Sciences Internal assessment examiner’s comments

Subject: Biology

Language: English

File name: 19NA (1) Cat1 02 Lipase free & immobilised

Title of experiment: The effect of immobilisation on the thermal tolerance of lipase

Type of experiment: Hands-on

Marks awarded
Criterion Mark awarded Maximum number of
marks available
Research design 6 6
Data analysis 6 6
Conclusion 5 6
Evaluation 5 6
Total 22 24
Research design
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student 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.
Commentary for research method
The research question is focussed and clear with a context of relevant information that supports it. (6)
Some information on a preliminary trial is provided. The final method is appropriate, though is the
upper limit for lipase denaturation is said to be 50°C, then it would seem logical to include
temperatures a bit higher to see if immobilisation protects it. Otherwise, there is a good control of the
variables and sufficient data is collected. The risk assessment is complete. (5)
The method as it is presented is repeatable and reasonably concise without too much repetition. (6)
Best fit 6
Data analysis
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has
recorded, processed and presented the data 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 are those that will impede the possibility to draw a
valid conclusion.
Significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies are those that will allow an answer to the
research question to be given but with some limit to its validity or detail.
Commentary for data analysis
The raw data and the qualitative observations are clearly organised. The table and the graphs titles
ought to state that they are the mean rates of reaction. (5/6)
St deviation error bars are used. An anomaly is identified from the graph though it is not excluded from
the, which is good practice. (6)
The processing consists of means, st dev, a scatterplot with dot-to-dot lines plotted and Mann-Whitney
U-test is preformed, which is appropriate for small samples (n=5). The decision to use dot-to-dot lines
is appropriate here, given the variation in the data and the small sample size. (6)
Best fit 6
Conclusion
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with
regard to their 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, personal literature/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 data supports the conclusion though the range of temperatures stopping at 50°C does limit it a bit.
The data is correctly interpreted with a suitable cautious interpretation of the error bars (but how small
is small?). Uncertainties are discussed with due caution. (5)
Some relevant scientific context is used. Sources are given in the bibliography though the conventions
for citations are not always respected. (5)
Best fit 5
Evaluation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report 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.

• 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

The candidate is aware of several procedural issues. An anomaly is detected from the graph but the
possible cause is not discussed. (5)
Some sensible and realistic improvements are suggested. (6)
Best fit 6