BioNinja

The internal assessment is comprised of a 3000-word report consisting of four equally weighted sections:

• Research Design: Assesses the extent to which a candidate effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question

• Data Analysis: Assesses the extent to which a report provides evidence that a candidate has recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question

• Conclusion: Assesses the extent to which a candidate successfully answers their research question with
  regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context

• Evaluation: Assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the
  investigation methodology and has suggested improvements

1. Research Design

• Mark

  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.
  

2. Data Analysis

• Mark

  Level Descriptor

• 0

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

• 1 – 2

  The recording and processing of 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.

3. Conclusion

• Mark

  Level Descriptor

• 0

  The report does not reach the 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.

4. Evaluation

• Mark

  Level Descriptor

• 0

  The report does not reach the 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.