IB Computer Science (CS) SL Internal Assessment Example

The scenario description is clear, but it would benefit from a formal needs-analysis table to systematically capture client requirements and constraints.

The rationale names JavaFX familiarity and cross-platform support, but should systematically compare alternatives and map chosen features to client needs.

The currency symbol is rendered as “\epsilon” instead of “€” which may confuse readers—correct the symbol for clarity.

Although comprehensive, the criteria omit explicit tests for color-change feedback and weekly calorie tally—consider adding these for full coverage.

The success-criteria section lists many functions but could include quantitative targets (e.g., max response time, error rates) to make evaluation more measurable.

In the ROT table some entries omit consistent time estimates for subtasks—ensure every task row includes a clear duration.

The task log is impressively detailed with actions, outcomes and dates demonstrating strong planning discipline.

The login form mock-up lacks detail on input length constraints and validation feedback; specify expected field behavior.

Stray mathematical symbols (e.g. “\Box”) in the login window list distract from clarity; replace or remove them.

The sign-up window description omits how duplicate usernames are handled and what error feedback appears.

Schedule window list lacks mention of how the app responds to server or data-load failures—consider what the user sees on error.

In the workout routine window mock-up, clarify behavior when no exercises are present (empty state).

The ‘Add new exercise’ form does not specify validation rules for numeric inputs (frequency/calories); include required formats.

Calorie counter list omits how non-numeric input is handled other than a generic alert—detail specific validation (e.g. regex).

Test plan table is detailed but lacks test case identifiers and dates for traceability—number and date each case.

The Users table lacks explicit foreign-key annotations linking exercises to users—denote relationships clearly.

Database structure notes fields but omits rationale for normalization and indexing strategy—add a brief explanation.

UML diagram shows classes but omits multiplicity notation on associations; include cardinalities for clarity.

The login/sign-up flowchart lacks explicit start/end nodes and directional arrows; add these for unambiguous control flow.

The decision points in the Add Exercise flowchart are unlabeled; present clear conditions on diamond shapes.

The SQLite connection code contains typos (‘fthis.conn’, ‘msg:’) indicating OCR or copy errors—correct method signatures for compilation.

Color-change code snippet has garbled variable names (e.g. ‘üüe’, ‘utle’) which obscure logic—clean up for readability.

The folder structure diagram is presented as inline text, making it hard to parse—represent packages visually or as a proper list.

Bibliography entry for JavaFX lacks an access date; include retrieval dates for web sources.

The evaluation table clearly maps criteria to outcomes, but no critical reflection on limitations or challenges is provided.

The evaluation table demonstrates thorough mapping of success criteria to functionality—this provides clear evidence of meeting objectives.

Recommendations are realistic but lack prioritization; consider ranking them based on impact and effort.

The recommendations section describes ideas but doesn’t link them back to test results or success criteria; strengthen justification by relating to specific findings.