Scribd
Upload
34 views2 pages

Internal Assessment 2025

The document outlines the internal assessment criteria for Biology, detailing the marking levels for research design, data analysis, conclusion, and evaluation. Each section specifies the requirements for achieving different mark ranges, emphasizing clarity, context, and methodological rigor. The criteria aim to guide candidates in producing a comprehensive and reproducible research report.

Uploaded by

karl
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views2 pages

Internal Assessment 2025

The document outlines the internal assessment criteria for Biology, detailing the marking levels for research design, data analysis, conclusion, and evaluation. Each section specifies the requirements for achieving different mark ranges, emphasizing clarity, context, and methodological rigor. The criteria aim to guide candidates in producing a comprehensive and reproducible research report.

Uploaded by

karl
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Internal Assessment criteria Biology

Candidate code Mark __

Research design

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
investigationto 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.

Data analysis

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.
Conclusion

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.

Evaluation

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.

General Comments

Research design Data Analysis Conclusion Evaluation Total

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy