IB Psychology HL Internal Assessment Example

Independent and dependent variables are clearly operationalized with note-taking method and quiz score, meeting the highest criterion for hypothesis structure.

The directional alternative hypothesis is articulated correctly, clearly predicting greater recall with handwritten notes.

The aim and relevance are clearly stated and linked to academic benefit, demonstrating strong context and justification for the study.

Including both null and directional hypotheses strengthens testability and clarity of expected outcomes.

The description of levels-of-processing theory includes inaccuracies in the classification of processing stages; the link between shallow and structural processing is confusing. Clarify definitions and ensure accurate representation of Craik and Lockhart’s model.

The rationale for using an independent-samples design is well explained in terms of isolating group differences and maintaining consistent operational definitions.

Consider elaborating on how random assignment was implemented in opportunity sampling to strengthen the explanation of sampling validity.

The video selection is well justified to balance engagement and prior familiarity, enhancing ecological validity.

The described controls on instructions, video, and test format support internal validity. Explain how these controls mitigate specific confounding variables.

Opportunity sampling and participant demographics are described and linked to mitigating bias, showing sound sampling justification.

Table 1 header lacks a label for the first column, which hinders clarity. Add a descriptive header to indicate variable names.

Graph section header is truncated; ensure full descriptive titles so readers understand the figure without cross-referencing.

Interpretation of overlap and ‘extent’ of data spread is vague; use interquartile range or variability measures to describe distribution quantitatively.

The boxplot is appropriate but missing axis labels and units; include clear axis titles and scale markers.

The bar graph effectively visualizes mean recall differences and addresses the hypothesis directly.

Reporting the ratio 1.00233 without showing the calculation limits reproducibility; include steps or formula used to derive this value.

Clarify the selection of critical U = 34 and whether this is one- or two-tailed; discuss alpha level and rationale for choosing Mann-Whitney U.

Include an effect size (e.g., r or eta-squared) to complement the non-significant p-value and contextualize the magnitude of the observed difference.

Sample demographic limitation is clearly stated; consider discussing how convenience sampling may affect external validity beyond size.

Discussion references Mueller & Oppenheimer and theory but remains superficial; deepen analysis by linking specific findings to levels-of-processing stages.

Explaining consistency in video and test use highlights strength of the independent design in controlling systematic variance.

Limitation of one group’s prior performance is speculative; provide baseline equivalence data or pre-test results to substantiate this concern.

The final sentence of the procedure section is incomplete and unclear; revise to complete the thought and specify procedural strength or limitation.

Highlighting that multiple-choice questions may not elicit deep recall is insightful, demonstrating understanding of how measurement affects processing.

Modifications are well linked to limitations, justifying changes to test format and sampling to improve recall measurement and representativeness.

The conclusion accurately states no significance but should expand on implications for study strategy recommendations and future research directions.