Geography Extended Essay Exemplar: To what extent have smallholder… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Geography SL Extended Essay Example

To what extent have smallholder tea farmers in Kericho County, Kenya, benefited economically and socially from tea farming between 2021 and 2025, as measured by changes in household income, access to education and healthcare, and ownership of assets?SL

Official IB Result

29/34

Criteria A: Focus and Method

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Topic communication and clarity

Excellent

A.2Research question formulation

Moderate

A.3Research methodology

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student defines a clear geographical focus and a specific time frame, which makes the investigation easy to understand from the start.
The student's topic is relevant and well grounded in the local context of Kericho County and smallholder tea farming.
The student describes a generally appropriate research design with a mix of household data, interviews, and secondary sources.
The student's sampling and data-collection approach is mostly relevant to the research focus.

The research question is still broader than it needs to be because it combines several large indicators at once.
Asset ownership is included in the question but not carried through consistently in the investigation.
Some parts of the method are described too generally, especially how yearly comparisons, interview coding, and triangulation were handled.
The causal wording is stronger than the method can fully support.

1.1·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

The research question is too broad because it combines four major indicators and implies a causal claim about tea farming. The student should narrow the question to fewer variables, or separate asset ownership into its own line of inquiry, so the investigation can be answered more convincingly with the available evidence.

1.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

The topic is sharply geographical and clearly time-bounded. Naming Kericho County and the 2021–2025 period gives the investigation a concrete scope, which helps the reader immediately understand the place, population, and timeframe being studied.

1.3·Suggestion

Page 3• Click to view

The student could improve focus by explicitly defining how each indicator will be measured before the analysis begins. Clear operational definitions for income, education, healthcare, and assets would make the method more precise and help the reader see exactly how the question will be answered.

1.4·Question

Page 8• Click to view

How does the student ensure that these secondary sources are directly comparable with the household survey data? Thinking about time period, unit of analysis, and geographic scale would help the student justify triangulation more convincingly.

1.5·Weakness

Page 8• Click to view

The methodology is described in general terms, but it does not yet show how the design will produce comparable evidence across 2021–2025. The student should explain how each year’s data were collected, how interview themes were selected, and how the qualitative and quantitative strands were integrated.

1.6·Suggestion

Page 8• Click to view

The sampling description is relevant and locally grounded, but the student could strengthen it by explaining how the strata were chosen and why 60 households was sufficient. A short justification of sample size and selection criteria would make the methodology more convincing.

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Subject knowledge

Moderate

B.2Use of terminology and concepts

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student shows solid contextual knowledge of tea farming in Kenya and the conditions that make Kericho a relevant case study.
The student uses development and geography terminology accurately in many places, including ideas such as smallholder farming, spatial inequality, and livelihood resilience.
The student demonstrates an understanding of how market exposure, input costs, and service access can shape household outcomes.
The student's use of concepts such as dependency and capability is generally appropriate to the topic.

Some factual claims would be stronger with clearer, more precise sourcing.
A few concepts are used broadly rather than applied in a tightly analytical way.
At times, the student's wording is more definite than the evidence allows, especially when implying causation.
The student's reference list and source details are not always complete or consistent.

2.1·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

The statement is broadly accurate, but it would be stronger if the student identified a source for the land-size and labour claim. More precise sourcing is needed when the essay makes factual statements about smallholder characteristics.

2.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

This is strong contextual knowledge because it links physical geography directly to tea suitability. The student is not just describing the county; they are showing why Kericho is a meaningful case study for the investigation.

2.3·Weakness

Page 4• Click to view

The frameworks are named correctly, but the paragraph stays at the level of general description. The student should connect each theory to specific variables in the study, so the reader can see how the theory shapes interpretation rather than simply decorating the introduction.

2.4·Weakness

Page 6• Click to view

This hypothesis is phrased too causally for the evidence base described later in the essay. The student should use more cautious wording such as 'is associated with' or 'is linked to' unless the data can isolate tea farming from other income sources.

2.5·Strength

Page 6• Click to view

The student uses subject terminology accurately and in a relevant way here. The link between dependency theory, market exposure, and input costs is conceptually sound and helps explain why tea income may fluctuate even when production is strong.

2.6·Suggestion

Page 27• Click to view

The reference list would be stronger if each entry followed one consistent citation format and included complete publication details. Standardising the bibliography would improve academic credibility and make source tracing much easier for the reader.

Criteria C: Critical Thinking

10/12

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Research application

Poor

C.2Analysis and evaluation

Poor

C.3Discussion and argument

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student uses relevant evidence to address the research question, especially through household income, fee affordability, healthcare access, and related indicators.
The student's discussion follows a logical line of argument and is generally easy to follow.
The student makes some thoughtful evaluative comments about data reliability and limitations.
The student shows awareness that the findings need to be interpreted carefully rather than taken at face value.

Some claims go beyond what the displayed evidence can clearly prove.
Asset ownership is not analysed even though it is part of the stated question.
Several comparisons are asserted in the prose without being fully visible in the tables or figures.
The student sometimes treats association as if it were proof of causation.

3.1·Strength

Page 9• Click to view

The analysis begins with a clear and relevant indicator. Household income is directly connected to the research question, so starting with this measure helps the investigation stay focused on the central issue.

3.2·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

The comparison is useful, but the wording is imprecise because it reports the average as 'increased by around KES 9,250 in 2021 to KES 11,831 in 2025.' The student should state the change more clearly and show how the average was calculated from grouped data.

3.3·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

This claim is not fully convincing because the appendix itself is not shown in the main analysis, so the reader cannot verify the trend directly. The student should quote or reproduce the key data points in the discussion rather than relying on appendix labels alone.

3.4·Suggestion

Page 12• Click to view

The interpretation would be stronger if the student distinguished carefully between correlation and explanation. A more cautious phrasing would acknowledge that the external data are consistent with a structural influence, without proving that household-specific factors played no role.

3.5·Question

Page 13• Click to view

What evidence in the tables actually shows the size of the spatial effect, rather than just suggesting it? The student should think about whether the current data can support a statement this strong.

3.6·Weakness

Page 13• Click to view

This is a serious mismatch in the evidence because the investigation is about 2021–2025, yet the discussion suddenly shifts to 2014 and 2015. The student should replace this with evidence from the correct period or remove the claim entirely.

3.7·Strength

Page 13• Click to view

This is a strong evaluation point because it identifies a realistic limitation that directly affects data validity. The student shows awareness that self-reporting can distort the reliability of the conclusions.

3.8·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

The interpretation overstates what is shown, because the displayed table does not clearly present the income-group comparison claimed here. The student should ensure that every claim about association is directly visible in the data shown.

3.9·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

This conclusion goes beyond the evidence presented. Similarity across sources does not by itself show that the result is regional rather than household-specific, especially when household variation is still discussed elsewhere.

3.10·Strength

Page 19• Click to view

The third analytical section stays aligned with the research question and uses the same analytical structure as the earlier sections. This consistency helps the argument remain organised and easy to follow.

3.11·Weakness

Page 21• Click to view

The comment refers to Figure 4, but the figure itself is not clearly supported by the surrounding text, and the claim uses 'correlation' without showing the underlying comparison. The student should make the evidence visible and avoid overstating what the graph demonstrates.

3.12·Strength

Page 24• Click to view

This is a balanced conclusion because it recognises improvement while also acknowledging uneven benefits. The student is beginning to qualify claims appropriately, which strengthens the overall argument.

3.13·Weakness

Page 24• Click to view

The conclusion reintroduces asset ownership even though it has not been analysed in the body. The student should either include a full asset analysis or remove it from the question and conclusion so the argument matches the evidence.

Criteria D: Presentation

4/4

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Structure

Good

D.2Layout

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's report is clearly organised and easy to navigate.
Headings, numbering, and section order help the reader follow the investigation.
Tables, figures, and appendices are included in a way that shows an understanding of formal report structure.
The layout is generally readable and visually appropriate.

Some figure and table numbering is inconsistent.
A few visual elements are not labelled as clearly as they could be.
The appendix organisation is not always fully polished.
Some presentation choices make it harder than necessary to track evidence across the report.

4.1·Weakness

Page 2• Click to view

The appendix structure is not fully polished because the numbering and naming are inconsistent, and several appendix references are not clearly traceable in the main text. The student should standardise appendix labels and make sure each appendix is explicitly connected to the discussion.

4.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The report is clearly signposted, and the section numbering helps the reader navigate the investigation efficiently. This supports the presentation because the main argument is easy to locate and follow.

4.3·Weakness

Page 9• Click to view

The table numbering is inconsistent here, and similar numbering issues recur later in the report. The student should use one clear numbering system for all tables and figures so the reader can track evidence without confusion.

4.4·Suggestion

Page 10• Click to view

The figure is positioned near the relevant discussion, which is helpful. The student could improve presentation further by ensuring each figure title precisely matches the variable being shown and by keeping the labels consistent with the text.

4.5·Weakness

Page 15• Click to view

The table label is reused in a way that can confuse the reader when compared with the preceding raw-data table. The student should rename tables so that each one has a unique number and clearly signals whether it contains raw or processed data.

4.6·Strength

Page 25• Click to view

The evaluation section is clearly integrated into the report structure, and the student identifies a real methodological strength. This helps the presentation feel complete rather than ending abruptly after the conclusion.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

29/34

Criteria A: Focus and Method

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Topic communication and clarity

Excellent

A.2Research question formulation

Moderate

A.3Research methodology

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student defines a clear geographical focus and a specific time frame, which makes the investigation easy to understand from the start.
The student's topic is relevant and well grounded in the local context of Kericho County and smallholder tea farming.
The student describes a generally appropriate research design with a mix of household data, interviews, and secondary sources.
The student's sampling and data-collection approach is mostly relevant to the research focus.

The research question is still broader than it needs to be because it combines several large indicators at once.
Asset ownership is included in the question but not carried through consistently in the investigation.
Some parts of the method are described too generally, especially how yearly comparisons, interview coding, and triangulation were handled.
The causal wording is stronger than the method can fully support.

1.1·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

1.2·Strength

Page 1• Click to view

1.3·Suggestion

Page 3• Click to view

1.4·Question

Page 8• Click to view

1.5·Weakness

Page 8• Click to view

1.6·Suggestion

Page 8• Click to view

Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Subject knowledge

Moderate

B.2Use of terminology and concepts

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student shows solid contextual knowledge of tea farming in Kenya and the conditions that make Kericho a relevant case study.
The student uses development and geography terminology accurately in many places, including ideas such as smallholder farming, spatial inequality, and livelihood resilience.
The student demonstrates an understanding of how market exposure, input costs, and service access can shape household outcomes.
The student's use of concepts such as dependency and capability is generally appropriate to the topic.

Some factual claims would be stronger with clearer, more precise sourcing.
A few concepts are used broadly rather than applied in a tightly analytical way.
At times, the student's wording is more definite than the evidence allows, especially when implying causation.
The student's reference list and source details are not always complete or consistent.

2.1·Weakness

Page 3• Click to view

2.2·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

2.3·Weakness

Page 4• Click to view

2.4·Weakness

Page 6• Click to view

2.5·Strength

Page 6• Click to view

2.6·Suggestion

Page 27• Click to view

Criteria C: Critical Thinking

10/12

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Research application

Poor

C.2Analysis and evaluation

Poor

C.3Discussion and argument

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student uses relevant evidence to address the research question, especially through household income, fee affordability, healthcare access, and related indicators.
The student's discussion follows a logical line of argument and is generally easy to follow.
The student makes some thoughtful evaluative comments about data reliability and limitations.
The student shows awareness that the findings need to be interpreted carefully rather than taken at face value.

Some claims go beyond what the displayed evidence can clearly prove.
Asset ownership is not analysed even though it is part of the stated question.
Several comparisons are asserted in the prose without being fully visible in the tables or figures.
The student sometimes treats association as if it were proof of causation.

3.1·Strength

Page 9• Click to view

3.2·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

3.3·Weakness

Page 11• Click to view

3.4·Suggestion

Page 12• Click to view

3.5·Question

Page 13• Click to view

What evidence in the tables actually shows the size of the spatial effect, rather than just suggesting it? The student should think about whether the current data can support a statement this strong.

3.6·Weakness

Page 13• Click to view

3.7·Strength

Page 13• Click to view

3.8·Weakness

Page 16• Click to view

3.9·Weakness

Page 17• Click to view

3.10·Strength

Page 19• Click to view

3.11·Weakness

Page 21• Click to view

3.12·Strength

Page 24• Click to view

3.13·Weakness

Page 24• Click to view

Criteria D: Presentation

4/4

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Structure

Good

D.2Layout

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's report is clearly organised and easy to navigate.
Headings, numbering, and section order help the reader follow the investigation.
Tables, figures, and appendices are included in a way that shows an understanding of formal report structure.
The layout is generally readable and visually appropriate.

Some figure and table numbering is inconsistent.
A few visual elements are not labelled as clearly as they could be.
The appendix organisation is not always fully polished.
Some presentation choices make it harder than necessary to track evidence across the report.

4.1·Weakness

Page 2• Click to view

4.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

4.3·Weakness

Page 9• Click to view

4.4·Suggestion

Page 10• Click to view

4.5·Weakness

Page 15• Click to view

4.6·Strength

Page 25• Click to view