Informe de Asignatura Biologia Zona 1 May 2022

Biology SL/HL
Timezone 1
To protect the integrity of the examinations, increasing use is being made of time zone variants of examination papers. By
using variants of the same examination paper candidates in one part of the world will not always be taking the same
examination paper as candidates in other parts of the world. A rigorous process is applied to ensure that the papers are
comparable in terms of difficulty and syllabus coverage, and measures are taken to guarantee that the same grading
scripts for the different versions of the examination papers. For the May 2022
examination session the IB has produced time zone variants of Biology.
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022

International Baccalaureate® | Baccalauréat International® | Bachillerato Internacional®
May 2022 subject report Biology HL/SL TZ1
Contents
Grade boundaries 3
Higher level / standard level internal assessment 4
Higher level paper one 15
Standard level paper one 17
Higher level paper two 19
Standard level paper two 24
Page 2 / 27
Grade boundaries
This DP/CP subject report contains overall subject boundaries only, unlike previous reports where
component boundaries were also published; component boundaries for this session are available in IBIS.
The IB advises schools not to use component boundaries for this session as direct indicators of academic
standards for future exam preparation because they have been set in response to the particular needs of
the cohort. Two significant conditions which do not normally feature in grade boundary setting have had
to be satisfied during the boundary setting for the M22 session: the need to apply reasonable standards
to adjusted assessment models for students who have restricted access to learning during the COVID
pandemic and the need to maintain parity with students who undertook the non-examination route.
Higher level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mark range: 0 - 13 14 - 20 21 - 28 29 - 42 43 - 56 57 - 70 71 - 100
Standard level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mark range: 0 - 13 14 - 23 24 - 33 34 - 48 49 - 63 64 - 78 79 - 100
Page 3 / 27
Higher level / standard level internal assessment

The range and suitability of the work submitted
The May 2022 session revealed that a large number of the schools had experienced or were still
experiencing some form of restriction due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was evident in the types of
investigations presented. There were more relying on databases or simulations and the hands-on
investigations were of a more limited range. The examination team, as for the previous four sessions,
marked all of the candidates from a school rather than a sample. The examiners accepted the impact of
these restrictions without compromising on the fundamental qualities expected from a scientific
investigation.
There were, however, candidates that presented a range of inventive and original investigations. Some
were a pleasure to read and showed a great deal of adaptation when confronted by the restrictions.
Nevertheless, the examiners all reported that there appeared to be a heavier reliance by candidates on
classic investigations. Though this is understandable, teachers should coach their students to avoid this
problem where possible. There were an encouraging number of candidates that used a standard protocol
and adapted it effectively to answer their research question. Overall, most of the work was of a suitable
standard.
Consideration of safety and ethics were still lacking, particularly in work with microbes. Some examiners
reported unsuitable experiments that presented unacceptable risks or ethical issues. Many of the
candidates did not consider the environmental impact of the disposal of their materials.
Some investigations had little biological content, being more in the realm of chemistry, psychology or
geography The vast majority of the schools did, however, provide appropriate material.
After having disappeared for several years, examiners are reporting students using published scientific
papers as their source of secondary data (not a database). This is not appropriate as the data will have
already been processed and interpreted. This permits little individual work for the candidate. The most a
candidate can hope to do is to collate the data from several papers on the same topic, but these are rarely
in a form that may easily be compared.
Another problem involved hyperlinks to Google docs or similar online sharing applications being used,
which are not available once the report has been uploaded. While Examiners can find websites for
database, references or simulations, the examiners cannot find the Google docs of individuals.
Though they remain uncommon, simulations were presented. Two problems may make simulations
unsuitable for an individual investigation:
(a) If the simulation is too restricted so it will not allow any variables to be controlled or changed.
(b) Simulations that are not accessible to the examiner so they cannot be verified. Examiners must have
access to the simulation, so they must be on open access sites.
For simulations of classic investigations, such as enzyme kinetics, a hybrid approach can be considered by
comparing the results of the simulation with that of the real world.
The number of investigations using databases and surveys also increased. The problem encountered here
was inadequate description of how the data were selected and sampled. Screen shots were not always
used. Investigations involving modelling remain very rare.
Those who carried out surveys struggled with constructing surveys that could generate relevant sufficient
and reliable data. Some of the investigations based on surveys of volunteers via social networks had been
very well thought out and showed creativity. However, many of the ones encountered by the examiners
Page 4 / 27
had a lack of subjects and, hence, a limited amount of data. An exemplar of survey type investigation is
now on MyIB. It should be stressed a consent form for the volunteers would still be required for
investigations like this.
We hope that the material posted on MyIB including some exemplars of these approaches may clarify their
use and how they are to be marked.
function of a word processor to annotate electronically submitted work were most helpful. Examiners
found it less helpful when comments were made at the beginning or the end of the work as it was not
immediately obvious what the teacher was referring to in these situations. Copies of the complete criteria
at the beginning or the end of the report with rings around appropriate marks are no doubt well
intentioned but not very helpful. It is most appreciated when the teacher gives the reasoning for the marks
awarded in their own words.
Some teachers were just simply averaging the marks for the different aspects of a criterion rather than
using the best-fit approach.
A frequent problem encountered was teachers who did not annotate or comment on work at all (i.e. an
work was uploaded). This made it difficult to follow the motives
copy for the examiner and a copy marked up with the marks given in the criteria marks and teacher
comments file. This is unnecessary duplication. Just the marked copy is needed.
The samples and the teacher mark sheets should be completely anonymous. Examiners were still finding
candidate names, teacher names, school names and other forms of identification on the uploaded
This session saw a lot of candidates overstepping the 12-page limit, and not by a few pages but by a lot
more. The result is that from the next session the rules for excessive pages will be strengthened. Examiners
will not be obliged to read beyond 12 pages.
Candidate performance against each criterion

The application of the assessment criteria by the teachers was generally satisfactory, often overgenerous,
and occasionally very generous. Therefore, more rigour may be necessary when applying the final mark.
Teachers were very rarely considered too severe.
Nearly all the examiners reported that Evaluation is still the weakest criterion for many. This criterion is
difficult, and it does discriminate between the candidates. For many examiners Analysis was also a
criterion that needed more attention. Many candidates were happy to leave the processing at the level of
calculating means and standard deviations or plotting graphs of raw data. Personal engagement was not
well assessed by a lot of teachers. They seemed to think that a short, contrived statement of interest in the
investigation was all the evidence needed to gain the 2 marks.
Personal engagement (PE)

Some form of personal significance was expressed in most cases. While most were clearly inspired by an
observation or an
was no expression of personal significance at all. What it was that sparked the interest in the topic initially
or its relationship to a real-world problem, was not presented. It seemed to many examiners that teachers
were satisfied by a paragraph on personal significance to address the whole of this criterion. This is not
the case. The whole investigation needs to be considered.
Page 5 / 27
The originality of the exploration was mostly acceptable and sometimes exceptional. There were,
however, too many cases of classic or even prescribed investigations being used with little or no attempt
to modify them.
Personal input is evidenced in the use of preliminary trials or the persistence to collect data but also in the
research for the background and when establishing the scientific context of the conclusion, in following
through the investigation and in the choice of methods of analysis. Once again, this was clearly evidenced
for many candidates. For others, it seemed that after a good start with an interesting research question,
they failed to follow through.
Personal input can be reflected at the simplest level by having completed the investigation, but those
following classic experiments, with no sign of application, cannot expect to score highly. There must be
some indication that there is a commitment to the investigation.
When marking this criterion, teachers should look out for the following:
• The originality of the design of the method (choice of materials and methods),
• A statement of purpose is expressed,
• The relationship with a real-world problem,
• The difficulty of collecting data (evidence of tenacity),
• The presence of preliminary investigations or trial runs,
• The quality of the observations made,
• The care in the selection of techniques to process the data,
• The reflections on the quality of the data,
• The type of material referred to in the background or in the discussion of the results,
• The depth of understanding of the limitations in the investigation,
• The reflections on the improvement and extension of the investigation.
If all aspects are weak or unaddressed, an unfinished report can score zero for this criterion.
Because of its holistic assessment, marking this criterion will overlap with components of other criteria.
Exploration (EX)
Examiners frequently commented that while the topic was usually identified, the research question lacked
sufficient focus to obtain the highest mark band. Scientific names were not always used, and the range of
• Which sugar is used? Sugar is a generic term, it does not just apply to sucrose.
• What organism is being used, yeast presumably, but which species?
•
• A research question can also include how the measurements will be taken by introducing the
fermentation is being measured?

As with other sessions there were examples of an environmental factor (e.g. stress) tested against a
physiological variable (e.g. heart rate) with a very limited sample size, too small for any coherent
conclusion to be drawn.
It seems, from the teacher comments on the samples, that a lot of them seem to be satisfied with less focus
in the research question. Some examiners reported that there were students using two or even three
independent variables. The result was that the investigation became complex and it could not collect
sufficient data to determine the effects of the different independent variables.
Page 6 / 27
When marking this part of the criterion, teachers should look out for the following:
• The topic has been identified,
• The presence of the independent variable or the two variables being correlated,
• The range of the independent variable,
• The presence of the dependent variable (or derived dependent variable e.g. a rate),
• The subject material,
• Where relevant, the scientific name of the organism used.
The requirements for the background are that it needs to be focused and contain relevant information
that is clearly linked to the research question. This was one of the weakest aspects of this criterion. There
were many cases of superficial or irrelevant material taken from a standard textbook. Sometimes
candidates were citing material that was not from reliable scientific sources. Using a quote from a
gardening journal or a cookery recipe may be a good starting point but from that point on a scientific basis
needs to be established. In the background, the independent variable also needs to be justified. For
example, why was a pH range of 2 to 7 used? The dependent variable needs to be explained and linked to
the investigation. For example: How is the change in pressure that was measured, related to the activity
of catalase enzyme?
• Relevance,
• Focus on the essential details,
• The context of the range of the independent variable,
• The context of the dependent variable,
• The discussion of other factors that would need controlling,
• In the case of databases, an explanation of the choice of data sources.
A discussion of controlled variables is needed to demonstrate that the student appreciates the other
factors that may impact on the experiment. Uncontrolled variables, for example room temperature, may
have a significant impact; they need monitoring. One cannot assume that putting the experiments in the
same place is enough and setting the air conditioning in a room is often inadequate. Control experiments
need to be considered more frequently. Control experiments reveal when an uncontrolled variable is
having an impact on the measurements. Weaker candidates confused a control experiment with a
controlled variable.
The methods were either written in prose or point style. Both are acceptable. Where the method is not
clear it affects both the Exploration and Communication criteria. The weaker submissions tended to be
from candidates who investigated a topic in which causal relationships are difficult to confirm and a large
number of controls are missing. For example, human physiology studies with limited data sets and poorly
controlled variables.
• The protocol for collecting the data,
• The range and intervals of the independent variable,
• The selection of measuring instruments (where relevant),
• Techniques to ensure adequate control (fair testing),
• Method to control or monitor each variable,
• The use of control experiments,
• The quantity of data collected, given the nature of the system investigated. Provision for replicate trials,
• The type of data collected; the data should be appropriate to answer the research question,
Page 7 / 27
• Provision for qualitative observations,

• The use of screen shots to describe databases, simulations or mathematical models and their
manipulation.
With the increase in the numbers of investigations relying on simulations and databases it was very clear
to examiners that the candidates were still not responding to the need to describe and explain the process
of data selection and data collection. Annotated screenshots of the simulations and the database controls
are essential here. The candidates also need to discuss the reliability of the sources of the databases and
the simulations.
Most of the investigations involving online simulations were limited in the manipulation of variables but
most candidates did not even try to extend their thinking to the proper design of the investigation. They
could at least have indicated the important variables that could not be controlled.
Safety, ethics and environmental impact needed to be addressed in investigations. Many candidates
appeared to show little or no evidence of concern. It is not sufficient to identify potential areas where
safety is an issue, there needs to be an indication of how the issue had been mitigated. All too often the
issue of safety was treated without much thought. Breaches in safety and ethics reported by different
examiners included: blood glucose tests, work with saliva, use of bacteria at temperatures greater than
30ºC, use of animal excrements and UV lamps without adequate protection.
Students will need guidance from their teachers. The teacher must verify investigations that are carried
out at home for safety, ethics and environmental impact.
There were several reported cases of unethical treatment of animals or human subjects. There were
experiments with planaria being cut up and exposed to inhumane conditions. A few candidates carried
out experiments where they were administering chemical substances, such L-citrulline, eye drops, caffeine
tablets and coffee, to other students with no apparent supervision to ensure safety. It is unethical to
expose subjects to alcohol or high doses of caffeine.
There were a significant number of microbiological methods being carried out that were very
inappropriate for a school environment or being carried out at home. For example: culturing microbes at
37°C (body temperature), exposing them to varying concentrations of antibiotics or isolating and culturing
bacteria that are known pathogens, such as Staphylococcus aureus. These types of investigation are
unacceptable. Examiners often complained that the descriptions of the method were not precise enough
for them to be sure that the candidates were working safely.
The following guidelines should be applied:
• Do not test for antibiotic resistance. There are enough antibiotic resistant strains circulating in the
environment without more being selected for.
• Only culture known non-pathogenic trains of microbes. For example, do not culture from hands, swabs
of door handles or toothbrushes.
• Apply strict rules of hygiene and aseptic techniques.
• Do not culture microbes at 37°C. Incubation should be carried out below 30°C, preferably at around
25°C.
• Always label cultured plates so they can be clearly identified and never open them for inspection.
• Lids should be taped on but do not tape all the way round a Petri dish. Taping all around the dish
encourages anaerobic conditions that are best avoided.
• Never assume that what is growing in the culture is the strain that was inoculated, even if non-
pathogenic strains have been used.
• Always sterilise used cultures and dispose of the cultures using local health and safety regulations.
Page 8 / 27
Examiners were reporting that the correct incubation temperatures were either not respected or not
The use of consent forms with human volunteers should be systematic. This is an essential ethical practice.
They were often reported by examiners as being absent.
The use of body fluids (urine, blood, saliva) remains a problem.
When handling soil candidates should be wearing gloves and investigations into the fertilizer properties
of manures is not appropriate.
Generally, the disposal of waste still gets poor consideration. Many examiners commented on this.
In the written reports, evidence for the consideration of safety, ethical practice and environmental impact
can be found as follows:
•
• An appreciation of the safe handling of chemicals or equipment (e.g. the use of protective clothing and
eye protection). However, latex gloves should be avoided in the proximity of a Bunsen burner.
• Consideration of basic hygiene.
• Handling of microbes (see above).
• The application of the IB animal experimentation policy.
• A reasonable consumption of materials.
• The use of written consent forms in human physiology experimentation and a consideration of the
welfare of the volunteers.
• The correct disposal of waste and alien/invasive species.
• An appreciation of the particular safety issues when working in the field.
• Attempts to minimise the impact of the investigation on field sites.
Analysis (A)
The presentation of raw data was generally accurate but qualitative observations were often missing.
Qualitative observations are expected to accompany the raw data. Where they were present the
qualitative data were often poorly organised or too superficial. In many cases the qualitative observations
could have been improved by using labelled photographs.
There were investigations that generated only qualitative data e.g. the determination of starch levels using
the colours of iodine solution by eye. Teachers need to advise their students that this will impact heavily
on the Analysis component. The students need to be guided towards more quantitative methods. Colour
changes can be tracked using colorimeters. Blood glucose testing strips were sometimes used for tracking
enzyme activity. Generally, the range and sensitivity of these strips are too crude to give useable data.
Raw data from data logging may be expressed as a graphical readout. It should be accompanied by the
necessary information such as units and degrees of precision (if relevant) in the axis titles. These will also
impact on the Communication criterion. A candidate should present a representative sample of the raw
data, for example, when large amounts of data have been collected using data logging. A representative
graphical readout revealing how the data is derived is acceptable. In this way the derived data becomes
the raw data.
Though this mainly affects Communication, relegating raw data to an appendix should be avoided. Most
of the time this could have been avoided. In any case, a representative sample of the raw data should be
presented in the body of the report.
Page 9 / 27
• The data collected is in line with the method.

• Sufficiency of the data (a sample of data may be shown where the data set is very large).
• The quality of data.
• Qualitative observations (photographs/drawings/maps correctly labelled).
• Relevant and complete data.
• Tables with unambiguous titles, clear headings, units, and uncertainties (also impacts on
Communication).
The processing of data by the candidates varied. Most candidates managed the basics (means and
standard deviations). Although there were a few that calculated these statistics for everything and
anything, there were still candidates who tried to apply standard deviation to a sample size that was too
small (n<5). Error bars do not have to be of the standard deviation. Maximum-minimum range bars can be
used, and this is possible for samples of less than 5. Standard error of the mean is best used with large
samples only (n>30).
Rates were not always calculated when it would have been appropriate. There were examples of
candidates calculating mean rates by averaging the data for all trial runs and then calculating the mean
rate from this. This is inexact. The rates of each run need to be calculated and then the mean from all of
the rates.
Candidates are still confusing R2 (the coefficient of determination) with r (the correlation coefficient). R2
can be used as an indicator of the goodness of fit of a trend line. It can approximate to the product moment
correlation coefficient (r) if the trend line is straight, but it is always a positive value, unlike the correlation
coefficient, which can be negative. Many candidates who do present R2 values with their graphs do not
go on to explain how this can be used to judge how well the trend line fits the data. There were also
formatting problems with these values in the graphing programs that led to R2 appearing as 0 when it
clearly was not.
Many candidates were using significance tests from t-test to ANOVA. Although this is good, they need to
be appropriately applied and there needs to be sufficient explanation for the processing to be followed.
Examiners reported that there appears to be more and more candidates who are happy just to provide
the final value for a test. The use of ANOVA or F-test has increased In some cases it is appropriate, in others
it is not. Furthermore, on its own, the ANOVA test will not reveal which treatment is significantly different
from which. A further test (e.g. Tukey test) is needed. The use of programmes, such as Microsoft Excel,
which produce a statistic, such as a p-value or a correlation coefficient, are fine but the candidate needs
to know what the value actually represents and what data has been used to calculate it. Correlation
coefficients should also be accompanied with a significance test, as the significance of the correlation will
depend upon the sample size. It was observed that some candidates were using the ANOVA test when a
correlation coefficient would show the relationship between two variables more effectively.
The issue remains, which statistical tests should the candidates use or be aware of? This can be equivalent
to the choice of an appropriate measurement tool in the experimental phase. For example, the biology
programme does not require the candidates to know specifically when and how to use a colorimeter or a
pH probe. But they may have to select and to learn to use one specifically for their individual investigation.
fficient but it may be the appropriate
statistical tool to use for their data. In same way that the students may need coaching to use a pH probe
competently, they may also need coaching in the use of the statistical tool that they use for the analysis of
the data.
• Appropriate processing tools are selected,
Page 10 / 27
• How easy it is to follow the data processing: sample calculations or screen shots from the spread sheet
help,
• Statistical analysis: justification for choice of the test,
• Appropriate graphing techniques, including adequate scale, title and labelled axes,
• Mistakes in calculations and graphing.
The candidates usually presented measurement uncertainties, but they were not always discussed.
Candidates are expected to appreciate the limitations of their instruments and, where they may have a
choice, to select the appropriate one.
In biology we do not expect errors to be propagated through the calculations.
In biology, the biggest issue for uncertainties is in the variation in the biological material (expressed as
standard deviations, standard error or max-min range). Error bars showing variation were more frequently
used on graphs but their significance, or even what they represented, was often absent. In some cases, the
error bars were incorrectly placed, or they had no bearing on what had been calculated. It seems that some
candidates are confusing standard deviation with standard error.
There were cases of students removing outliers from their data during processing. Even if they have been
sample size of a sample that is already,

probably, very small.
• The degrees of precision of instruments used (measurement uncertainties),
• Variation in the material used,
• Standard deviations, standard errors, trend lines, R2 values, r values, error bars,
• Ranges (maximum-minimum),
• Appropriate response to outlier data.
The interpretation of the data was sometimes well presented after each set of data. Sometimes it was
mixed in with the conclusion. In weak candidates the interpretation was a written repetition of the data in
the tables with little attempt to point out the trends or to compare data. The use of statistics may have
been satisfactory but they were not always well interpreted. As with calculators, the use of a program like
Microsoft Excel is useful but can lead to candidates accepting values without truly understanding them.
Often the interpretation was handicapped by the limited degree of data processing. Some candidates
wanted, so desperately, to support their initial hypothesis that they ignored the evidence pointing to an
inconclusive result.
• Explanation of trends ,
• Comparisons, correlations ,
• Identification of optima, maxima (plateau), intercepts,
• Interpretation of statistical calculations (e.g. significance testing).
Evaluation (EV)
This was the weakest criterion for many candidates. It is a difficult skill requiring critical thinking that pulls
the whole investigation together. The importance of this will be reinforced in the new programme due to
start September 2023. Currently some candidates seemed to hurriedly finish off the report. Schools may
need to consider the impact of the deadlines for the internal assessment of each subject, theory of
Page 11 / 27
Conclusions were not always supported by the data and explanations were missing. The candidates did
not always refer to their research question at this point. It was almost as though they had forgotten why
they were carrying out the investigation. Some candidates were over optimistic in their conclusions. They
ignored their processing or did not want to accept their results becaus
did not fully support their hypothesis but they would aim to put a positive spin on it. Sometimes a bold
may be supported or not. Stronger candidates were more cautious and discerning in their conclusions.
Few would evaluate the data in the light of a statistical result like the standard deviation. This was a point
that clearly discriminated between the candidates but teachers did not always spot it.
• A conclusion that is supported by the data,
• Reference back to the research question,
• Reference to a hypothesis (if one has been stated),
• Scientific justification from the processed data.
For a full discussion, an attempt to explain the results in a scientific context is needed. Examiners reported
that this was frequently superficial or absent. The discussion of the conclusion should be backed up by
literature sources or accepted models for the system being studied, even if this means briefly going over
the relevant background again.
• Scientific background that helps to explain the outcomes of the investigation with literature references,
• Comparison with general models and proposed biological explanations.
The evaluation of methodology is still a challenge to most candidates. The consideration of strengths was
frequently missed. Weaknesses were often restricted to procedural details or sloppy manipulation and the
level of impact on the conclusion was often not discussed. Sometimes the candidates were distracted by
less significant issues. The degree of impact of the weaknesses on the data was often not discussed.
When assessing Evaluation of the investigation, teachers should look for the following:
• a discussion of the strengths this might be quite general or implicit or it might refer to specific parts
that worked well or data that were consistent,
• discussion of the reliability of the data,
• identified weaknesses in the method and materials,
• the evaluation of the relative impact of a weakness on the conclusion.
Proposed improvements were sometimes unrealistic and often too vague. Candidates would state that
following on from the investigation. Sometimes they were nothing more than improvements to the
current investigation.
• sensible, realistic improvements with an understanding of the methodology used,
• details of the improvements (e.g. not just that the investigation needs to be repeated but how many
times),
• realistic extensions that clearly follow on from the investigation.
Page 12 / 27
Communication (C)
The responses to the Communication criterion were generally good. Those who communicated well were
candidates who had already scored highly in the other criteria.
The most common problems in the work were:
• The use of whole pages for titles. This is not necessary.
• Whole pages for a list of contents. This is not necessary at all.
• Repetitive tables, when one would do. There is often no need for a raw data table in addition to a table
with processed data; they can be amalgamated.
• Inefficient data table headers. The art of designing data tables needs to be taught. A hand drawn sketch
of the table layout should be considered first.
• Raw data relegated to the appendix when there was no reason for it. This upsets the flow of the report.
• Tables split over two pages or with a title on one page and the table or graph on the next. Candidates
should consider using page breaks.
• Multiple graphs drawn when they could have been combined, this not only saves space but it also
improves comparisons. However, there is a limit to how much data can be presented on one graph.
• Squashed graphs so the distribution of the data is difficult to judge. This is sometimes due to the
candidates not reformatting the font.
• The equation of a trend line presented on a graph when it is not going to be analysed
• Bibliography, footnotes, endnotes or in-text citation missing. This would lead to the work being
suspected of malpractice.
• References with an incomplete format. Sometimes just the URL was given with no date of retrieval.
• Scientific nomenclature was not always used and the formats were not always respected.
• Non-metric units used. These must to be converted.
For graphs resulting from data logging that are used to derive a value (e.g. a rate), one example can be
presented to explain the processing then the rates derived from the different treatments can be presented
in a table. These can then be treated as the raw data.
Graphs appear to have become a significant problem for some candidates. It seems that they are happy
to stick with the default format proposed by the graphing program. This, or the menu of formats that some
programs propose, usually need some modification to make them appropriate for scientific use.
The format for the citations, when they were presented, was mostly correct. However, many candidates
still miss the need to include the retrieval date of online citations.
Format of scientific names was often incorrect (a small case letter for species name and it ought to be
presented in italics).
Units were occasionally missing or they did not accompany the data. If the new table is used for processed
data, then the units and uncertainties need to be repeated.
The use of non-metric units (e.g. teaspoons, cups, inches, fluid ounces or °F) was noted by examiners.
Measurement uncertainties were sometimes missing.
The numbers of decimal places were sometimes irregular or they did not correspond to the precision of
the data. The precision often changed with the processing of the data.
Examiners reported that there were more candidates going further than the 12-page limit, sometimes
excessively. Currently there are no automatic penalties for reports that were slightly longer, so long as the
reports remained relevant and concise. If an extensive appendix, accompanied the report where the raw
data is stored, then this will impact on the mark. Examiners noted that candidates resorted to small font
Page 13 / 27
size, narrow margins or very small graphs to try to stay in the page limit. Some candidates seemed to
completely abandon the page limit presumably assuming that this would only affect the Communication
criterion. Unfortunately, Communication is marked holistically and there is an inevitable overlap between
it and other criteria. For example, excessively long reports also impact on Exploration where the
background and the protocol for the method are not focussed or precise.
Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

• Teachers must read and act upon feedback that has been received from previous sessions.
• Teachers should visit MyIB to see updated examples of individual investigations that are considered
adequate (teacher support material). This is a frequent recommendation from senior examiners.
• workload when scheduling the individual investigation in the scheme
of work.
• Do not schedule the action stage of the individual investigation for the end of the teaching programme.
There will not be sufficient time left for revision of or repetition of a method.
• Present the criteria to the candidates early on in the course and use them for the assessment of practical
work.
• Explain the expectations of each component of each criterion.
• Counsel the candidates on the feasibility of the investigation, focussing research questions, safety,
ethics and environmental impact, use of statistical programs and the use and presentation of citations.
• Ensure that the candidate work has some original purpose. It should not be the repeat of a classic or a
prescribed investigation.
• Teach the students how to express personal engagement in their investigation.
• Teach candidates how to design tables and draw graphs.
• Graphs should not be reduced to such a size that they become uninformative, simply to stay within the
page limit.
• It is not expected that full calculations be shown, examples will suffice and a worked example from a
calculation carried out on a spread sheet or a programmable calculator will not be expected. Screen
shots should, however, be considered, especially when using databases or simulations.
• Candidates should not add on appendices in addition to a write-up of about 12 pages and they should
not send in excessive quantities of raw data from data loggers (although showing an example these raw
data and how they have been processed will be needed).
• Reams of extra work should not be uploaded. Teachers marking the work should annotate it if they
judge the processed results to be a true reflection of the raw data from, for example, a data logger.
• Teachers should add comments throughout the work (rather than at the beginning or end) and apply
the criteria rigorously. It is the annotated version we want to see.
• Teachers should ensure that the work is anonymous. The candidate name, the school name, and the
session numbers must all be removed before scanning and uploading. Both
and the teachers mark sheet.
Further comments
For the fifth time all the individual investigations for all the candidates were marked, rather than samples
from schools. Though the volume of marking increased, the impression that the examiners took away was
that the same strengths and weakness exist in the larger population of IB students.
The examining team would like to thank those teachers who carefully annotated and put comments on
volume of work to the IBO on time.
Page 14 / 27
Higher level paper one

General comments
Nearly 90% of teachers who commented on G2 forms thought that the difficulty of the paper was
appropriate, with most of the others considering it too difficult. Half of teachers thought that the standard
was similar to last year but nearly 40% thought the paper was more difficult, implying that a significant
the clarity of wording of the paper, the presentation, readability, suitability and inclusivity were at least
acceptable. More than half considered all these aspects of the paper to be good or very good. The statistics
for the paper showed that most question performed well or very well and discriminated effectively
between the stronger and the less strong candidates.
The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

questions
Comments will be confined to questions where issues were raised either by teacher comments on G2
forms, or by the statistics generated by student performance.
Question 9 Photosynthetic limiting factors

Nearly 75% of candidates answered this question correctly, but the discrimination index was relatively
low. The limiting factor at X was light intensity, as raising it from low to high increased the rate of
photosynthesis. The commonest incorrect answer was that chlorophyll is the limiting factor, but if a plant
has insufficient light, increasing the chlorophyll content is unlikely to overcome the problem.
Question 10 Genome sizes

Here was another question with a relatively low discrimination index, but it was not due to the question
being too easy. Two thirds of candidates answered correctly, realising that the number of genes an
organism has does not determine whether or not it is evolutionarily successful. Candidates were expected
to regard all organisms in the table as successful, because they exist today. Perhaps some of the stronger
candidates chose D, because there are twice as many genes in rice as in humans and the one-gene-one-
polypeptide concept suggests that they must therefore produce twice as many proteins. This was not the
expected answer because the table did not specify the number of proteins made by each organism.
Question 11 Autosomes in gametes

Candidates found this a hard question, with only 28% answering correctly. The term autosome is included
in the program. but was not widely known, resulting in B being the most popular choice that sperm cells
have 23 autosomes.
Question 14 Pyramids of energy

Nearly 90% of candidates answered this question correctly, showing good understanding of food chains
and pyramids of energy, but inevitably resulting in a low discrimination index.
Question 16 Consequences of global warming

This was the only question where the percentage of candidates answering correctly dropped below the
guess-level of 25%. A and B were both more popular choices than the actual answer. A is incorrect because
ozone depletion is not a cause of global warming. B is incorrect because increases in ocean pH are due to
raised carbon dioxide concentrations, not global warming. It would clearly be prudent to assume that
Page 15 / 27
diploma candidates do not start the course with an understanding of the causes of the enhanced
greenhouse effect, and this topic should therefore be taught thoroughly.
Question 18 Antibiotic resistance

This question was common with the SL paper. On both papers it attracted the most criticism from teachers
on G2 forms. The graph showed fluctuating levels of antibiotic resistance, with an overall trend of
increasing resistance. Candidates were expected to understand that antibiotic resistance is a heritable
trait, so a change in antibiotic resistance levels is evolution. The explanation of increasing resistance levels
is therefore based in natural selection: bacteria with genes for resistance have an advantage so survive,
reproduce and pass on their genes. After careful scrutiny of the question, it was decided that there was a
second acceptable answer. Although the graph does not provide information on antibiotic use, it was not
unreasonable to deduce that using the antibiotic causes evolution by acting as a selective agent. Both
answers A and D were therefore marked as correct in order to award the benefit of the doubt. The question
has been altered for the published version for the examinations CD, with A being the correct option.
Question 22 Blood clotting

About half of candidates answered this question correctly, but the discrimination index was rather low.
Answer D was clearly correct, but many candidates chose A or B instead. A was incorrect because red blood
cells do not release clotting factors. B was incorrect because thrombin is not converted to prothrombin.
As ever, candidates are advised to read all the possible choices.
Question 25 Leptin
This was a common question with and only a slightly higher percentage of HL candidates answered it
correctly. As at SL, most candidates thought that obesity in mice is caused by the hypothalamus stopping
producing leptin. This reveals two misunderstandings that the brain rather than adipose cells produces
leptin and that obesity is due to a lack of the hormone rather than receptors failing to respond to it.
Question 28 Translation
The discrimination index for this question was low, and as only 44% answered correctly, the explanation
was not that it was too easy. The question asked for the bases of the anticodons used to produce a
polypeptide. They will be complementary to the DNA sense strand, because it will have the same base
sequence (apart from T/U) as the codons of the mRNA that is translated into the polypeptide. B was almost
as popular as the correct answer, but gives the codons, rather than the anticodons.
Question 29 Enzyme inhibition

This was another relatively hard question with a low discrimination index. Surprisingly, some of the
stronger candidates seem to have muddled up the effect of substrate concentration on competitive and
non-competitive inhibitors.
Question 30 Production of acetyl CoA

The discrimination index for this question was the lowest on the paper. Some of the better-prepared
candidates thought that acetyl CoA is produced on the inner mitochondrial membrane, rather than in the
matrix.
Page 16 / 27
Standard level paper one

General comments
Nearly 90% of teachers who commented on G2 forms considered the paper to be appropriate in difficulty,
with others mostly thinking it was too difficult. There was no consensus among teachers over the difficulty
only half of teachers thinking that the standard was similar. The majority considered the clarity of wording,
presentation of the paper, readability, suitability and inclusivity to be good or very good. About 5% of
teachers thought that the clarity and readability were poor.

questions
Most questions performed as expected. Comments will be made only where there were issues worthy of
consideration.
Question 5 Sister chromatids in chimpanzees

This question proved to be too hard for most candidates, with only 15% answering correctly lower than
the expected 25% success rate from guessing. Most candidates thought that the diploid number of
chromatids are present in a cell during G2. At that stage of the cell cycle, each chromosome has been
replicated so there are twice the diploid number of chromatids. Candidates may not have known the
difference between chromatids and chromosomes or that replication has already happened in G2, or
perhaps they did not read the question carefully enough.
Question 6 Hydrogen bonds

Only 40% of candidates answered this question correctly. A common misunderstanding was to think that
hydrogen bonds are within water molecules (intramolecular) rather than between water molecules
(intermolecular).
Question 11 Lactate production

The wording of the question was slightly awkward as none of the hypotheses offered in the answers fully
explained the form of the curve on the graph. The discrimination index for the question was relatively low,
probably due to some of the better candidates overthinking the issues, rather than choosing obvious
answer that anaerobic exercise results in high levels of lactate.
Question 13 Genome sizes

Most candidates chose the anticipated answer that the number of genes an organism has does not
determine whether or not it is evolutionarily successful. Candidates were expected to regard all of
organisms in the table as successful, because they still exist today.
Question 14 Chromosomes in gametes

This was another question that many candidates found too hard; less than 20% answered correctly. The
term autosome is included in sub-topic 3.2 of the program and an understanding of it was required in this
question. That was not the only source of confusion though, as the most popular choice of answer - that
a human egg cell has two X chromosomes was clearly incorrect.
Page 17 / 27
Question 20 Homology
The expected explanation of the presence of tails in vertebrate embryos and subsequent disappearance
during development in some species was that vertebrates have a common ancestor which had a tail. All
the other possible answers were incorrect not all mammals are tailless, vertebrate embryos are not all
identical, and physical similarities in vertebrates are more likely to be homologous than analogous. Nearly
half of candidates answered the question correctly and the discrimination index for this question was
relatively high.
Question 21 Antibiotic resistance

This question attracted the most criticism from teachers on G2 forms. The graph showed fluctuating levels
of antibiotic resistance, with an overall trend of increasing resistance. Candidates were expected to
understand that antibiotic resistance is a heritable trait, so a change in antibiotic resistance levels is
evolution. The explanation of increasing resistance levels is therefore based in natural selection: bacteria
with genes for resistance have an advantage so survive, reproduce and pass on their genes. After careful
scrutiny of the question, it was decided that there was a second acceptable answer. Although the graph
does not provide information on antibiotic use, it was not unreasonable to deduce that using the
antibiotic causes evolution by acting as a selective agent. Both answers A and D were therefore marked as
correct in order to award the benefit of the doubt. The question has been altered for the published version
for the examinations CD, with A being the correct option.
Question 24 Starch digestion

This question was not the hardest, but it discriminated rather poorly, implying that some of the stronger
candidates answered incorrectly. The program does not specify much about starch digestion, other that
it occurs in the small intestine with enzymes secreted by the pancreas, but it was still possible to identify
the correct answer based on expected knowledge. The most popular answer was A, which implies
incorrectly that starch is digested in the stomach. It is understandable that candidates might have thought
this answer was correct, but they should have carried on to the read the other three. Answer C was
undoubtedly correct glucose from digestion of starch can be stored as glycogen. The logical conclusion
is that A cannot be correct.
Question 25 Structure of blood vessels

This was another question where fewer candidates answered correctly than the guess-level of 25%. The
most popular choice had elastic fibres as a feature of both capillaries and veins. This indicates that many
knowledge of the structure of blood vessels was weak.
Question 29 Leptin
Here was yet another question that proved too difficult for many candidates, with the percentage
answering correctly at no better than if based on guess-work. Most candidates thought that obesity in
mice is caused by the hypothalamus stopping producing leptin. This reveals two misunderstandings that
the brain rather than adipose cells produces leptin and that obesity is due to a lack of the hormone rather
than receptors failing to respond to it.
Question 30 Insulin
The two terms glucagon and glycogen are easily confused and it was clear that some candidates had done
this here, so chose answer D that the concentration of glucagon rises in the presence of insulin. Special
attention should be given where two terms are close in spelling but different in meaning.
Page 18 / 27
Higher level paper two

General comments
usual. However, some candidates had overcome all the difficulties of the last few years and performed at
as high a level as ever.
The questions in this paper performed well with very high discrimination indices throughout, apart from
the questions that tested skill at data analysis rather than biology.
The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for the
candidates
Knowledge and understanding were weak in a variety of topics, but most notably in these: physical
processes cause global warming; ion movements during action potentials; synaptic transmission; the role
of calcium ions in muscle contraction; water as a coolant; use of stem cells; production of monoclonal
antibodies and DNA profiling.
The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well
prepared
There were few areas where the majority of candidates seemed well-prepared. Standards of data-analysis
were generally high. The secondary structure of proteins was widely understood.

questions
Section A
Question 1 Data-based question on hibernation and osteoporosis
(a) 70% of candidates were able to read two temperatures from the graph and subtract the higher from
the lower correctly.
(b) Many candidates realized that they were expected to give similarities and differences between the
curves, but most struggled to do this clearly. Rather than make eclectic statements about the data that
may be correct but are not significant, the aim with a question such as this is to make comments that
would allow someone who has not been shown the curves to sketch them. Some students confused
maxima or minima with increases and decreases, so for example stating that ambient body temperature
increased in July, when it reached a maximum in July and stopped increasing.
(c) Many candidates mentioned lack of activity as a reason for lower heart rate and some went on to
mention reduced respiration rates or other aspects of physiology. Other candidates failed to offer an
explanation and instead just described the data. A few claimed wrongly that bone porosity was directly
proportional to age, in which case all those of a certain age would have the same degree of osteoporosis,
which is plainly not the case.
(d) Well answered with most candidates referring to the positive and negative correlations.
(e) This question was very unusual in that the discrimination index was negative stronger candidates
were slightly less likely to answer correctly than weaker candidates, for reasons that are not obvious! Only
Page 19 / 27
a minority gave the expected answer of 6%. A very common answer was 7%, which is reached by
calculating the age proportion correctly as 0.4 but using the trend line rather than the data point for the
individual who was 32 years old. Careful reading of the question was needed to avoid this mistake.
(f) Most candidates were successful here, using the argument that humans and bears have different life
spans.
(g) In this question candidates were expected to deduce the changes to bone from the concentrations of
the markers. Given that neither of them reaches zero, we can assume that bone formation and resorption
answer was to comment on relative overall amounts of formation and resorption, either by stating that
they are approximately equal or that there is slightly more resorption.
(h) Candidates were expected to suggest a difference between the bears and humans in the concentration
of one or both of the markers, that would result in loss of bone mass. A common fault was to predict
changes in the markers during a period of inactivity in humans, but changes over time were not the issue
it was differences between humans and bears that were relevant to the question.
(i) A very small proportion of candidates correctly calculated the percentage difference. There were many
different incorrect answers, with 350% being the most popular, which is the amount of osteocalcin during
hibernation as a percentage of the amount pre-hibernation.
(j) This type of question is increasingly well answered with more candidates understanding that two
variables being positively correlated does not prove a causation. The situation would have been different
if an experiment had been done with the levels of parathyroid hormone as the independent variable
controlled by the researchers.
(k) Answers here were very varied. The best included the idea that an understanding of how bears maintain
bone mass despite inactivity during hibernation might lead to preventative treatments for humans.
Because this was a discuss question, some counterargument was expected, based on differences between
bears and humans.
Question 2 The greenhouse effect

(a) Most candidates did the subtraction correctly and gave an answer within the expected range.
(b) Answers were extremely variable. It was obvious that many candidates understood the reason for
ignoring short-term fluctuations but struggled to phrase a clear and convincing answer. Seasonal
variations in temperature were not relevant because the data-points were annual means.
(c) Only a small minority of candidates had a secure understanding of the greenhouse effect. Many
answers were horribly muddled. The ozone layer was often tangled up with global warming. Some
candidates confused chemical substances with radiation and thought that the problem was carbon
dioxide getting trapped in the atmosphere. Very few explained clearly that short-wave radiation from the
d becomes
that greenhouse gases prevent from escaping. It was clear that many candidates did not understand the
Question 3 Nerve impulses

(a) This question proved too hard for most candidates and a proportion of answers within the expected
range were probably based on guesswork rather than deduction. Candidates were expected to know that
the resting potential is about -70 mV and the peak of depolarization is about +30 mV, so X must 0 mV.
There was an immense range of answers from negative through to +1000 mV and more.
Page 20 / 27
(b) This was answered more successfully, with many candidates referring to depolarisation, generation of
an action potential or the opening of sodium channels.
(c) Well-prepared candidates were successful here, with statements about sodium ions entering the axon
during depolarization and potassium ions leaving during repolarization. Weaker candidates did not
mention these ions or described the working of the sodium-potassium pump. There was a tendency for
the movement of ions to be rather ambiguously described, with ions said to enter the membrane rather
than enter the cell by passing through the membrane.
(d) Some candidates wrote about saltatory conduction here, rather than synaptic transmission. A
surprisingly common misconception was that vesicles leave the pre-synaptic neuron and diffuse to the
post-synaptic neuron, when in fact the membrane of the vesicle fuses with the pre-synaptic membrane
and only the fluid that was inside it exits. There were excellent answers from better-prepared candidates.
Question 4 Protein structure

(a) Many candidates knew that association of polypeptide chains is quaternary structure. Any spelling of
this term was accepted - only a minority got it correct.
(b) This was one of the most successfully answered of questions, with better prepared candidates
recognizing the alpha helix and explaining it in terms of hydrogen bonding.
(c) There were varied answers to this question. The best made it clear that a tRNA molecule carries one
specific amino acid corresponding to its anticodon and to the codon on mRNA to which it binds during
translation.
Question 5 Muscles in insects

(a) Most
(b) The mark scheme here was rather too demanding and very few candidates were awarded both marks.
The biological distinctions between flexors and flexion were too fine and marks should have been
awarded for other relevant ideas. A flexor is a muscle that causes flexion. Although we may speak
not a muscle that flexes but a limb at a joint.
(c) This question probed whether candidates understood the difference between the skeletons of
mammals and insects and thus where muscles are attached. Although the diagram shows tendon-like
attachment of insect muscles, many candidates claimed that the lack of tendons was the prime difference.
(d) Well prepared candidates had no difficulty in describing the role of calcium in muscle contraction but
they were in the minority. The discrimination index was very high.
Section B
Each of the three questions was answered by large numbers of candidates, with question 6 being chosen
by about 75%, question 8 by 60% and question 7 by 55%.
Question 6 Water
(a) This question revealed widespread misunderstanding of the properties of water and changes of state.
sweat cools the body by taking heat from it to raise its temperature. Few candidates referred to the
requirement for heat to break hydrogen bonds as water evaporates. To be able to understand biological
processes properly, a firm grounding in physics and chemistry is needed, but all too often it was lacking.
(b) More marks were scored here, but again there was widespread misunderstanding of the forces that
cause water to evaporate and diffuse out of leaves, and of how conditions such as humidity, temperature
Page 21 / 27
and wind can influence the process. Few candidates mentioned concentration gradients between air
spaces in the leaf and the atmosphere outside the leaf. There was a tendency to get trends the wrong way
round, for example by suggesting that transpiration increases during rainfall because plants have plenty
of water and therefore choose to open their stomata more widely.
(c) This was poorly answered by many candidates. The discrimination index was very high but the mean
mark was only 1.5 out of 7. Often candidates did not get beyond the basic ideas of thirst and drinking
water to rehydrate. The best candidates gave concise but detailed accounts of the roles of the
hypothalamus, pituitary gland, collecting duct and aquaporins.
Question 7 Cells
(a) Most candidates knew something of the therapeutic uses of stem cells, including differentiation for
specific roles. There was a tendency for over-optimism over what can be fixed using stem cells. For
example, stem cells are not a treatment for most cancers. The best answers stuck to well-established
procedures such as the treatments for leukaemia using stem cells from bone marrow.
(b) Production of monoclonal antibodies was not widely understood and the mean mark was below 1 (out
of 5). Many answers described the normal immune response by the body that results in production of
antibodies, rather than the production of hybridoma cells that allow large-scale antibody manufacture.
(c) For well-prepared candidates this question posed no difficulty and there were some excellent detailed
accounts of chemiosmosis. The discrimination index was the highest for any question on the paper,
indicating that there was no room for lucky guesses about the biology here!
Question 8 Inheritance
(a) Many candidates were able to draw a nucleotide and label the subunits correctly. Weaker candidates
did not know what a nucleotide was, so often drew a diagram of either a DNA or RNA polynucleotide.
(b) Answers to this question were very variable, with some very well-informed accounts including the use
of genes containing of tandem repeats and details of the collection of DNA samples from both parents
and the child. There were also many accounts with errors of understanding. A common misconception is
that paternity is established by finding the male whose profile has most similarities to that of the child.
This does not prove that a man is the father
(c) This was a relatively high scoring question, with a mean mark of 2.4 (out of 7). Teachers expressed
surprise in G2 forms that their students were being expected to make 7 valid points in their answer, but
the wide-ranging mark scheme ensured that this was possible. There was some confusion between
polygenic inheritance and multiple alleles. Weaker candidates tended to think that dominant alleles make
us taller and recessive alleles cause shortness. Another fault in many answers was to focus on natural
selection and evolution of height if anything natural selection will reduce variation in human height
rather than cause it.

• Students should be clear about the difference between describe and explain answers positive
correlation and direct proportion reflection and radiation of energy percentage and percentage
difference ozone depletion and greenhouse effect
• prove or disprove a hypothesis - a hypothesis is either
supported or not supported. Also, they should be clear that w ta
belief system - the current model is modified based on evidence. Students should be encouraged to
Page 22 / 27
think hard about what data actually shows and they should be able to identify possible flaws in the data.
Correlation does not prove causation.
• Whenever possible we should try to include examples of topic impacts at a personal level. Holistic
engagement that fosters lifelong learning in biology starts outside the classroom with the phenomenon
of biology itself. Teachers could consider what part(s) of their course delivery leads to students
activating and applying their biological knowledge in their real world after they graduate.
Page 23 / 27
Standard level paper two

General comments
Many students showed weaker content knowledge than in the past. Extensive gaps of understanding were
seen in areas such as greenhouse effect (topic 4.4), neurophysiology (topic 6.5) immune response (topic
6.3) and mitosis/meiosis (topics 1.6/3.3). Some candidates had difficulty using correct terminology which
complicated the expression of knowledge. Candidates had trouble understanding how to answer
questions where they must state a relationship or trend such as for questions 1b,c,g, h.
The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates appeared well
prepared
It seems that candidates did well on "state / outline / describe" type questions, the basic thinking skills,
but less well with higher level command terms.
Modest achievement was seen in the answers to the protein questions about causes and effects of
denaturation (topic 2.4). Better results were seen in descriptions of how leaf cells make use of light energy
(topics 2.9 and 4.2). On the question of stem cell therapy (topic 1.1), many candidates demonstrated a clear
understanding with excellent descriptions of specific examples.
Candidates were successful in interpreting the data. Positive correlations in the graphs were recognized
by many. Acceptable measurements and calculations were made. Units were not always accompanying
numbers and this resulted in loss of marks. Data analysis - several examiners commented that there has
been continued improvement in answers to data analysis questions over their years as examiners.

questions
Question 1
About half of the candidates didn't use graphs/tables provided properly to directly respond to the
questions. Some used their own knowledge to answer questions, which is fine. But, better marks were
achieved by those who used the data provided to answer questions in Question 1. Candidates were able
to extract data from the stimulus material and apply their understanding of positive correlation. Several
questions (bii, g and h) needed more than one point in order to be awarded full
marks.
(a)(ii) Often steady or constant body temperatures for humans was given rather than homeostasis. Some
candidates erroneously described humans as warming up in response to cold ambient temperatures.
(b)(ii) There were a few beautiful responses where surface area was specifically incorporated into the
answer achieving maximum marks.
(e) Candidates liked to use the term "outlier" but their discussion ended there, as in "point X is not the
three-toed sloth because it is an outlier"
(h) Good reasoning was not seen often, best answers needed some of the elements in this linkage: higher
temperature led to uncurling which led to movement which led to eating because of energy needs; "sloth
prefers staying curled up so cold does not affect them" or "sloth enjoys staying curled up" were not
acceptable
Page 24 / 27
(i) Have hair/fur or feed young with milk were the best answers. Many students wrote "give birth to live
young;" While this is true of most mammals, monotremes lay eggs. Furthermore, some other animals give
birth to live young (ovoviviparous) such as some reptiles and some groups of fish. We credited only
characteristics exclusive to all mammals.
Question 2
(a) Amazingly, most candidates missed gaining the mark for this question: a huge variety of incorrect
numbers appeared, "4" was most frequent. Many candidates seemed to confuse the 4 nucleotide bases
with the 20 amino acids.
(b)(c) Most candidates answered these questions about enzymes either really well or very poorly. Some
erroneous answers mistook the active site as being separate to the enzyme or part of the substrate.
Another problem had to do with temperature as a denaturant. Lowering the temperature does not
denature the enzyme, though it may slow the reaction down. The candidate needed to say increased or
hot temperature to gain a mark.
Question 3
(a) Many candidates got the calculations right.
(b) Answers to this question suffered due to poor expression of an answer. Other candidates answers were
succinct and to the point as they used the data to make the point clear.
(c) There were elegant answers to this question demonstrating a high level of understanding. Many other
candidates mixed up all sorts of ideas here, including the idea of ozone being a cause of global warming
and stating as a that heat travels from the sun to the earth. Among the confused ideas was the notion
that carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant.
Question 4
(a) Approximately 50% of the candidates were correct with their answer of 50%. It was expected that
candidates would recognize that Edward is male because he has a box rather than circle in the pedigree.
Then from there, they would calculate the 50%.
(b) There were many good answers for this question showing understanding of haemophilia being sex
linked and recessive Quite a number then failed to get the third mark by being too vague in their
explanations. Some candidates thought that hemophilia is carried on Y chromosome; many understand
that females have two X chromosomes; talk about females as carriers was often seen, but without any
details to expand the answer; or that males are most likely to have hemophilia but, again, no details; for
the most part answers showed shallow understanding
Question 5
There were some truly brilliant answers to Question 5. However, the weakest answers in the examination
were also found here. Of the questions, these were the most commonly left blank.
(a) Candidates were often unable to approximate X. Missing units resulted in no marks awarded
(b) Fundamental terms such as action potential or depolarization were not used in Q5(b) and (c). Some
candidates failed to distinguish between elements and ions.
(c) Some candidates talked about ion movement but with no reference to a specific ion; some described
the Na+/K+ pump here
and received no marks.
(d) Use of term "synapse" was often missing; involvement of the brain was sometimes built into the
Page 25 / 27
passage of a nerve impulse to another neuron

Question 6
Some excellent answers; stem cells was usually well answered, leaf cells was often more complex than
necessary but marks were usually able to be gained, though many answers were missing the obvious, for
example leaf cells contain chloroplasts. Defence against disease; far too often over-complicated and
confused answers. It is important that students are aware of the level they need to know. There is no need
to over-complicate and risk loss of understanding, which was evident across many answers and which was
so confused across the roles of macrophages, B cells and T cells. Equally, for cell components, more often
than not this was ignored or mistakenly discussed as skin and mucus over platelets.
(a) Mostly well done. Appropriate examples provided for stem cell therapies. It seems that many
candidates think that all stem cells can differentiate into "any" type of cells, which is not correct. Other
candidates showed understanding of the discrimination between the source and the potential of the cells.
Occasionally candidate showed confusion about the term "stem" in that "stem cells show the way
plantsgrow"; sometimes therapeutic use of stem cells was confused with gene editing.
(b) Generally speaking, students know how leaf cells make use of light energy; at least three marks were
usually gained. Some candidates made the answer too complex and involved, when a simple straight-
forward answer would have been better.
(c) Among all candidates, there was knowledge of how each of the blood components (platelets,
phagocytes, lymphocytes) can defend against infectious disease; each of the marking points in the mark
scheme was eventually awarded; popular ideas were that fibrin is formed, phagocytes engulf pathogens
and antibodies provide specific immunity.
Correct terminology was confused or was not employed in too many answers.
Question 7
(a) Occasionally, deoxyribose was seen rather ribose; sometimes more than one nucleotide was shown
limiting maximum marks.
(b) The best answers had clear comparative statements or were in a comparison table. The worst answers
were continuous prose descriptions of the processes, as these all too often failed to be able to be pieced
together to make full marking points,
About half of the candidates did not mention cell divisions, but simply mentioned "two cycles" which was
too vague and instead of writing haploid/diploid, many said 23/46, which only applies to human or certain
organisms.
(c) This natural selection question had better responses than in previous years. There seems to be a
widespread misconception that bacteria can mutate after exposure to an antibiotic rather than surviving
because of a genetic variation. Some confusion was demonstrated concerning the use of antibiotics: some
candidates did not understand that antibiotics are used against bacteria (not viruses). There was lots of
confusion in the use of different but similar words - antibiotics / antibody / antigen

• Use action terms more often in every day class to become accustomed to how to respond appropriately.
This is not to teach to the test, but it helps candidates to think about the data and questions more
deeply. As a result, they get used to responding more appropriately.
• Candidates must remember that gaining marks requires answers that provide accurate details. Shallow
or superficial knowledge is not enough. Teachers must implement teaching strategies that maximize
Page 26 / 27
active learning approaches. In addition, students must be made aware of IB expectations and standards.
Use of former IB exams and markschemes will help in that regard.
• With questions such as 7b, it is so helpful to write answers in a side by side comparison...students often
fail to give the counterpoint...having answers side by side will help them to answer correctly.
• Practice
tables.
• Handwriting continues to be an issue and students lose points due to illegible handwriting. This year
was the worst for poor handwriting. Have students practise writing clearly on their classroom exams.
• Remind candidates to confine their written responses to the boxed area and expand to additional pages
rather than writing outside the box.
• Encourage candidates to attempt every question, paying attention to the command terms and point
count.
• Keep reminding that only 1 question needs to be answered in section B, they should attempt all parts
of that question and keep it relevant to boost chances of getting the QCL mark
• Make sure to really look closely at the questions; If the question asks the candidate to "state one..." or to
"draw one...", then only one is required. Lists of answers will not be marked positively ignoring the
wrong answers, the first answer will be taken, and for drawings, drawing more than required may result
in being unable to gain full marks
Page 27 / 27

Informe de Asignatura Biologia Zona 1 May 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Informe de Asignatura Biologia Zona 1 May 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biology SL/HL

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2022

Higher level overall

Mark range: 0 - 13 14 - 20 21 - 28 29 - 42 43 - 56 57 - 70 71 - 100

Standard level overall

Mark range: 0 - 13 14 - 23 24 - 33 34 - 48 49 - 63 64 - 78 79 - 100

Higher level / standard level internal assessment

Candidate performance against each criterion

Personal engagement (PE)

fermentation is being measured?

• Provision for qualitative observations,

• The data collected is in line with the method.

sample size of a sample that is already,

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

volume of work to the IBO on time.

Higher level paper one

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

Question 9 Photosynthetic limiting factors

Question 10 Genome sizes

Question 11 Autosomes in gametes

Question 14 Pyramids of energy

Question 16 Consequences of global warming

Question 18 Antibiotic resistance

Question 22 Blood clotting

Question 29 Enzyme inhibition

Question 30 Production of acetyl CoA

Standard level paper one

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

Question 5 Sister chromatids in chimpanzees

Question 6 Hydrogen bonds

Question 11 Lactate production

Question 13 Genome sizes

Question 14 Chromosomes in gametes

Question 21 Antibiotic resistance

Question 24 Starch digestion

Question 25 Structure of blood vessels

Higher level paper two

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

Question 2 The greenhouse effect

Question 3 Nerve impulses

Question 4 Protein structure

Question 5 Muscles in insects

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Standard level paper two

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of individual

passage of a nerve impulse to another neuron

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

You might also like