Bio+Leek+Experiment

please note: something was wrong when we pasted it, so after the first row, everything has to be moved a block to the left.
 * CRITERIA || EXCELLENCE 4 || PROFICIENT 3 || DEVELOPING 2 || LIMITED 1 ||  ||
 * . || 1. Prediction || Makes detailed reference to a model of osmosis to include the concept of a selectively permeable membrane, molecular size, high and low water molecule concentrations and the concept of osmotic potential. || Uses some scientific knowledge of osmosis in their prediction (e.g. ideas of turgor or plasmolysis), which must include water movement. || Makes a suitable prediction || Incorrect, incomplete or no prediction ||  ||
 * . ||  || Demonstrates how information from secondary sources has been used for the formation of their prediction. E.g. references to possible isotonic concentration from a web source or referring to results from their previous experiments. ||   ||   || Plans to measure length or mass of a single stem ||   ||
 * . || 2. Planning experimental procedures || In justifying and explaining the decisions taken during planning, makes detailed reference to a model of osmosis to include the concept of a partially permeable membrane, molecular size, high and low water molecule || Use more scientific knowledge of osmosis (e.g. ideas of tugor or plasmolysis in water movement) to justify and explain key decisions made during planning || Plans a fair test by placing identical stems in a range of salt solutions. States that say, temperature or volume of solution used should remain constant. || Plans to measure length or mass of a single stem. ||  ||
 * . ||  || Plan to use method of measurement which impart precision e.g. calipers for linear dimensions or electronic balance for mass. || Explains scientifically why key factors such as temperature or surface area used to be controlled || May make a suitable prediction. || Ensures that the planned work is safe. ||   ||
 * . ||  || Produces a detailed scientific rationale to explain why key factors affecting the process of osmosis need to be controlled. || Justifies any prediction using a scientific explanation for water movement. || Describe how the measurements will be made. ||   ||   ||
 * . ||  ||   ||   || Identifies a range of equipment appropriate to the planned level of precision. ||   ||   ||
 * . || 3. Obtaining Results || Recorded data provides evidence of reliable record taking, by quality of data produced. || Records the data generated to an appropriate and sensible level of accuracy, in a suitable tabular format complete with correct headings and units. || Records the results, albeit in an unstructured format (headings, titles, units, decimal places, for example are incomplete) || Makes a single measurement of one stem before and after immersion. ||  ||
 * . ||  || Has included both quantitative and qualitative observations || Identifies and uses a range of equipment to a high level of precision e.g. string for curved surfaces and vernier calipers. || Identifies and uses a range of equipment appropriate to the planned level of precision e.g. ruler || Ensures that the planned work is safe e.g. correctly cut the stem on the tile. ||   ||
 * . ||  || Advanced calculations or the compiling of data from several experiments, e.g. class results. || Notes any data points which do not appear to follow the general trend. ||   ||   ||   ||
 * . ||  ||   || Some simple calculations from values taken, within table. ||   ||   ||   ||
 * . || 4. Analysing evidence and drawing conclusions || Refers to the evidence in drawing a valid and detailed conclusion. || Plots the calculated mean data accurately on a correctly scaled and labeled graph and produces a line of “best fit” through the points. || Displays the data by drawing a “dot to dot” line graph or bar chart. The graph may be simple in form or incorrectly plotted or poorly scaled or labeled. The general relationship between length (or mass) and solute concentration, however, has been demonstrated. || Explains that some stems have changed in size ||  ||
 * . ||  || Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the processes involved in water movement in justifying the conclusion drawn. || Processes the data numerically to calculate the % change in length (or mass) || Uses the graph or chart to make generalizations to describe the trend e.g. “higher solute concentrations have caused the chips to shrink more (or produced a greater decrease in mass)”. ||   ||   ||
 * . ||  || Uses theoretical model of water molecule concentration on either side of the selectively permeable membrane to fully explain the situation where the solute concentration and leek stem have equivalent osmotic potential (isotonic) || Refers to the presented data in drawing a conclusion consistent with the evidence. The conclusion must be justified by reference to the mechanism for water movement or, say turgor or plasmolysis ||   ||   ||   ||
 * . || 5. Evaluating evidence || Produces detailed and concrete ideas to improve confidence in the conclusion (e.g. considers the implications of and solutions to the problem of some stems floating and other sinking) or produces detailed plans as to how, for example, the study of other plant tissue would extend the current work. || Comments in detail on the reliability of the data produced in the current study (e.g. in terms of the number of stem per concentration of the number of concentrations used) and provides an appropriate likely scientific explanation to account for any anomalous results || Comments on the accuracy of the data e.g. “all of the point were very close to the line of best fit”. || Makes a relevant comment about the procedure or the evidence obtained e.g. “it was difficult to measure the stem accurately or dry them adequately before weighing”. ||  ||
 * . ||  ||   ||   || States that there were no anomalous points in the data produced or clearly identifies those points which do not appear to fit into the general pattern. ||   ||   ||
 * . ||  ||   ||   || Reviews the suitability of the methods used in the light of the data generated and suggest changes to improve the reliability of the evidence e.g. “the immersion time may have been inadequate”. ||   ||   ||