Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Comments on assessed work

Example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth
Title of experiment: The effect of aqueous potassium ion concentration on root growth rate

Type of experiment: Hands-on

Marks awarded

Criterion Mark awarded Maximum number of marks available

Research design 5 6

Data analysis 5 6

Conclusion 5 6

Evaluation 5 6

Total 20 24

Note: In the criterion descriptions that follow, the strands highlighted in grey are those that best match the work
submitted for assessment.

Biology assessed student work 1

 Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Research design
This criterion assesses the extent to which the submitted work effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and
practice) used to address the research question.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • The research question is stated without context.

• Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research
question are stated.
• The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for
the investigation to be reproduced.

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.

Clarifications
A research question with context should contain reference to the dependent and independent variables or two
correlated variables, include a concise description of the system in which the research question is embedded, and
background theory of direct relevance.
Methodological considerations include:
• the selection of the methods for measuring the dependent and independent variables
• the selection of the databases or model and the sampling of data
• the decisions regarding the scope, quantity and quality of measurements (for example, the range, interval or
frequency of the independent variable, repetition and precision of measurements)
• the identification of control variables and the choice of method of their control
• the recognition of any safety, ethical or environmental issues that needed to be taken into account.
The description of the methodology refers to presenting sufficiently detailed information (such as specific materials
used and precise procedural steps) while avoiding unnecessary or repetitive information, so that the reader may readily
understand how the methodology was implemented and could in principle repeat the investigation.

Biology assessed student work 2

 Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Commentary for research design

The research question is reasonably focused but the range of the potassium ion concentrations is not contextualized in the
background. Otherwise, the background is focused and mostly relevant. 5 marks

Most of the protocol is standard and referenced. Important variables are controlled but the environment is not monitored
and tap water is used to make up the solutions. The sampling is not fully controlled. Although the sample area (field of view)
is controlled, the sampling of the roots and the sites of the cells to be counted are not controlled. There is a satisfactory risk
assessment. Evidence of the second strand is seen in the 3–4 and 5–6 markbands. 4–5 marks

The procedure is concise, clear and easy to follow. The correct scientific name for onion is used and the conventions are
respected. The only problem is the use of the term germination, which is inappropriate for root growth in onion bulbs.
5 marks

Best fit: 5 marks

Biology assessed student work 3

 Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Data analysis
This criterion assesses the extent to which the submitted work provides evidence that the data has been recorded,
processed and presented in ways that are relevant to the research question.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise.
• The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of
uncertainties.
• Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with
major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

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.

Clarifications
Data refers to quantitative data or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Communication
• Clear communication means that the method of processing can be understood easily.
• Precise communication refers to following conventions correctly, such as those relating to the annotation of graphs
and tables or the use of units, decimal places and significant figures.
Consideration of uncertainties is subject specific and further guidance is given in the TSM.
Major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies impede the possibility of drawing a valid conclusion that addresses the
research question.
Significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies allow the possibility of drawing a conclusion that addresses the
research question but with some limit to its validity or detail.

Biology assessed student work 4

 Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Commentary for data analysis

Both relevant qualitative and quantitative raw data are presented clearly. Samples of the photomicrographs that were
taken are shown. The processed data is presented clearly. The conventions for units (in the materials table) are respected.
The number of significant figures (three or four) in table 4 is not consistent, but the number of decimal places is consistent
here, which is what we accept in biology. Worked examples of the calculations are given except for the calculations of the K+
concentrations. 5 marks

Uncertainties are complete and they are expressed as ranges, trend lines on scatterplots and R2 values. A significance test for
the correlation coefficient is carried out. 5–6 marks

The processing is mostly correct and sufficient. The mitotic index, means, ranges, R2 values and correlation coefficient are
calculated. Appropriate scatter plots are drawn. The processing can be followed; some example calculations are provided.
A bit more detail on the correlation coefficient could be expected and the sample size for the correlation is only five pairs of
data, which is very small, but at least a significance test is carried out to verify the correlation. 5 marks

Best fit: 5 marks

Biology assessed student work 5

 Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Conclusion
This criterion assesses the extent to which the submitted work successfully answers the research question with regard to the
analysis and the accepted scientific context.

Marks Level 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.

Clarifications
A conclusion that is fully consistent requires the interpretation of processed data including associated uncertainties.
Scientific context refers to information that could come from published material (paper or online), published values,
course notes, textbooks or other outside sources. The citation of published materials must be sufficiently detailed to
allow these sources to be traceable.

Commentary for conclusion

The graphs and the correlation coefficient are correctly interpreted. The justification is not entirely relevant (cell elongation
will not impact mitosis). The conclusion is well supported by the analysis, and the influence of the uncertainties revealed by
the range bars, the trend line and the significance level are discussed. 5 marks

There is good support from accepted scientific context and the sources are correctly cited and of appropriate quality. The
scientific context is mostly relevant. 5 marks

Best fit: 5 marks

Biology assessed student work 6

 Internal assessment example 6: Potassium concentration and root growth

Evaluation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the submitted work provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation
methodology and has suggested improvements.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.

• Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

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.

Clarifications
Generic is general to many methodologies and not specifically relevant to the methodology of the investigation being
evaluated.
Methodological refers to the overall approach to the investigation of the research question as well as procedural steps.
Weaknesses could relate to issues regarding the control of variables, the precision of measurement or the variation in
the data.
Limitations could refer to how the conclusion is limited in scope by the range of the data collected, the confines of the
system or the applicability of assumptions made.

Commentary for evaluation

Weaknesses and limitations specific to this investigation are identified and discussed. Their impact is considered, but the
statements related to this could be clearer. Evidence of the first strand is seen in the 3–4 and 5–6 markbands. 4–5 marks

Relevant, sensible and realistic improvements are suggested. 5 marks

Best fit: 5 marks

Biology assessed student work 7