never assume that what is growing in the culture is the strain that was inoculated, even if
nonpathogenic strains have been used.

• Always sterilize used cultures and dispose of the cultures using local health and safety regulations.

• Evidence of a risk assessment, even if the investigation is considered “safe”.

• An appreciation of the safe handling of chemicals or equipment (e.g., the use of protective clothing
and

eye protection). However, latex gloves should be avoided in the proximity of a Bunsen burner.

• Consideration of basic hygiene.

• Handling of microbes (see above).

• Application of the IB animal experimentation policy.

• A reasonable consumption of materials.

• Use of written consent forms in human physiology experimentation and consideration of the welfare of
the volunteers.

• Correct disposal of waste and alien/invasive species.

• An appreciation of the safety issues when working in the field.

• Attempts to minimize the impact of the investigation on field sites.

Analysis

• The data collected is in line with the method.

• Sufficiency of the data (a sample of data may be shown where the data set is very large).

• The quality of data.

• Qualitative observations (photographs, drawings, or maps correctly labelled).

• Relevant and complete data.

• Tables with unambiguous titles, clear headings, units, and uncertainties (this also impacts on

Communication).

• Appropriate processing tools are selected.

• Ease to follow the data processing: sample calculations or screen shots from the spread sheet help.

• Statistical analysis: justification for choice of the test.

• Appropriate graphing techniques, including adequate scale, title, and labelled axes.

• Point out mistakes in calculations and graphing.

• Degrees of precision of instruments used (measurement uncertainties).

• 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.

• Explanation of trends.

• Comparisons, correlations.

• Identification of optima, maxima (plateau), intercepts.

• Interpretation of statistical calculations (e.g., significance testing).

Evaluation

• A conclusion that is supported by the data.

• Reference back to the research question.

• Reference to a hypothesis (if one has been stated).

• Scientific justification from the processed data.

• Scientific background that helps to explain the outcomes of the investigation with literature references.

• Comparison with general models and proposed biological explanations.

• A discussion of the strengths this might be quite general or implicit or it might refer to specific parts
that worked well or data that were consistent.

• Discussion of the reliability or the data.

• Identified weaknesses in the method and materials.

• Evaluation of the relative impact of a weakness on the conclusion.

• Sensible, realistic improvements with an understanding of the methodology used.

• Details of the improvements (e.g., not just that the investigation needs to be repeated but how many
times).

• Realistic extensions that clearly follow on from the investigation.

Communication (AVOID THE FOLLOWING)

• The use of whole pages for titles. This is not necessary.

• Whole pages for a list of contents. This is not necessary at all.

• Repetitive tables when one would do. There is often no need for a raw data table in addition to a table
with processed data; they can be profitably amalgamated.

• Inefficient data tables headers. The art of designing data tables needs to be taught. A hand drawn
sketch of the table layout should be considered first.

• Raw data relegated to the appendix when there was no reason for it. This upsets the flow of the
report.

• Tables split over two pages or with a title on one page and the table or graph on the next. Candidates
should consider using page breaks.

• Multiple graphs drawn when they could have been combined, this not only saves space, but it also
improves comparisons. However, there is a limit to how much data can be presented on one graph.
• Squashed graphs so the distribution of the data is difficult to judge. This is sometimes due to the
candidates not reformatting the font.

• The equation of a trend line presented on a graph when it is not going to be analyzed.

• Bibliography, footnotes, endnotes, or in-text citation missing. This would lead to the work being
suspected of malpractice.

• References with an incomplete format. Sometimes just the URL was given with no date of retrieval.

• Scientific nomenclature was not always used, and the formats were not always respected.

• Non-metric units used. These must be converted.