This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
World Studies Extended Essay Exemplar: Risk-Taking Peer Influence… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB World Studies SL Extended Essay Example
To what extent are propensity to risk-taking, peer influence, and personality predictors of the initiation of e-cigarette use by adolescents (11-17 years old) in the United Kingdom?SL
A
Overall Score
28/28
Was this exemplar helpful?
Want a report just like this?
Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing
Criteria A: Focus and Method
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Topic identification and communication
Excellent
A.2Research question formulation
Excellent
A.3Methodology selection and justification
Good
Criteria Feedback
Topic and interdisciplinary frame are communicated clearly and consistently throughout the introduction and title page.
Research question is precise, clearly focused on three predictors of UK adolescent e-cigarette initiation, and is restated to reinforce coherence.
Methodological choices are comprehensively justified with attention to ethical constraints, source selection criteria, and relevance to the research question.
The breadth of three predictors slightly risks over-extension; operational definitions for each variable could be more fully specified.
The mixed-methods design, while innovative, could integrate the primary and secondary components more seamlessly.
Some hypotheses combine constructs (genetic, neurodevelopmental, personality) without explicitly detailing measurement procedures.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Source material selection and relevance
Excellent
B.2Knowledge demonstration and application
Good
B.3Use of terminology and concepts
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
Source material is expertly chosen from over 50 peer-reviewed journals directly relevant to UK adolescent vaping.
Knowledge of biological and psychological concepts is coherent and deeply integrated across disciplines.
Specialized terminology is used accurately, consistently, and in depth, enhancing the sophistication of the analysis.
A small number of popular-media references (e.g., Psychology Today) slightly dilute scholarly rigor.
Occasional minor inaccuracies in neuroanatomical phrasing require correction.
Interdisciplinary synthesis could move beyond juxtaposition toward fuller conceptual fusion in a few sections.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
12/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
C.1Research quality and relevance
Good
C.2Analysis and conclusions
Moderate
C.3Argument structure and evaluation
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Unlock all criteria
Upgrade to PRO to see detailed feedback for all criteria in this exemplar.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
D.1Academic structure
Excellent
D.2Visual elements
Good
D.3Referencing and formatting
Good
Criteria Feedback
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Unlock all criteria
Upgrade to PRO to see detailed feedback for all criteria in this exemplar.
