# data[].attributes.body
Personal engagement: 0
-choice of topic is not explained & interest in the topic not shown
Exploration: 4
-topic of investigation is identified but the rq(clearly stated) is not described fully
-background info is entirely appropriate and relevant, as well as supports the investigation
-variables are identified but method to keep each control variable not explained
-full citation not included(detail needed)
-safety not included
Analysis: 4
-tables and heading included
-decimal points are not consistent.
-repeats are not sufficient
-qualitative data not present
-calculations. used appropriately in investigation.
-graphs are clear with axes labeled clearly with correct units
Evaluation: 3
-a detailed conclusion is given and justified relevantly.
-limitations identified, as well as sources of uncertainty
-realistic suggestions for improvement discussed.

# data[].attributes.body
Exploration (3/6)
- Topic of the investigation is identified
- The research question is quite vague as it does not include the independent, depend variable as well as the name of the species of potato that will be investigated
- The background information is relevant and appropriate to the investigation, giving a scientific support to the hypothesis that is inferred thereafter
- The hypothesis is qualitative not quantitative as it does not explain what is expected to happen at focal temperatures. No graph to provide support & evidence is provided
- The independent variable is identified with brief details of the range
-The Dependent variable is identified however there is no details of the measuring tools, but a plus point is that the uncertainty is included.
- The controlled variable are identified with how to control them but no description of their effect if not controlled.
- Uncontrolled variables are identified and their method of being monitored.
- Equipment list is identified with the size, number of equipment but not the uncertainty.
- Method to collect data does not address the research question
- There is no annotated picture of the equipment and the setup.
- There is no reason of how the results will be presented
- No safety or ethical considerations given
- No full citation !!

Analysis (4/6)
- Some suficient relevant quantitative data
- The headings and SI units are given with uncertainties
- IV is in the first column
- Decimal places are not consistent throughout
- Decimal places are not consistent with the uncertainty
- No qualitative data recorded
- SD are recorded
- evidence of calculations
- Errors bars not required
- Graph is clear and axes labelled clearly
- Trend line is not drawn with coefficient of determination (R2)
- some conclusion is given based on the data (partially)
Evaluation (4/6)
- Detail conclusion is described with reference to the research question
- Conclusion is supported by the data
- Conclusion is not explained and justified to the relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context
- No unexpected answer are discussed
- Strengths not described but weaknesses are discussed
- Sources of uncertainties are not very organised throughout
- The implications of the limitations are discussed
- Relevant suggestions for the improvement are discussed
- Extension is not discussed
Communication (2/4)
- Well structured
- relevant and concise (8 pages)
- Focus is understandable but not present coherently
- Subject specific terminology is not used widely
- Some errors are present within the report
- Raw and processed data have been followed and are somewhat correct

Personal Engagement (1/2)
- Justification for choosing the RQ is not included, it does not demonstrate interest or curiosity

# data[].attributes.body
Jiashu
PE:
Exploration:
Analysis
Evaluation
Communication

# data[].attributes.body
Personal E. (0/2)
Little interest is shown in the topic. Student should invest more into engagement.

Exploration (3/6)
Positive
1. Background information shows knowledge on the topic and experiment.
2. The aim is given clearly and relates to the background information.

Needs Improvement
1. Variables are not detailed enough, should show how the experiment is being affected.
2. The hypothesis is dragged on and more complicated than it should be.
3. Uncertainties for the measuring equipment were not given.
4. Research question is not relevant and scientific. It should relate more to the background information and the topic itself.

Analysis (4/6)
Positive
1. Tables for all 5 weeks are given. Data is calculated and results are simple to process.
2. Standard deviation is recorded, giving more insight to the results.

Needs Improvement
1. Decimal points are not consistent for raw data and calculations.
2. A graph of the independent variable against the dependent variable should be plotted for more results.

Evaluation (4/6)
Positive
1. Conclusion is done with

Communication (2/4)

# data[].attributes.body
Negative
Does not show any motivation
RQ not that decriptive
Variables are not detailed
No credit given or where the information was found
Method of finding data was not given
The decimal point is not consistent
Hypothesis should include a table or graph
Not enough repeats
Uncertainties are not there for the measuring equipments
Positive
Background information was plentiful
Sufficient Quantitative Data
The IA is quite clear and its objectives can be seen.
The structure of the IA is good
PE  0
EX   3
AN   4
EV   4
CM   3
Total: 14

# data[].attributes.body
Personal engagement 0/2
- No justification for as to why the RQ was chosen
- No initiative in designing or presentation
Exploration 4/6
- RQ is not clear enough, too vague
- Aim details everything that will be investigated
- Background information is relevant and concise enough to understand
- The variables were identified and how they would be measured, controlled as well minimized was mentioned
- The uncertainties were not given for the measuring apparatus used
- Methodology is
Analysis 4/6
- Decimal point used is not kept the same
- Graphs were well explained and labelled
Evaluation 4/6
- Several good sources of errors and ways to improve them were mentioned
Communication 3/4
- Report is well structured and relevant
- Not concise sometimes

# data[].attributes.body
Personal Engagement 0/2
(-) The experiment is commonly carried out and basic. Student did not explain his/her rationale for choosing this topic.

Exploration 3/6
(-) RQ needs to be more focused as it is vague. Can be improved by identifying DV and IV.
(+) The basic structure of the investigation is outlined, i.e. RQ, Aim, Background Info, etc.
(+) Aim is much more detailed than RQ as it not only identifies the DV and IV, it also takes into account the method of measuring DV.
(+) Background information supports the investigation by explaining the processes that are happening at a molecular level.
(-) There is no referencing to sources that were used in the background information. This can be improved by inserting footnotes and citing the sources.
(+) Hypothesis is quantitative
(-) Equipment is not listed with uncertainty
(-) Methodology is vague
(-) No photo of set up

Analysis 4/6
(+) Headings, correct SI units and correct uncertainties are at the top of the columns
(-) The raw data and process data should be recorded and calculated in separate tables respectively.
(-) Decimal places are inconsistent with raw and process data.
(+) Analysis for graph includes anomalous results and relationship between the two variables (DV and IV)

Evaluation 4/6
(+) conclusion supports the RQ
(+) uncertainties were clearly . elaborated, e.g. biological uncertainties
(-) does not mention the strengths of the practical
(-) uncertainties and improvements were not very organised. Could use a table to match each uncertainty with the suggested improvement

Communication 3/4
(+) good structure; general outline of the report is clear
(+) easy to read, e.g. use of page numbers
(-) no citation

Total 14/24

# data[].attributes.body
Personal Engagement (1)
(-)no motivation and justification of RQ
(+)there is designing and layout of the analysis and implementation of the layout
Exploration (2)
(+)Topic of investigation identified.
(-)RQ not clearly stated, no IV (and species name?)
(+)Background info is clear and relevant.
(-)No graph for hypothesis
(-)No clear range for IV
(-)No measuring tool stated in DV (uncertainty is included)
(+)Clear control variable
(+)Uncontrolled variable identified
(-)No uncertainty for equipment
(+)Method address RQ
(+)Method presented in step-wise format.
(-)Not enough repeats.
(+)Method of measuring DV mentioned
(-)No annotated photo of equipment and set-up.
(-)No reason for how results will be presented
(-)No safety/ethics/environmental concerns not stated
(-)No citations

Analysis (4)
(+)There is sufficient relevant quantitative data, record on table and title.
(+)Uncertainties and SI units clearly stated on the first column.
(+)Each analyses support with graph and title
(+)rich explanation in conclusion

Evaluation (5)
(+)focused conclusion with appropriate reference to RQ and hypothesise.
(+)Very rich evaluation and is separated to paragraphs to aid reading.
(+)data used in evaluation
(+)limitation and uncertainty mentioned with consequence
(-)extension of the experiment not mentioned

Communication (2/4)
(-)No citations
(+)report is clear and structured
relevant length
(-)focused RQ and investigation but not fully explained
(+)correct raw and process data

14/

# data[].attributes.body
Personal Engagement: 0
The experiment is not interesting and there is little evidence that the student went out looking for a variety of experiments to carry out.

Exploration: 4/6

Positive:
Topic of investigation is identified
Background information is relevant and does provide understanding.

Need improvement:
Research question is not focused.
No variables identified and no methods of measurement or data collection are identified

Aim should include the equipment being used to measure

Monitoring of variables could be organised clearer

Equipment list does not contain uncertainties of the apparatus
Better if a table format was used so that it is clearly presented. No specification of the type of potatoes used.

Procedure does not include what equipment is used to measure and record the values.

Analysis: 4/6
Positives:
Well organised table with clear data shown. Title specifies what the data is about.

Anomalous points included

Table is clearly labeled and organised

Standard deviation is included

Explanation of the calculation is presented and why it is carried out is also clear.

units and uncertainties given in table

Needs improvement:
inconsistent decimal places for values.
The actual example calculations for the values are not shown.

Graphs contain 2 lines in each so it is unclear which one the is the correct result.

Decimal points between raw data and processed data are not consistent.

Evaluation 3/6

contains reference to the data collected
is detailed and has relevant comparison to in scientific context

identifies the standard deviation and reliability of results
Method is analysed and evaluation of the control of the variables are given
Uncertainties are identified
identified that number of results collected is insufficient to come to a conclusion
Methods of improvement are identified and relevant

no reference to research question
uncontrolled variables are not identified
Measuring errors and systematic errors are not identified
more repeats are suggest but no further extensions of the investigation are expressed

Communication 2/4

Reports is well structured and subheadings make it clear
concise and relevant

subject specific terminology is used but not consistently throughout the entire report.

presentation of raw data could be clearer but conventions for presentation of processed and raw data are not completely met

# data[].attributes.body
Personal Engagement:
0/2
No effort or interest were shown. The title and the RQ wasn't detailed.

Exploration:
Need Improvement:
1) Research question ( is too vague and it needs more elaboration.
2) Background information can include diagrams such as graphs to illustrate the hypothesis. Referencing wasn't stated.
3) Variables stated need to mention on how it impacted the experiment and what ways they should do to control and monitor it.
4) There should also be more variables stated.
5) The equipment list needs to be a table that states the quantity, concentration, volume and lastly, uncertainties of the apparatus.
6) Procedure wasn't good as it was all over the place and not detailed enough.
Positive:
1) Units were stated in the equipment list.
2) Information given in the background information was relevant.
2/6
Analysis:
Needs Improvement:
1) No minor gridlines in the graph.
2) The decimal places are not consistent in the graph and the table.
3)

Positive:
1) Good labelling of the different tables.
2) Good explanation of the graphs.
3) Uncertainties are give in the table,

Evaluation: 5/6
positive:
1) the conclusion was well elaborated and it answers the RQ
2) conclusion included statement of the data and uncertainties.

communication 3/4
positive:
1)  The IA report was well written and it was well structured.
2)  In the report, he discussed the data clearly and the background information was also referred.

# data[].attributes.body
personal engagement 0/2
- no justification was written for choosing the RQ
- there is not much evidence of personal input in designing the experiment

exploration 3/6

needs improvement

- RQ needs to include how the independent variable will be measured
- hypothesis should include any graph trends (of the change in mass of the potato) that might be observed
- controlled variables should include why the variables need to be controlled and its effect on the experiment if they are not controlled
- a diagram should be included as part of the method
- no safety or ethical issues were discussed
- no references shown for background information
positive
- the aim is clearly stated
- background information is sufficient and is easily understood

analysis 4/6
needs improvement
- decimal points in the 'mean change in mass' column is not consistent with the rest of the data
positive
- sufficient data has been collected
- standard deviation is presented  well
- table of results are well organised with titles
- anomalous points are identified and supported by data

evaluation 5/6
positive
- the conclusion refers back to the RQ and scientific theory is used to support it
- conclusion is supported with data
- limitations and uncertainties were discussed in a systematic way

communication 4/4
positive
- report is well structured with appropriate titles
- relevant and concise
- there is appropriate use of terminology

total: 16/24

# data[].attributes.body
Total ;16/24
Exploration :  4/6
- RQ too brief and not focused,IV& DV not clearly identified.
- Aim is well written and outlined the overall experiment
- Background information explained osmosis in detail and enhances understanding of the investigation
- Hypothesis does not mention any quantitative expectations and is not straight forward. No graph is included either
- IV is identified with the range
- DV is identified with uncertainty of measuring instrument
- Controlled variables, did not explained how each would impact the results
- Uncertainties were not included in the equipment list
-Procedure steps is unclear and vague.
-No photo of set up included
- No reasons given for choice of how data will be presented.
- Safety and environmental concerns are not given

Analysis: 5/6
Positives;
-Title for raw data table is given
- Headings and uncertainties is correctly identified
- Sufficient qualitative data is recorded
- Statistical test is used
- IV is in first column
- Sample calculation for mean is given
- Graphs are appropriate with title written
- Anomalous points identified

Needs improvement:
- Decimal points are not consistent throughout the table
- No minor gridlines on graph

Evaluation; 4/6
Positives:
- Conclusion is detailed and focused with references to graphs  and standard deviation
- Realistic improvements was stated
- Limitations and sources of uncertainties was identified

Negatives:
- No strengths was discussed
- Only few errors were identified
- Type of error not identified

Communication 3/4
- Report is quite organised and concise
- Use of terminology is correct
- Raw and processed data is well presented

Personal engagement; 0/2
No interest shown and did not justify as to why the topic was chosen

# data[].attributes.body
Personal engagement:

1. do not motivation shows in the report at all.

0/2

Exploration:

1.RQ:
not clearly described(by..). variables are not mentioned
2.background information:
detailed information but references is not mentioned.
3.hypothesis:
no graph and quantitative data given.
4.variables:
variables should be more detailed, many variables did not mention in the report.
each variables need be identified how to control and why to control.
5.apparatus:
the list should be write in list form, include name,size,number,uncertainty and concentration.
6.procedure
process should be more detailed.
7.ethic issues:
absent

3/6

analysis

1.data table:
inconsistent decimal places in the table.
calculations is not given.
titles are all given
standard deviation is present and show clearly
correct unit and uncertainty was given
2.graph:
graphs are clear labeled
what is the curve line?

4/6

evaluation

1.error stated is not detailed enough
2.conclusion relate back to the research question.
3.limitations was mentioned
4.evaluation is detailed and clear explained.
5.strength is not mentioned in the report.

5/6

communication

1. fonts is proper
2. report is well sturctured
3.the use of terminology words are correct

4/4

total 16/24

# data[].attributes.body
PE: 0/2
- No insight on why this RQ is chosen and no initiative is taken to show motivation to carry out this experiment.
Ex: 4/6
- RQ is not focussed enough and fails to include the necessary variables such as the independent and dependent variables.
- Aim is fairly well written with adequate details
- Background info: Gives overview of osmosis, cell turgidity and flaccidity and relates it well back to the RQ (potatoes). No citations are given.
Hypothesis: Detailed and outlines the aspects relating to the RQ but needs to be more focussed and concise. There is no sketched/predicted graph. Overall, it is quantitative but lacks a few details.
-Variables: Dependent variable needs to state how the amount of water loss will be measured.
Independent variable does include a rage but does not record how measurements will be taken. Controlled and uncontrolled variables are adequate.
An: 4/6
- The raw data table includes processed data as well, shows lack of understanding between the raw and processed data.
- Uncertainties and uncertainties with units are labelled well along with clear and explanatory titles.
- Inconsistency in raw data decimal tables
-The IV is not in the first column
- Sample calculations are not given for marker's understanding as to how the processed data was attained
- Qualitative data associated with the data collected is not included to further show understanding.
Graph:
- No indication of what the two lines on the graph are for
- Axis are labelled clearly with correct units
-Graph is appropriate to the RQ and aim, and both graphs have an explanatory title
- Trend line for both graphs are present
- Anomalous results are expressed in the description for the graphs, specific details regarding the anomalous results, such as certain results not fitting into the general pattern of results
-Mention of deviation shows further in-depth analysis done
Data:
-Data processing contains no sample calculations, in particular the percentage value for change in mass

Ev: 4
- Refers back to the RQ
- Assesses the graphs
-Detailed conclusion
Com: 3
- Neat and structured report
- Easily readable

# data[].attributes.body
Personal Engagement - 0
No personal experience or motive mentioned
Exploration - 3:
Positive:
- Topic and goal of the experiment were mentioned
-Repeats were done
- RQ includes IV,DV, and species name.

Negative:
-RQ is not clear and range of IV was not mentioned
-Method of acquiring data was not clear
-Background Information was vague and not clear
-Quantitative Hypothesis was not included
-Range of IV was not included in the table
-Method to measure DV was not mentioned
-How each CV could affect the fairness of the experiment was not mentioned
-Uncertainties of apparatus used was not mentioned in the apparatus table
-Methods described was not clear and confusing
-Table representing the data collected was not included
-Methods to collect data does not address RG
-Annotated Photo was not included
-Safety Concerns were not mentioned

Analysis-4
-Raw Data table is clear and explained
-Units and uncertainties are included
-IV is in the first column
-Sufficient amount of columns used to represent the data
-Only numbers are in the body of the table
-standard deviation was included
-conclusion was clear

Need Improvement
-decimal points in the table is not consistent
-decimal points of uncertainty is not consistent with that of data
-minimum amount of qualitative data was included
-method to calculate dv was not included
-worked example was not included

Evaluation-3
-detailed
-supported by data
-justified
-cv was mentioned
-possible source error was mentioned
-weaknesses and possible improvements were made

Need improvement
-no strength are were discussed

Communication
-well structured
-headings were used to make it clearer
-understandable
-

# data[].attributes.body
Personal engagement (0/2):
Positive:

Needs improvements:
- reason for choosing this RQ is not stated
- no personal experience is included

Exploration: (3/6)
Positive:
- clear background information
- aim of the practical is identified
-hypothesis is linked to scientific explanation
- uncertainty is stated in the variables

Needs improvement:
- RQ should include the dependent and independent variables, and how is the experiment addressed
- predicted graph is missing in the hypothesis
- title for the table of variables is missing
- reasons of controlling the variables are not stated
- more controlled/ uncontrolled variables should be stated
- chemicals, materials and equipment used in the practical are not clearly identified (the quantity used, the concentration, the uncertainty of the apparatus) and list them in a table form
- Procedure has to be more detailed (how to weigh the mass of the potato??
--> using electronic balance
how is the result to be presented: type of graph used).
- experimental set-up diagram is missing
-missing safety, ethnical and environmental issues

Analysis (4/6)
Positive:
- titles of the tables are clearly identified
- uncertainties of the results are stated
- standard deviation is calculated to identify the reliability of the data
- description of the formula (standard deviation) used

Needs improvements:
- insufficient data collected
- no qualitative observations is given
- inconsistency in the decimal places in both the table and graph
- title of the graph is missing
- equation of the best fit line is not stated
- major and minor gridlines should be included in the graph
- description of the graph is not detail enough

Evaluation (3/6)
Positive:
- conclusion refers back to the RQ of the practical
- supported with scientific explanation

Needs improvements:
- literature value is not identified and compared in the conclusion
- systematic or random errors more significant in the practical??? (compare percentage error and percentage uncertainty)
- errors stated are not clearly identified its type of errors (systematic or random)
- not enough errors identified
- strength of the practical is not identified

Communication: (3/4)
Positive:
- font size is clear
- report is well structure with clear headings
- pages of the report

Needs improvements:
- no citations
- no personal engagement

Total: 13/24

# data[].attributes.body
Exploration: 3/6
Positive:
1. Aim included some specific measurements such as the length of the potato strip
2. Background information included details of osmosis and the effects on it on the cell wall or cell membrane and made reference to other plants
3. The hypothesis is qualitative and clear, with theory to back it up
4. DV included uncertainty
5. IV included the range in which the experiment would take place over with information about recording data each week
6. Controlled variables included how it would be controlled with values included if needed
7. Uncontrolled variables were identified and a method was placed to monitor the situation
8. Types of equipment with specific volumes was included
9. Clear steps and instructions
Needs improvements:
1. RQ needs to be more specific, like where is the potato stored in and the range of time it would be kept for
2. Aim should include the apparatus used to measure the change in mass of the potato and the various amounts of time (eg after 1 week?)
3. Background information should state the physical observable state of the plasma membrane
4. Hypothesis should include a graph to show the change in mass of the potato
5. No picture of experiment present
6. Dependent variable should include the equipment used to measure the change in mass (Electronic balance)
7.Controlled variable should include how each variable would affect the results.
8.Equipments should be placed in a table with uncertainty and quantity inserted.
9.Method should include specific apparatus needed for measurement (using a weighing balance to measure the mass loss) and how should the measurements be recorded (in a table?)
10. Safety, ethical, environmental issues not identified

Analysis: 4/6
Positive:
1. Specific and clear headings in table for collection of data
2. Overall heading was included
3. Sufficient data was collected
4. Independent variable was present in the first column with the rest being DV
5. Numbers were only in the table itself
6. Calculations carried out were accurate and correct
7. SD was included in the calcuations
Negative:
1. Number of decimal places were inconsistent
2. Some headers were missing units and uncertainty
3. How the values were calculated should be shown
4. Anomalies should not be removed

Evaluation: 3/6
Positive:
1. The conclusion was clear and made reference to the graph shown
2. Evaluation was structured with headings
3. Conclusion had scientific explanations to justify answers
4. Conclusion made a link to the predicted data

Needs improvements:
1. Identification of systematic or random error
2. Calculation of overall percentage uncertainty and error
3. More errors could be identified and described how it would affect the results as well as how to improve

Personal Engagement 0/2
1.There was no evidence of motive explained to do this experiment

Communication 3/4
1. No citations were found
2. Good structure of report

Total: 13/24