Internal assessment guidelines


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Internal assessment guidelines

  1. 1. Name: ___________________ Period: ____ Date: _______ Internal Assessment GuidelinesDesignLevels/marks Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Defining the problem and Controlling variables Developing a method for selecting variables collection of dataComplete/2 Formulates a focused Designs a method for the effective Develops a method that allows for the problem/research question and control of the variables. collection of sufficient relevant data. identifies the relevant variables.Partial/1 Formulates a problem/research Designs a method that makes some Develops a method that allows for the question that is incomplete or attempt to control the variables. collection of insufficient relevant data. identifies only some relevant variables.Not at all/0 Does not identify a problem/research Designs a method that does not Develops a method that does not question and does not identify any control the variables. allow for any relevant data to be relevant variables. collected.I. Aspect 1: Defining the problem and selecting variables Is the problem or research question (RQ) clear and not vague? Does the RQ contain an input and outcome variable? Is each word in the RQ as specific as it can be?  Example of a bad RQ: „What affects photosynthesis?‟ This is not very good because it is not focused enough. What aspect of photosynthesis? What is the input variable? What is the outcome variable?  Example of a moderately good RQ: „Does light affect the rate of photosynthesis?‟ This is better, but some of the words could be even more specific. For instance, which aspect of light will be investigated – color, length of time or intensity?  Example of a good RQ: „Does light intensity affect the rate of oxygen production in the aquatic plant Elodea?‟ Are the IV and DV described clearly? Have I identified other variables that would need to be controlled in order for the IV to be isolated?II. Aspect 2: Controlling variables Does my method clearly and in detail describe how the IV will be controlled? Does my method clearly and in detail describe how other variables (constants) will be controlled? Will appropriate apparatus be used to control and measure the IV and controlled variables (constants)?III. Aspect 3: Developing a method for collection of data Will the IV, DV and constants be measured accurately? If necessary, is a control correctly identified and set up? Will each test be repeated enough times? (5 minimum) Does the IV have multiple levels? (5 minimum) Have I provided and described labeled diagrams to illustrate complicated set-ups?Note: Preliminary work is important. Record your preliminary results and discuss how they informeddecision making for the final plan.
  2. 2. Data collection and processingLevels/marks Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Recording raw data Processing raw data Presenting processed dataComplete/2 Records appropriate quantitative and Processes the quantitative raw data Presents processed data associated qualitative raw data, correctly. appropriately and, where relevant, including units and uncertainties includes errors and uncertainties. where relevant.Partial/1 Records appropriate quantitative and Processes quantitative raw data, but Presents processed data associated qualitative raw data, but with some mistakes and/or omissions. appropriately, but with some mistakes with some mistakes or omissions. and/or omissions.Not at all/0 Does not record any appropriate No processing of quantitative raw Presents processed data quantitative raw data or raw data is data is carried out or major mistakes inappropriately or incomprehensibly. incomprehensible. are made in processing.I. Aspect 1: Recording raw data Are all the results recorded? Including the anomalous ones? Are units included? Is there sufficient qualitative data recorded for each set or trial to give the reader a clear picture of all aspects of the investigation? Have anomalous results been identified? Is there an indication of the „uncertainty‟ level of measurements? (See uncertainties sheet) Were constants measured to ensure they were actually constant?II. Aspect 2: Processing raw data Are all points plotted correctly on graphs? If appropriate, is a line of best fit drawn? If they have been left out of the best-fit line, have anomalous results been circled on the graph? Are calculations carried out correctly? Are any uncertainties carried through? If applicable, have drawings been turned into detailed diagrams for ease of explanation? Have anomalous results been left out of any calculations? If some results were left out, is there an explanation for it?III. Aspect 3: Presenting processed data Is the data presented so that it is really easy to understand? Do data tables and other figures stand alone? o Data tables should be titled at the top, and numbered. The title should describe what is contained in the table o Graphs and other forms of presentation should all be labeled as “figures,” and numbered as such. These should have a caption at the bottom, and it should be descriptive of the particular figure Is the writing big enough and clear enough? Are things written in an order that is logical? Was a ruler used for data tables and other figures? When applicable, are serial numbers recorded? For microscope drawings, is the magnification stated? Are drawings clearly labeled? Are the calculations labeled and easy to follow? Do they include units? Have the right graphs been drawn? (line vs. graph) Are the axes on graphs labeled and include units? Are any uncertainties shown?
  3. 3. Conclusion and evaluationLevels/marks Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Concluding Evaluating procedure(s) Improving the investigationComplete/2 States a conclusion, with justification, Evaluates weaknesses and Suggests realistic improvements in based on a reasonable interpretation limitations. respect of identified weaknesses and of the data. limitations.Partial/1 States a conclusion based on a Identifies some weaknesses and Suggests only superficial reasonable interpretation of the data. limitations, but the evaluation is weak improvements. or missing.Not at all/0 States no conclusion or the Identifies irrelevant weaknesses and Suggests unrealistic improvements. conclusion is based on an limitations. unreasonable interpretation of the data.I. Aspect 1: Concluding Are all the main trends described in detail? For instance, the shape of any graphs? Is there a clear concluding statement? Does the concluding statement clearly link with the RQ? Are the results explained in detail using scientific language? Are statements justified by clear use of the data? For instance, by discussing actual values from the processed data or referring to aspects of the graphs? Is the significance of any statistical tests explained, with reference to specific values? Is there detailed discussion on whether the values for the DV are different enough to make the conclusion certain? Is there an attempt to check findings with literature? For instance, by comparing the findings to what is written in books? Are outside sources used and acknowledged?II. Aspect 2: Evaluating procedure(s) Is there detailed discussion about whether the IV really was isolated? Is there a description about whether the range for the IV was sufficient and if there were enough repeats? Is there detailed discussion on whether the closeness of repeats and closeness of points to the best fit line make the conclusion certain? Is there a description of how much impact any anomalous results had on how certain the conclusion is? In all these discussion points do I use relevant and specific examples from the other sections to make their point? Or do I offer vague statements that could be true of any experiment (like… “I did not have enough time” or “Perhaps the thermometer was not working accurately”)?III. Aspect 3: Improving the investigation Have suggestions been made for all the major flaws identified above? Are the suggested improvements sensible and feasible? Are the suggested improvements described in detail and followed through to a conclusion? Or are they vague and shallow?
  4. 4. Manipulative skills (assessed summatively)This criterion addresses objective 5.Levels/marks Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 Following instructions* Carrying out techniques Working safelyComplete/2 Follows instructions accurately, Competent and methodical in the use Pays attention to safety issues. adapting to new circumstances of a range of techniques and (seeking assistance when required). equipment.Partial/1 Follows instructions but requires Usually competent and methodical in Usually pays attention to safety assistance. the use of a range of techniques and issues. equipment.Not at all/0 Rarely follows instructions or requires Rarely competent and methodical in Rarely pays attention to safety issues. constant supervision. the use of a range of techniques and equipment.I. Aspect 1: Following instructions Did I carry out the work as outlined in the instructions? Did I act on any instructions given to modify the procedure from how it was first presented? Did I ask too many questions that had obvious answers? Did I make mistakes because I should have asked for help or clarification? Did the teacher need to intervene at any point?II. Aspect 2: Carrying out techniques Am I able to utilize a range of lab equipment effectively and with minimal guidance? Do I seek the opportunity to broaden the range of equipment and methods that I include in my experimental designs?III. Aspect 3: Working safely See the lab safety sheet for do‟s and don‟ts