Sciences Internal assessment examiner’s comments

Subject: Biology

Language: English

File name: 000869-0045 ID 624240987 Cat3 Temperature and lactase SIM - M20

Title of experiment: The effects of temperature on lactase

Type of experiment: Simulation

Marks awarded
Criterion Mark awarded Maximum number of
marks available
Research design 4 6
Data analysis 4 6
Conclusion 3 6
Evaluation 3 6
Total 14 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 design
The research question, as it stands, could be more focussed, for example, the name of the
simulation could be included. The background context remains general but the specific effect of
temperature on lactase does appear in the hypothesis. There is no mention of Q 10 though there is
an attempt to quantify the expect rise in the rate of lactase activity for a given raise in
temperature. (4/5)
The simulation is described and it is on open access, so it can be verified. Only five temperatures
are tested over a large range (5-80°C) this is going to make establishing an accurate estimate of
the optimum difficult. Body temperature is 37°C not 40°C. (4)
The method can be followed quite easily. The screenshots in the method are useful. It should be
“concentration” not “amount”, which is a bit vague. Headers for the control variable table should
be repeated if it is split over two pages. What is the relevance of the risk assessment when this is
a simulation? Retrieval dates are given in the bibliography but they are not very precise (month
and year only). (4)
Best fit: 4
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 is clearly presented and, despite this being a simulation, there are some relevant
qualitative observations. The bar chart for Graph 1.2 ought to be a scatterplot or line graph. There
are several errors in the conventions: minutes are min not m and superscript is not always used
when it should (m-1 should be min-1). (4)
Not all the measurement uncertainties are included, for example, the slider control for
temperature is precise to ±1°C. Standard deviation error bars are included (and identified). It
would be difficult to include more uncertainties from a simulation. (4)
It would be more appropriate to have calculated the rates, then the means and finally st devs.
Initial reaction rates are needed here. From the graphs of the different temperatures it is clear the
at 20 and 40°C the rates are not constant, so taking the final glucose production is an error, the
initial gradient should be taken as the rate. There is no statistical analysis of the data. (2/3)
Best fit: 4
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

Graph 1.1 is interpreted qualitatively. There is some consideration of the st dev values. However,
because of the way the rates are calculated, the large temperature intervals and use of a bar
chart for the rates, the interpretation of the optimum temperature is going to be quite approximate.
So there is some support for the conclusion but it is not strong and the increase in the rates from
5 to 20°C and 20 to 40°C is incorrect. (2/3)
There is some general use of scientific context but it is limited; there needs to be some more
specific detail on lactase and temperature (with citations). (3)
Best fit 3
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

Some important limitations are recognised (large intervals). Some methodological weaknesses
are identified. There is no judgement of the impact of the weaknesses. (3/4)
Some improvements are suggested but they are not all clear. (2/3)
Best fit: 3