IB Psychology SL Internal Assessment Example

Aim is stated clearly and linked to the Landry & Bartling replication, demonstrating precise focus on articulatory suppression.

The description of the phonological loop could be more precise: clarify that it stores speech‐based information and distinguish between phonological store and rehearsal more accurately.

The student effectively integrates a secondary source (Dixon, 2023) for the working‐memory model, but should cite Baddeley & Hitch’s original paper to strengthen theoretical accuracy.

The articulation suppression process is defined clearly and linked directly to dual‐task methodology, enhancing conceptual clarity.

Independent and dependent variables are stated clearly, providing unambiguous operational definitions for manipulation and measurement.

Including both null and research hypotheses is commendable; it clarifies the expected direction of articulatory suppression effects.

Consider discussing how reducing trials from ten to three could influence reliability and the comparability of your replication.

The sampling rationale for Year 8 students is only justified by convenience. Expand on how representativeness might affect validity beyond availability.

The independent‐measures design is well explained with respect to order‐effect avoidance, demonstrating clear methodological rationale.

Random assignment by coin flip is noted, but discuss how lack of stratification might introduce group differences in cognitive ability.

The description of opportunity sampling lacks depth regarding its impact on external validity; consider elaborating on potential sampling bias.

Controlling time of day and environment is appropriate, but detail how these controls mitigate specific cognitive fatigue effects.

Materials and timings are described thoroughly, enhancing reproducibility of stimulus presentation and response intervals.

Classifying count data from 0–7 as ratio is debated—counts may be ordinal; justify use of mean/SD versus medians for skewed distributions.

Table 1 uses commas for decimals and lacks units; use consistent decimal notation and label columns with 'Mean (points)' and 'SD (points)'.

Interpretation of box‐plot skewness is accurate and insightful, linking distribution shape to participant performance.

Text mentions 82% and 55% but graph shows raw means; ensure consistency between reported percentages and underlying data metrics.

The choice of Mann–Whitney U is appropriate and justified given small independent samples; this strengthens inferential rigor.

The p-value interpretation as 0.01% risk is slightly overstated; clarify that p<.01 indicates strong evidence against H₀, not exact probability.

When comparing percentage differences with Landry & Bartling, discuss possible causes for the 4% discrepancy (e.g., age, trial number).

Findings are discussed in relation to the working‐memory model and the original study, demonstrating clear theoretical integration.

Detailed strengths of using independent samples are clearly articulated, enhancing evaluation depth.

Propose concrete modifications to address the small sample size and variability (e.g., stratified sampling, increased trials) linked to limitations.

Mention of language barrier is valuable, but explain how bilingual instructions might influence recall accuracy to contextualize this limitation.