IB Psychology HL Internal Assessment Example

The title is concise, clearly linking the working memory model and background music impact, setting a strong foundation for the investigation.

The aim is well articulated, explicitly tying dual auditory tasks to memorization performance, which aligns with the working memory framework.

Expand the Perham and Vizard (2011) discussion by detailing how their irrelevant sound findings directly support your hypothesis.

Describing the central executive as a “collection of cognitive resources” is informal; refine this using standard terminology (e.g., attentional control system).

Dependent variable is fully operationalized as number correct out of six, ensuring clarity in measurement.

Null hypothesis is succinctly stated with equivalent performance predicted, which aids transparency in statistical testing.

The experimental hypothesis is one-tailed, directional, and clearly linked to working memory interference predictions.

Independent variable is operationalized precisely as presence versus absence of classical music during memorization.

Strong justification of target population: linking outcomes to student study habits enhances practical relevance.

Justify use of AI-generated story by discussing its validity and consistency for memorization tasks.

Comprehensive materials list includes researcher triangulation and pilot testing, which supports reliability.

Research design is well chosen and explained, with rationale for independent-groups to avoid order effects and demand characteristics.

Participant sampling lacks discussion of opportunity-sampling bias and its impact on generalisability; evaluate this limitation.

Controlled variables are justified in relation to validity and reliability, demonstrating careful experimental control.

Ethical considerations are thorough, covering informed consent, anonymity, debriefing, and right to withdraw.

Opportunity sampling is described but lacks evaluation of its convenience versus bias implications.

Add a clear title and label units in Table 1 to improve clarity of median and SD presentation.

Consider reporting effect size along with median to convey practical significance of group differences.

Using standard deviation with ordinal data is inappropriate; use interquartile range or range instead.

Include the Z-score and exact p-value in the main analysis narrative for completeness.

Phrasing should be “fail to reject the null hypothesis” rather than “accept the null hypothesis.”

The bar chart omits error bars and clear axis units; include variability indicators and unit labels.

Expand evaluation by discussing how the non-significant finding refines predictions of the working memory model.

Connect the proposed longitudinal extension explicitly to the identified time-pressure limitation.

The sample limitation description in Table 2 is truncated and needs full elaboration on generalisability issues.

Insightful link between findings and model adaptation, suggesting a potential revision of phonological-loop capacity.

Second limitations table is misaligned and entries are unclear; reformat for clarity.