Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
This investigation is somewhat thin on content, but what is included is written to a high standard. Sentences flow well, and grammar is used to emphasise the arguments. I liked the high level of sophistication through the way they didn't need to use the first person, a common choice of GCSE students.
Level of analysis
I do not recommend testing two variables as this piece of coursework has. In my opinion, it would've been much more sensible to do one set of tests with a controlled light intensity, varying the carbon dioxide concentration, and then another but controlling carbon dioxide and varying light intensity. Yes, the candidate has been able to show the correlations, but it is not the recommended way to do this. In my opinion, the results table is very ambiguous. For example, experiments 1-6 does not suggest a varying light intensity but simply a repeat. The measurement for carbon dioxide concentration is not explained, either. These simple things could be changed, but if they are not, the experiment becomes very blurred and hard to follow. I would've liked to see this essay explore the concept of limiting factors. The scientific explanation, however, is very strong, and this is a great example of how to explain photosynthesis in a concise way. It's a shame that the analysis of the experiment itself is poor.
Response to question
This piece of coursework loosely answers the question, focusing more on dumping scientific knowledge about photosynthesis rather. There is no evidence of a method or a hypothesis, so it is difficult to contextualise where the results are coming from, or where the destination of the experiment is. A clear hypothesis (or prediction) enables the coursework to remain focused on clarifying or disregarding it throughout.
