IB Business Management HL Internal Assessment Example

The student gives a clear definition of creativity before applying it to Duolingo. This helps the key concept stay analytical rather than decorative, and it gives the report a conceptual lens that can be reused in later sections.

Strong integration of the key concept here: the student links creativity directly to a concrete branding choice, the mascot-led TikTok strategy. This works well because it shows how creativity is operating as a business decision, not just a descriptive label.

The student makes a focused creativity claim and then explains the mechanism through audience emotion and risk. That is effective because it begins to show cause-and-effect, which is exactly what stronger integration of a key concept requires.

This section starts to drift away from creativity as a concept and instead focuses on cost. The student should explain more precisely how creativity changes the value of the marketing, rather than implying that low spending by itself proves creative effectiveness.

The student could strengthen this section by showing exactly which creative social-media features connect to which product features. For example, linking mascot humor or viral identity to specific in-app behaviors would make the creativity analysis more precise.

What evidence in the report shows that creativity itself caused the MAU increase, rather than simply moving alongside broader brand growth? Reflecting on that distinction would help the student tighten the logic of the key concept analysis.

The student includes five supporting documents and explains the role of each one in the methodology. This is strong because the sources combine official financial data, platform metrics, and campaign evidence, which gives the investigation both breadth and variety.

Including an interview source adds depth because it helps explain the thinking behind the strategy, not only the outcomes. That makes the supporting documents more useful than a purely metrics-based source set would be.

This is a strong choice of evidence because official company data is more reliable than generic commentary when the student is trying to track user growth. It supports the investigation with data that can be used analytically rather than just descriptively.

The student should be careful not to treat an interview summary as equivalent to substantiated company data. To improve relevance and depth, they should quote or extract the specific claim from the interview and explain how it supports the research question.

This is relevant, but it is still a third-party marketing analysis rather than an independent primary source. The student should acknowledge that limitation more explicitly when using it to support claims about Duolingo's strategy.

The student could strengthen source depth by using this case as a concrete example of spillover reach from the campaign. Connecting it to measurable engagement or mention data would make the supporting evidence more persuasive.

Adding regression alongside the 4Ps gives the investigation a quantitative dimension. That is a strong methodological choice because it moves the analysis beyond description and allows the student to examine patterns in user growth.

The student selects a recognisable business tool and applies it to the research question in an organised way. This is effective because the framework gives the report a clear analytical structure for discussing promotion, price, product, and place.

The student’s application of the Price section is not fully convincing because total sales and marketing expenditure is not the same thing as the cost of the TikTok strategy. To improve relevance, they should justify this proxy or use a more direct measure of social-media spend.

The Product analysis is only partly tied to the tool because it mainly restates that Duolingo is engaging, rather than showing how the product itself was shaped by the social-media strategy. The student should explain the link between a specific product feature and a specific creative marketing outcome.

The student uses a clear fitted model and reports the coefficient of determination, which shows good handling of the quantitative tool. This works well because it signals that the student is trying to judge the strength of the relationship rather than simply plotting a trend line.

How does this model separate the effect of TikTok growth from other time-based drivers of MAU growth, such as product updates or expansion? Thinking about confounding variables would make the tool application more convincing.

The student should consider adding a brief explanation of why an exponential model was chosen over another fit. That would make the regression feel selected for the data rather than imposed on it.

The student uses quantitative evidence well here to support an evaluative claim about performance. This is effective because the numbers are not just stated; they are tied to the argument that creative content translated into measurable engagement.

This is a strong analytical comparison because it contrasts sustained visibility with a short-term virality spike. That distinction helps the student evaluate the campaign more critically instead of simply celebrating the high numbers.

The student attempts to link campaign activity to a business outcome, which is a good analytical move. This matters because it shows an effort to go beyond attention metrics and examine whether virality had a wider organisational effect.

The increase is miscalculated in the explanation: $50.5M-46.6M=3.9M$, not 6 million. The student should correct the arithmetic and then interpret the change more carefully, since precision matters when using numbers to support evaluation.

The student treats correlation as if it proves a causal relationship. To improve analysis quality, they should explicitly explain that the graph shows association only and then evaluate other possible explanations for the parallel growth trends.

This is a useful evaluative caveat, and the student could make it even stronger by explaining how much this controversy might affect the forecast direction or reliability. A short comparison with prior growth trends would sharpen the evaluation.

The final judgement is stronger than the evidence allows because it implies direct causation from the regression. The student should qualify this by distinguishing between growth occurring alongside the strategy and growth caused by the strategy.

The student does a good job of summarising a specific line of evidence from the body of the report. This works because the conclusion is not generic; it reflects the actual analytical arguments made earlier.

The conclusion could be improved by adding one sentence that separates what is well supported, such as virality, from what remains more uncertain, such as user growth causation. That would make the final answer more balanced and credible.

The conclusion clearly addresses the research question and stays aligned with the main theme of creativity. That directness is a strength because it leaves the reader with an unambiguous answer.

This shows that the student attempts to answer the question in a nuanced way by linking social media attention to app growth. That is a strong closing move because it connects the different parts of the investigation into one judgement.

The student separates the quantitative analysis into its own section, which improves coherence. This works well because it prevents the regression from being lost inside the marketing discussion and gives the report a clearer analytical progression.

The student follows a conventional report structure with clear section headings, which makes the argument easy to navigate. This is a useful strength because it helps the reader track the progression from introduction to methods, analysis, and conclusion.

Including a dedicated methodology section strengthens the overall organisation because the reader can see how the evidence and tools were chosen before the analysis begins. That supports transparency and makes the later claims easier to follow.

The 4Ps structure is clear, but it does not always produce a balanced line of argument. Some subsections, especially Price and Product, are much shorter and less developed, so the student should consider giving each P comparable analytical weight.

The structure of the forecast section is logical, but the explanation would benefit from a clearer transition from trend description to interpretation. The student should signal why the forecast matters for the research question before moving into the model output.

The report would read even more smoothly if the conclusion briefly mirrored the order of the body sections. That would help the reader see how each analytical tool contributed to the final answer.

The research question is clear, focused, and evaluative. This is a strong presentation choice because it gives the whole report a precise line of inquiry and signals that the student is aiming to assess extent rather than simply describe the company.

The report includes the required key concept and stays within the word limit, which shows good attention to the assignment requirements. Meeting those essentials helps the academic content stand on a clear formal base.

The student includes a dedicated works-cited section and supporting-document list, which makes the source base easy to audit. That improves credibility because the reader can distinguish between main sources and supplementary evidence.

The presentation of the references would be easier to follow if each entry began on a new line and followed one consistent format. That would improve readability and make the bibliography look more polished without changing the content.

The source list would be stronger if all references were presented consistently under one citation style. The student should make the distinction between supporting documents and other references clearer so that the evidence base is easier to evaluate.

The supporting documents are clearly titled and separated, which is helpful for navigation and reference checking. This makes it much easier for the reader to trace evidence back to specific documents.