IB Digital Society (DS) HL Internal Assessment Example

This is only a partial link to the course content. The student should explain the digital-media dilemma more specifically — for example, by focusing on attention design, privacy, or persuasive interface features — because “social media” alone is too broad to show precise conceptual understanding.

This is a focused and arguable inquiry question. The phrase “to what extent” creates room for evaluation rather than description, and the question stays clearly tied to a specific digital example, which gives the investigation a clear direction.

This connection is relevant, but the explanation stays too general. The student should explain more precisely how alleged addictive design changes expectations or concepts of relationships, rather than moving quickly from “compulsive use” to “fast-paced and unhealthy relationships.”

Consider naming the exact stakeholder groups affected and the specific change being investigated. That would make the context stronger because it would show how “families and relationships” shapes the inquiry rather than just labeling the topic area.

What evidence would show that dating apps themselves caused this change, rather than simply coinciding with already shifting relationship norms? Clarifying causation would make the inquiry much more rigorous.

This would be stronger with a clearer link between change and the actual mechanism of change. The student could identify what is changing — such as partner selection, communication norms, or relationship expectations — so the concept becomes analytically useful rather than just descriptive.

This is a strong example of identifying a source’s perspective and main contribution. The student has selected a concrete idea from the article and explained why it matters to the inquiry, which shows clear relevance instead of simple summary.

The personal narrative is useful, but the student could also consider its limitation: one person’s experience does not necessarily represent broader dating-app users. Adding that balance would make the source evaluation more convincing.

This justification relies too heavily on the reputation of the publication. The student should evaluate the article’s authorship, evidence, and limitations more directly, because a well-known outlet is not automatically reliable for every claim it makes.

The student explains usefulness, but the claim about “various changes and alterations” is still broad. To strengthen the discussion, the student should specify what changed over time and how that helps answer the inquiry question.

This shows a clear attempt to infer source purpose and perspective from the article’s framing. The student is not just summarizing content; they are connecting the source’s angle to the inquiry, which is exactly the right kind of thinking for this criterion.

This becomes overstated and somewhat vague. The student should avoid broad claims like “more detailed” unless they are tied to a specific finding or method from the source, because the current explanation sounds persuasive rather than analytical.

How does the platform location support reliability here beyond accessibility? The student would improve the analysis by distinguishing publication platform from peer-review quality and by explaining what evidence in the article itself shows rigor.

This is not enough evidence of credibility. The student should examine who the author is, what evidence is selected, and whether the source presents a clear argument, because institutional prestige alone does not prove reliability or usefulness.

Calling the article “unbiased” is not sufficiently justified. The student should demonstrate neutrality through evidence, framing, and omission of loaded language rather than assuming neutrality from a broad overview.

Consider explaining exactly which timeline events the source helps contextualize. A more precise link to historical development would make the source’s usefulness much clearer and less generic.

This remains descriptive rather than analytical. The student should show how binge usage affects people or communities in a specific way, and ideally support that link with evidence rather than simply stating that effects exist.

The student identifies both sides, but does not yet evaluate their relative importance or impact. To reach analysis, the response needs comparison, judgment, and evidence about which effects matter most for the inquiry.

How does empathy improve understanding here without substituting for evidence? Thinking about that distinction would help the student move from reflection to evaluation.

This would be stronger if the student explained why subscription costs matter to relationship expectations or access to dating. Linking the economic factor to people’s behavior would turn an observation into analysis.

The statement implies impact, but it does not actually analyze any evidence from the article. The student should identify a concrete pattern, then explain what it implies about relationships or user behavior.

The student summarizes the source’s intent, but does not yet evaluate its findings or implications. This criterion requires more than identifying method; the student should explain what the research suggests about impacts on people and communities.

The student anticipates conclusions, but no actual evaluative argument is made. The response should weigh how convincing the source is and what its evidence implies, rather than only stating that it could be used later.

The student could use this idea to build a conclusion by explicitly stating what the timeline suggests about change over time. A concluding paragraph should answer the inquiry question, note a limitation, and identify any emerging trend.

This reference suggests future developments, but it is not used in a concluding argument. The student should draw together the implications of the sources and explain what future trend, if any, they collectively indicate.

A conclusion is not present in the submitted work. The student should add a short final section that directly answers the inquiry question and briefly synthesizes the most important evidence rather than leaving the reader at the reference list.

The submission is clearly structured into criterion sections, which helps the reader follow the investigation’s development. That organization supports communication because each part of the inquiry can be located quickly and understood in sequence.

The source headings and reference details are easy to follow, which makes the document accessible and navigable. Clear source labeling helps the reader distinguish the three perspectives and understand the logic of the inquiry process.

The writing is understandable, but some claims are repetitive and verbose, which can weaken precision. The student should aim for shorter, more exact sentences so the evaluation reads more clearly and sounds more academic.

Consider using a more consistently academic style throughout the source notes. Phrases like “provided source” and “its use” could be tightened to improve clarity and make the writing sound more analytical.

This sentence becomes lengthy and difficult to follow. The student should separate the ideas into shorter sentences and reduce repetition so the key evaluation is easier for the reader to absorb.