Finding a research question (RQ)

The above options are quite generally and you should think carefully about your research question.

Here is an example of a poor research question

• How does the biodiversity change with skiing?

But, here is an example of an excellent research question

• How does the abundance of meadowsweet differ from the on-piste ski area to the off-piste ski area on the Bretaye ski mountain in Switzerland?

• Does distance from the treated wastewater outlet (and concentration of nitrate ions) at Nettlecombe affect the abundance of the freshwater shrimp?

This research question is very focused and appropriate as it can be answered well within the limits of 2,250 words. The examiners are very strict and will deduct points if you IA is over this word limit both in the application section (worth 3 marks) and the communication (worth 3 marks). Stay within the limit!

The context section (worth 6 marks)

What is the context?

1. states a relevant, coherent and focused research question

2. discusses a relevant environmental issue (either local or global) that provides the context for the research question

3. explains the connections between the environmental issue (either local or global) and the research question.

In the context you will discuss the environmental issue (EI) and connect the EI with your RQ

What is the examiner looking for?

• an appropriate environmental issue

• a focused research question

• connections between the EI and the RQ

The IA should focus on a particular aspect of an ESS issue and apply the results to a broader environmental and/or societal context.

The RQ should be relatively specific for full marks, see the example above (this is Ondine's question). Please do not use general statements which everyone knows already. You have to research your EI. 

Your context can be around 400 -450 words - this will leave you enough word count for the rest of the IA and if you have some spare words you can go back and make this section bigger

Now read Ondine's context section and think about what was particularly good about it. 

For examples, you may want to find out if an aquatic species like the mayfly nymph is affected by the snow melt. You should discuss why there may be a specific link i.e why does the salt in the snow melt affect the mayfly nymph?

Planning Section (worth 6 marks)

The planning section consists of three criteria which need to be met in order to achieve 6 marks

1. designs a repeatable* method appropriate to the research question that allows for the collection of sufficient relevant data

2. justifies the choice of sampling strategy used

3. describes the risk assessment and ethical considerations where applicable.

What is the examiner looking for?

• A repeatable method

• Relevance to the RQ

• Appropriate sampling strategy to obtain sufficient relevant data

• Appropriate consideration of safety and ethical issues.

Repeats or  comparison of sources are nearly always necessary to establish reliability. The appropriate number of repeats is dependent on the investigation carried out. Fieldwork comparing areas should have at least 5+ samples from the two areas. This could be a transect with 5 quadrat samples in each area.Sufficient data to permit processing should be collected. 

Safety, risks and ethical considerations; 

If you leave out the risk assessment section, you can only get a maximum of 4 marks for planning

• risk assessment

• the application of the IB animal experimentation policy

Read over the above example about biodiversity in a Malaysian strem and see if you agree with the examiners statement,

" Planning well done, although methodology for biodiversity suggests that only two samples are taken....need to read table of controlled variables to see that 6 samples were taken. No mention however, about how the entry point was selected. Site choice is significant, and only needs to give site choice information more clearly. Risks section should have mentioned water safety also".

Then you can have a read through Ondine's planning section and take note of how thorough she has been !

What general effects does tramping have on terrestrial ecology?

Have a look at this website to find out more 

 Infiltration rings

You will need

• container of water (keep this constant between experiments - 4 litres is enough)

• 30 cm ruler

• metal / plastic tube (to be the 'infitration tube')

• stopwatch

• block of wood

Bang the infiltration tube into the ground until it forms a seal (using the wood and mallet to bang it in evenly and avoid affecting the results by stamping on the area of land being tested).

One person fills the infiltration tube to a standardised level (e.g. 15cm). The other starts the stopwatch, and then record the water level every 30 seconds. To maintain water pressure, person 1 should top up the infiltration tube if their water level falls below a certain point (e.g. 10cm). Person 2 should make a note of when this is done, so that it can be taken it into account when they are calculating their infiltration rate.

The Results, analysis and conclusion section (worth 6 marks)

There are three criteria in this section.

1. constructs diagrams, charts or graphs of all relevant quantitative and/or qualitative data appropriately

2. analyses the data correctly and completely so that all relevant patterns are displayed

3. interprets trends, patterns or relationships in the data, so that a valid conclusion to the research question is deduced.

What is the examiner looking for in the data collected?

• data collected that is in line with the method

• Quantity, quality and relevance of data

• Qualitative observations (if it is relevant)

Raw data should be included in the main body of the report. If there is no raw data the maximum possible for RAC should be a 4. 

What is the examiner looking for in the analysis section?

• appropriate processing tools selected and correctly applied

• clarity of the data processing

• appropriate graphing techniques

• accuracy in calculations and graphing

You must show correct data processing to reach a conclusion. Good achievement will be possible in investigations where the candidate has ;

1. averaged the dependent variable data, 

2. validated the processed data (Standard deviation/best fit line) and 

3. constructed appropriate diagrams/charts/graphs to see the nature of the relationship.

Correct tabulated data with appropriate titles and in context must be presented so that the examiner can follow the processing and reasoning and verify the validity of the interpretations and calculations. If you choose the wrong graph the maximum for this section is 4.

What is the examiner looking for in the conclusion section?

this is the element that ties together the whole investigation.

• comparisons, correlations, explanations of trends

• interpretation of relationships in data/valid conclusion

• reference back to research question

In the Malaysian stream example the student scored 5 for this section. Here are the examiner's comments

" Raw data tables, (the descriptions of the substrate are confusing, when comparing the different tests at the different sites), good statistics and graphs. trends etc present, but agree with the teacher on the conclusion. A statement of whether the data answers the RQ should be presented".

Read through this section to see if you agree with the examiner. Read through Ondine's RAC section to see how well she has fulfilled the criteria

Here are some great sentence starters

Phrases to Use

This study found that...

The results should be interpreted with caution...

Findings from this study should be considered in light of several limitations.

Many/several variables that could contribute to this research were not accounted for as...

The data supports / does not support the hypothesis because...

Although the data shows a correlation / indicates support for...

There is strong / weak support for the conclusion as...

The data supports a conclusion that

More data is needed to provide support for this initial conclusion.

The reliability of the data is high / low due as shown by the low / high standard deviation of each mean.

Supporting Conclusions with Statistics

The standard deviation bars overlap and therefore there is too much variation in the data to draw a strong conclusion.

The standard deviation bars do not overlap suggesting confidence in the reliability of the data.

The correlation between the two variables is strong with an R2 value approaching 1.

The correlation between the two variables is weak / does not exist as the R2 value is low, approaching 0.

The t-test at 95% confidence supports the hypothesis that there is a significant difference between the two [locations].

There is a negative / positive correlation between x and y. As the x becomes [warmer] the y decreases. This is supported by a Pearson coefficient R2 value of 0.3 which indicates a weak correlation, however with further statistical analysis, using the Spearman Rank coefficie

The discussion and evaluation section (worth 6 marks)

There are 3 aspects  in this section

1. evaluates the conclusion in the context of the environmental issue

2. discusses strengths, weaknesses and limitations within the method used

3. suggests modifications addressing one or more significant weaknesses with large effect and further areas of research.

1. What is the examiner looking for in the evaluation?

• evaluation of the conclusion with respect to the RQ and EI

• Discussion: strengths, weaknesses and limitations of the method

• Evaluation of the investigation

• proposed modifications

You have to discuss and evaluate the conclusion separately from stating them in the RAC. You must start with the original RQ then see if secondary data/research  to support/refutes the conclusion. Is there evidence to suggest the conclusion is in agreement with what else you have read. Is the conclusion surprising? Are there reasons why?

2. Strengths and weaknesses and limitations

What is the examiner looking for in the evaluation?

• a discussion of strengths - this might be general or refer to specific parts that worked well.

• discussion of the reliability of the data

• identification of weaknesses in the method

• the evaluation of the relative impact of a weakness in the investigation

If you only address practical issues by saying just carrying out the procedure better, then you can only get a maximum 4. If you only give one element of strengths, weaknesses and limitations is completely missed out then the maximum is a 4 in this aspect. So give strengths, weaknesses  and limitations.

3. Modifications and further research

What is the examiner looking for in the modifications and further research section?

• suggestions of modifications

• Focus on one or two significant issues

• Further areas of research

Suggestions modifications/further research should be precise, focused and relevant to the investigation. You must discuss how the modifications you suggest might bring the experimental results closer to what is expected.

so;

1. suggest a modification that is related to one of the weaknesses you have identified 

2. then say how this modification will contribute to the reliability, precision and accuracy of the results

3. do this for two modifications

The further research suggested should follow on from the research in a meaningful way and go beyond the original method of investigation to show how it will enhance understanding of the EI or RQ

Here is what the examiner said about the Malaysian stream investigation; this only scored a 3 so the weakest part of the investigation.

" Discussion is more a link to, a continuation or repetition of the CXT. Very little connection between the conclusion and the EI. No strengths, weaknesses/limitations described. Suggests modifications and further areas of research. No strengths so max 4 in that band; in 1-2 for modifications, and further research is weak. Overall a 3"

The Application section (worth 3 marks)

There are 2 aspects to this criterion;

1. justifies one potential application and/or solution to the environmental issue that has been discussed in the context, based on the findings of the study

2. evaluates relevant strengths, weaknesses and limitations of this solution.

What is the examiner looking for?

• A valid application of the outcomes of the investigation to the broader EI

• Clear link between RQ and findings

• Discussion and evaluation of the application with respect to the environmental issue

You must include strengths, weaknesses and limitations for a 3 in this criterion. It must also link directly to the EI for 3.

Here is what the examiner had to say about the Malaysian stream example, it achieved full marks so it a great example well done,

" All aspects of APP have been adequately covered. The Solution is reasonable and gives strengths, weaknesses and limitations"

Communication section (worth 3 marks)

There are 3 aspects to this section

1. The report is well structured and well organised.

2. The report makes consistent use of appropriate terminology and is concise.

3. The report is logical and coherent.

4. use units in table correctly, e.g. cms, (secs)

What is the examiner looking for?

• graphs and diagram size is good (easy to read)

• clear raw and processed data sections

• presence of citations and bibliography

• clear presentation trhoughout

• do not repeat parts

• do not include irrelevant info

• do not go over the 2250 word limit

• use correct, consistent number of decimal places

• Make sure you have clear headings with the 5 different sections. Make sure you have all headings and have a logical structure. 

Here is what the examiner said about the Malaysian stream IA,

"The uncertainty in the probes used is not matched in the decimal places of the data but this does not detract from the data. Error bars are finally mentioned, could be more explicit. Overall very easy to follow."