Coursework Guidelines
All exam boards: Edexcel, AQA, OCR, WJEC, CCEA, use the same criteria for assessment of practical skills, which pupils see as coursework.
This counts as an exam paper in its own right, and usually contributes up to 20% of the total marks. Similarly, all sciences: Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and Dual Award Science, should conform to the same set of mark descriptors.
In your write-up, you are expected to use scientific knowledge and understanding in the planning stage so as to explain the background to the technique you have chosen, and also in the explanation of the results you obtain.
It is essential that you understand the rules about using material written by other people, including textbooks and websites such as this. You can quote selectively from these sources, using the correct procedures, but you must be definite about the origins of any material which is not your own. If you break these rules you will be guilty of plagiarism.
By clicking here you can read the Notice for Candidates prepared by The Joint Council for Qualifications.
The guidelines here are aimed at Biology-based investigations, but they should be generally applicable to other sciences.
However, they are deliberately left broad enough to cover any Biology investigation. I often set tasks based on osmosis (and potatoes), and enzymes (lipase).
Although I do not wish to take away from you the opportunity to engage in all stages in the planning and execution of the experiments, these checklist guidelines are meant to be used in the planning and justification stages when you are writing up the practical work for submission, and in the other stages which follow.
P.S. Marks awarded by me to coursework investigations based on these criteria have for several years running been accepted without modification by the exam board.
R.G.S.
Incidentally you should make sure you know what is meant by the following terms:
factor (variable)
treatment
replicate
value
range
Skill P - Planning
[See criteria for Skill Area P as an overlay?]
Planning involves using your (hopefully scientific) knowledge and understanding in planning an experiment or series of experiments in some detail. This will involve identifying and controlling factors (variables) which might conceivably vary, as well as the obvious ones to vary as part of the experiment. It will include selecting apparatus, deciding on the number of treatments, replicates and readings, and other practical details, including safety precautions. You will need to predict what you think will happen as a result.
If you use information from other sources which must be clearly identified, it must be very relevant to the actual variable you are investigating, and actually used in the planning and predicting process.
Have you written down relevant details about:
the general background to the investigation
the process & organism involved
narrowing down to details about the actual topic you have chosen to investigate?
If you refer to other external information (secondary sources - which should be clearly identified) or to preliminary work (pilot experiments) it must be appropriate and clearly support what you are trying to do in a prediction below and be used in making the plan.
Have you identified all the conceivable factors that might and do vary in the system you are studying?
In your own experimental set-up: Have you identified what factors you will wish to vary?
Have you made predictions :
What do you think will be the effect of varying this factor?
Have you related your prediction to the knowledge stated before?
Have you described what you are going to do - including diagrams and table showing full details of "ingredients" and other details of treatments - clearly distinguishing between those which are common and those which are varied.
Have you stated how and why other variables are kept constant? (even if this means stating the obvious)
Each ingredient and part of the procedure may need a point of explanation or justification.
Can you make a comment about safety of the procedure, identifying sources of risk?
Can you state why you have used this apparatus/technique stating what you think are its advantages (& disadvantages)? Bear in mind that other apparatus is/may be available.
What will you record (dependent variable)? Other methods may be available, as well as the one you use first.
When you consider the accuracy of your readings, you may wish to take steps to improve this. It is important to describe & record any planned improvement.
Is it possible to use (all of) your results to produce a graph? If some are not valid, what will you do?
Do not forget that even "negative" results are valid, and that includes data from pilot experiments!
Decide on the best number of different values for the factor(s) you are varying.
Decide on whether to replicate the treatments, and the best number of replicates.
It may be helpful to predict the shape that you expect the graph to take. Although you are unlikely to be able to put figures on such a graph, it must be clearly labelled.
It may be worthwhile also stating the features of this experiment/procedure which you see as being unique to Biology, what problems this may cause and make sure you draw attention to how you will get round the problems.
Obtaining evidence involves using scientific apparatus safely and skilfully, and paying attention to the precision of measurements and observations, within an appropriate scale of operation.
It is not simply recording results.
You should produce tables of results (much better than paragraphs of text) with:
- separate columns, with proper headings (and units at the top, not in the table)
- a clear format detailing the variations in treatment you applied and the values of resulting variables - not the numbers of the test-tubes or other codes you may have used!
This should be accompanied with a full list of treatments applied - not just the ones which were varied at this stage.
You should have results coming from an adequate number of and spacing of treatments, which is not the same as replications (repeated readings of results from the same treatment). If the actual experimental treatments differ from those proposed in the plan, this should be explained. A standard format for written and tabulated sections would be worthwhile, as this should draw attention to factors which were controlled.
In general, all results should be included, even those apparently giving no definite pattern, especially if they contribute to the overall picture, for example if a second experiment improves on a first.
You should be able to present individual raw data as well as averaged results (if this is appropriate), and calculate dispersion, e.g. by reference to range and standard deviation.
You may find it useful to point out the skills you used in the experiment, and state what steps you took to ensure that your results were accurate and reliable.
Analysing evidence usually involves presentation of data as graphs, and drawing conclusions based on your results which point out trends in the data and relationships between the factors (variables) which were varied. Once again, it is expected that you will use your Biological knowledge (not someone else's words) in explaining your results.
You should be able to produce a graph (or several graphs), or possibly use charts or other graphics methods or diagrams.
If you have replicated your data, it is very worthwhile to plot a graph of averaged results, but to plot individual points on the same graph. This draws attention to anomalous results, which you need to comment on, or even account for, in the next section.
Graphs should have a title (at the top?), correctly labelled axes (with units), "axes the right way round", and there are other refinements (ask if you are unsure).
Calculating a mean does not count as "numerical methods", but calculation of rate and standard deviation, range, etc. might suffice in addition to graphs. As part of the process, results tables may be re-written with extra columns.
Hand-produced graphs are quite acceptable, and should be on proper graph paper, drawn with a sharp pencil.
Other features: reasonable use of paper (most of its width and height), suitable scale, appropriate points, line of best fit (may be a curve) neatly drawn not fuzzy/sketchy
You should be able to write a section to say if there is a pattern to your results, and explain them in Biological terms.
You should be able to say whether or not your results agree with the predictions you made under section P.
In evaluating evidence, you should comment about the experiments and results.
It is not "drawing a conclusion" from the data you produced.
You should be able to write about the reliability of the procedures and results obtained, taken overall, and (hopefully individual) anomalous results, then suggest improvements to the methods used and describe extra experiments that could be carried out.
Do not make any bland statements such as
"Everything was OK/all the results were as predicted"
"The experiments worked as planned" [or the reverse!]
"If I were to repeat it I would carry it out more accurately / use better / more hi-tech equipment"
You should be able to make an informed comment about the reliability of the procedure and results, and accuracy of equipment used.
There are likely to be some anomalous results (ones which do not fit the pattern), which need to be identified and explained as far as possible.
You will need to state or assess how accurate was the measuring equipment and technique used, and how you could improve on it.
Similarly, you may mention parts of the method which you could have improved on. Would this make likely results more reliable?
You should be able to make a comment about the actual methods of controlling variables used, and whether this may have been responsible for anomalous results.
Finally, you should be able to suggest changes you would make in a (fictional) further investigation, to make results more reliable and what further observations you would make in order to extend the work.
Presentation of written material
It is not essential to print out this work using a computer, and if you are not used to using one, then you may find it much more time-consuming than simply writing it out by hand. Excuses based on files being lost or printers being out of ink or paper will not be accepted.
Work should be stapled together (no paper clips), not in bulky files and definitely not in plastic sleeves.
If writing up using a computer/word processor, please arrange to have
- your name printed on all sheets (header)
- all paged numbered.
Do not reprint or substitute pages which have comments from staff written on them - this is expected by the examining board.
Do not rely on a spell checker - these are no substitute for proper checking of grammar and content.
If using a computer for producing graphs, it is essential that only meaningful types of representation should be used (and explained in the text); it is not good enough to say that your system would only give that sort of graph.
Back to contents page