Exemplar: Germination IA - Edited to 2025 Syllabus
Marking Criteria
Criterion A: Research Design (6 marks)
Marks | Descriptor |
3-4 | The research question is outlined within a broad context.
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. |
5-6 | The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context.
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. |
4 out of 6: The research question is clear and testable, and the research design identified independent, dependent, and controlled variables. The inclusion of preliminary trials demonstrates thoughtful planning and strengthens the reliability of the methodology. However, the investigation is limited by the use of only two IV groups (smoke water vs. de-ionized water), which restricts the quantification of trends and the exploration of the correlation between smoke water concentration and its effect on germination. Additionally, the background information lacks detail on the biochemical role of smoke water, and the research question could include units for greater clarity. These limitations reduce the depth and rigor of the research design.
Criterion B: Data Analysis (6 marks)
Marks | Descriptor |
3-4 | The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise.
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. |
5-6 | The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise.
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. |
5 out of 6: The analysis includes appropriate statistical tools, such as chi-squared and t-tests, to interpret the results rigorously. The raw and processed data tables are well-structured but lack consistent column labels and clear titles.
Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)
Marks | Descriptor |
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. |
6 out of 6: The conclusion effectively answers the research question, interpreting trends such as higher and earlier germination in smoke water treatments. The results are supported by statistical analysis such as chi-squared test and t-test. Furthermore, the discussion connects the outcomes to relevant biological contexts, such as the role of chemical compounds like phosphorous and nitrogenous compounds in smoke-induced germination. The interpretation is consistent with the data analysis and supported by accepted scientific understanding, fully justifying the conclusions drawn.
Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)
Marks | Descriptor |
3-4 | The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.
Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described. |
5-6 | The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.
Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained. |
5 out of 6: The evaluation identifies clear methodological weaknesses, such as the use of potting mix, and suggests realistic improvements, including the use of filter paper or cotton to standardize germination conditions. The student also reflects on the scope of the research question, proposing the use of varying smoke water concentrations to strengthen the investigation. However, the evaluation does not fully explain how the identified weaknesses might have impacted the reliability or variability of the results, such as standard deviations. Despite this, the realistic and specific improvements and critical reflection on the design demonstrate a strong analysis.