IB Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) SL Extended Essay Example

The student establishes a clear personal rationale for the investigation and explains why the topic matters to them. This helps communicate purpose early and gives the research a genuine line of inquiry rather than a generic topic.

Consider narrowing this broader aim into a sharper analytical focus. The investigation would be stronger if the student defined exactly what counts as ‘dance training’ and linked that definition directly to the chosen measure of agility.

The research focus becomes blurred here because the design shifts from a correlation study to a two-group comparison. If the question is about correlation, the student should keep the whole methodology aligned with continuous experience data rather than splitting participants into arbitrary groups.

This null hypothesis does not match the stated research question because it uses a difference-between-groups frame rather than a correlation frame. The student should rewrite both hypotheses so they test the same statistical relationship as the research question.

The student justifies the instrument choice by comparing the IAT with other agility tests and linking the selection to reliability evidence. This shows informed methodological selection rather than a purely convenient choice.

The student could strengthen control of the method by also standardizing warm-up, rest periods, and verbal instructions. These factors matter because they can affect sprint times just as much as clothing does.

The student shows awareness of biological confounding and attempts to control participant variability by restricting the sample. This is a reasonable application of subject knowledge to improve fairness in the investigation.

The definition of a confounding variable is too broad and slightly inaccurate. A confound is not simply ‘a variable that cannot be controlled’; it is a variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables, so the student should tighten the definition.

The student makes a plausible claim about heat affecting performance, but the explanation is not tied clearly to how this would affect the agility test data specifically. The student should connect each scientific claim more explicitly to the measured variable: faster or slower IAT times.

This is a strong ethical and safety feature. The student could make the method even clearer by stating exactly how PAR-Q responses affected eligibility, so the reader can see how safety screening influenced participant selection.

The student includes qualitative measures alongside performance data, which broadens the evidence base. This is useful because it allows the discussion to consider effort and perception, not only finish times.

This is conceptually incorrect: a negative $r$ still indicates a correlation, just an inverse one. The student should distinguish direction from strength, because otherwise the interpretation of the result becomes misleading.

Consider naming one or two specific confounders from the method rather than referring to them generally. Linking the result to concrete factors such as footwear, prior fatigue, or dance volume would make the scientific interpretation more convincing.

The student overstates the inference from the $p$-value. A non-significant result means the null hypothesis has not been rejected; it does not prove that dance experience has ‘little to no impact.’ The conclusion should stay closer to what the test can actually demonstrate.

The student has collected repeated trials, which improves the reliability of the raw data and gives a more defensible basis for later mean calculations. This supports analysis because the result is not based on a single attempt.

The explanation mixes up standard deviation with the empirical rule. The rule describes normal-distribution coverage, not how SD is calculated, so the student should separate the calculation method from the interpretation of spread.

This claim over-interprets the standard deviation. An SD of about 1.6–1.8 shows spread, but it does not by itself prove the variation is ‘significant.’ The student should describe the spread more cautiously unless a statistical test supports that wording.

What does the sign of $r$ tell the student, and what does the size of $r$ tell the student? Clarifying these two ideas would help avoid later confusion between direction, strength, and statistical significance.

The student describes the software output, but not the reasoning behind why Pearson correlation is the correct analysis for these data. The student should justify the test choice by explaining that both variables are continuous and that the question asks about association.

The scatter graph is a useful visual because it lets the reader inspect the trend directly. The student could strengthen it further by adding a line of best fit and a short caption explaining the pattern visible in the data.

The reported $r$ value is only moderate to weak, but the analysis should also address whether it is statistically significant and what that means in context. Without that step, the result is described but not fully evaluated.

The statistical method does not align neatly with the stated correlational question because the student has divided the sample into two groups. A significance test for correlation would be more appropriate than using a $t$-test to compare artificially created groups.

The student recognizes that qualitative evidence can help contextualize the quantitative findings. That is a useful analytical move because it shows awareness that performance data alone may not capture effort, motivation, or test conditions.

The student states agreement between measures, but the discussion does not really explain how each result supports the conclusion. The analysis should compare the meaning of the correlation, the group means, and the qualitative ratings instead of simply saying they ‘support’ each other.

This conclusion is too strong for the evidence presented. The student can say that no statistically significant relationship was found in this sample, but should avoid implying a universal result about all dancers from only ten participants.

This is a thoughtful improvement because it keeps the recommendation realistic and linked to effort. The student could make the evaluation even stronger by explaining how heart-rate data would specifically help judge whether low effort affected the IAT results.

The report includes a clear contents page, which makes the investigation easy to navigate. This supports a professional structure and helps the reader locate the method, results, discussion, and appendix efficiently.

The student uses a clear subheading to signal the purpose of the section. This makes the structure easy to follow and helps separate justification from hypothesis and method.

The table is clearly labelled, but the labelling would be even stronger if the student used consistent wording for trial numbers and units throughout. Small consistency choices like this improve readability and make the results section look more polished.

The table heading contains an error in the trial label. The student should correct this kind of terminology because accuracy in headings is part of clear scientific presentation and prevents confusion in the results section.

The graph is appropriately used to summarize the group means and spread visually. This helps the reader compare the two groups quickly and supports the written analysis in the results section.

The formula presentation is incomplete, which makes it harder for the reader to verify the calculation. The student should show the full referenced ranges clearly and keep spreadsheet formulas readable so the method can be reproduced.

Consider adding a trendline, axis labels with units, and a brief note on what the graph suggests. That would make the figure more informative and make the relationship easier to interpret at a glance.

The table presents a value clearly, but the table title should state exactly what comparison was tested. Precise labelling matters because the reader needs to know whether the statistic relates to a correlation, a group comparison, or both.

The bibliography is clearly separated from the body of the report, which is an important structural convention. This makes it easy to distinguish the student’s argument from the supporting sources.