Context section (worth 6 marks)

Terrible research question = How does ammonium nitrate affect plant growth?

Why? the research question is too broad. what plant? what soil?

Good research question = how do different concentrations of nitric acid impact the root growth and success of germination of Zea Mays (corn)?

Good research question = what level of salinity can the plant tolerate without a significant drop in biomass?

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. Many standard lab based reports should PLAN to have at least 5 repeats

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

Here is a great IA which scored 5 out of a possible 6 for planning. The student was investigating the effects of salinity on germination of lentils. Here is the full IA. Read it to see how clear and well written the method is

The examiner said " Why these salinities? 5 seeds per IV treatment - could so easily be more. Does consider some risks. "

Results, analysis and conclusion section

Here are some excellent sentence starters for this section. Take careful note of the words known for this section

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

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"