Evaluation

An overview of the suggested structure of this section is shown in Table 1. Details of what should be addressed in each subsection is presented after the table.

Here is are some examples of Evaluation sections.

The EVALUATION section should include two subsections:

1. Conclusion: This is where you answer the research question, place the conclusion in its scientific context, and discuss its level of confidence.
2. Evaluation: This is where you discuss the reliability and limitations of your conclusions by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, and offer suggestions for improving or continuing the investigation.

Table 1 Overview of suggested structure of this section with the IB Criteria addressed in each part.

Section 3: EVALUATION

Subtitle: Conclusion

Evaluation

A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented.

A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Detailed conclusion based on the interpreted results is described.

Detailed conclusion based on the interpreted results is justified.

Conclusion is compared to accepted scientific theories/models, if possible.

Subtitle: Evaluation

Evaluation

Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.

The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Strengths of investigation (1-2 of most important) are discussed.

Weaknesses of experimental methods (3-4 of most important) are discussed.

Impact of discussed strengths and weaknesses on results and levels of confidence are discussed.

Suggestions for improvement and extension of the investigation (3-4) are discussed.

*Note: A discussion of the only weaknesses in the procedure is not adequate. A discussion of limitations in the design or the data must also be included.

Subsection 1: Conclusion

State and explain a conclusion that is supported by your data:

include a discussion of the uncertainties

your conclusion should directly answer your research question.

Do not use the word “prove”, use "show" or "support" instead. Nothing is ever proven in science. Your results only support your conclusions.

If possible, include an equation, with uncertainties, showing the relationship between the two variables of the research question.

Discuss the meaning of the conclusion in its scientific context:

Compare the results with literature values, including percent error, if appropriate.

Discuss any other findings of importance (beyond the research question).

Justify your conclusion by taking several representative data points and showing that they support your conclusion

State and explain the level of confidence in your conclusions. This can be addressed through a discussion of the quality of the data (relative size of the uncertainty, consistency of the trend line (how close the curve fit is to the data points), and agreement with theory (if applicable)

State and explain the limits of applicability of your conclusions. What other situations can your conclusions be legitimately applied to?

State and explain any other research that your results could be compared to. Explain how/why your results are similar to or different from the results of the cited research.

Justify any data that was dropped during the analysis.

Subsection 2: Evaluation

Evaluating the design and conduct of the investigation

It is suggested that you comment on both the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. This must include an evaluation of the design and/or resulting data of the investigation, as well as an evaluation of the procedure.

There should also be a statement identifying whether or not the method itself, as well as possible method inadequacies/issues, enable one to make a valid conclusion. This needs to be supported with evidence. For instance, you might discuss issues with collecting data that meant the conclusion was based only on a small collection of data and therefore was not valid when comparing it to different situations or environments.

You should discuss 1-2 of the major strengths of the design and conduct of your investigation. These could include strengths in:

the technique used to make measurements

the range of values tested

methods for keeping controlled factors constant

You should discuss 3-4 of the major weaknesses and limitations of the design and conduct of your investigation. These should:

include at least one weakness or limitation in the design of the investigation and its effect on the strength of the conclusions

include several weaknesses or limitations in the procedure and its effect on the strength of the conclusions

be discussed in order of importance, or effect on the results, if possible

be identified as random or systematic. If systematic, identify the direction in which the error will affect the data (“Friction in the wheels of the cart caused all my velocity measurements to be lower than predicted.”)

Here are some ideas of what to think about when identifying the major weaknesses.

Check each step of the procedure to determine if it was imprecise, and HOW the data could have been affected.

Discuss any weakness in the control of important variables.

Discuss any weakness in the range, timing, or frequency of measurement.

Comment on the precision and accuracy of measurements.

State how any of the following might have affected the data/results:

initial conditions of the specimens or materials

human handling of the specimens or materials (including how the process of measuring might have influenced the investigation)

time for stabilizing system or between when measurements were taken

Two “weaknesses” to avoid including are “Not enough time” (If you needed more time, you should have continued outside of class.) and “Human error” (Science is always done by humans, so “human error” is meaningless. Be specific; explain what exact “error” the humans committed.)

Improvement and Extension of the investigation

For each weakness mentioned above, you should suggest a realistic modification to the experimental technique to improve the reliability of the results.

The improvements need a balanced review – how effective will these changes be? The arguments must be presented as a balanced discussion of the pros and cons of the suggested improvements for each weakness.

Finally, you should include suggestions on areas for further research that would continue from and build on this investigation.

Back to Home

Section 3: EVALUATION
Subtitle: Conclusion	Evaluation A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented. A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
Detailed conclusion based on the interpreted results is described. Detailed conclusion based on the interpreted results is justified. Conclusion is compared to accepted scientific theories/models, if possible.
Subtitle: Evaluation	Evaluation Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion. The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
Strengths of investigation (1-2 of most important) are discussed. Weaknesses of experimental methods (3-4 of most important) are discussed. Impact of discussed strengths and weaknesses on results and levels of confidence are discussed. Suggestions for improvement and extension of the investigation (3-4) are discussed.
*Note: A discussion of the only weaknesses in the procedure is not adequate. A discussion of limitations in the design or the data must also be included.