Criterion C evaluates how effectively you interpret your results in relation to the research question and hypothesis. It also assesses your ability to discuss trends and uncertainties.
Marks | 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. |
3-4 | A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented.
A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context. |
5-6 | A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented.
A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context. |
1. Summarize Key Findings
•
Restate your research question and/or hypothesis.
•
Summarize your most significant results and their implications.
sample summary of results:
2. Critical Analysis of Results
The analysis section is where you demonstrate your understanding of the data and connect it to broader biological principles. Don’t just describe your results—interpret them. Explain patterns, address anomalies, and discuss what your findings mean in the context of biology.
a. Interpreting Patterns and Anomalies
Command | Example | |
Identifying Patterns in Data | Look for trends in your results and describe them clearly. Use precise language and reference your data. | “As temperature increased from 10°C to 40°C, the rate of catalase activity increased. Beyond 40°C, activity declined, as shown by decreasing oxygen production.” |
Explaining Patterns | Use biological reasoning to explain observed trends. | “The increase in catalase activity up to 40°C is consistent with the enzyme's optimal temperature range, where molecular collisions and reaction rates are maximized.” |
Addressing Anomalies | Don’t ignore anomalies—they weaken your credibility. Acknowledge and explain them. | “At 50°C, trial 2 showed significantly higher oxygen production compared to other replicates. This could be due to uneven heating in the water bath.” |
b. Connecting Findings to Biological Theories
Command | Example | |
Reinforce with Syllabus Content | Link your findings to key biological theories or processes discussed in class. | “The decrease in catalase activity beyond 40°C can be attributed to enzyme denaturation, where the protein's tertiary structure is disrupted due to heat.” |
Use Peer-Reviewed Support | Cite relevant studies or examples that align with your results to add authority to your analysis. | “This aligns with studies showing catalase denatures above its optimal temperature, reducing its ability to facilitate reactions.” |
Checklist for a Strong Conclusion
1.
Restate the Research Question and Hypothesis: Confirm whether your findings supported or refuted the hypothesis.
2.
Summarize Significant Findings: Highlight key trends and observations.
3.
Link to Biological Concepts: Relate your findings to syllabus topics or scientific theories.
Sample scientific context: