How does age influence climate change awareness and environmental actions among Mauritians aged 15 to 74 as measured by environmental knowledge, self-reported awareness, concern, and participation in climate action?SL
Loading scores...
5
Official IB Result
19/30
Criteria A: Identifying the Context (CXT)
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
A.1Research question formulation
Excellent
A.2Environmental issue context
Excellent
A.3Connection between issue and research
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Clear, focused research question with precise population and variables specified
- Rich contextual background with local climate risks and UNFCCC/WHO data
- Well‐cited definition of climate‐change literacy that frames the study
- Local activism history could better connect to Mauritius’s own environmental movements
- Justification for choosing Mauritius could cite specific policy or educational initiatives
1.1·Suggestion
Page 1
The historical overview of activism cites global examples but could better link to Mauritius’s own environmental movement to strengthen local context.
1.2·Strength
Page 1
The definition of climate change literacy is well cited and frames the investigation clearly. This establishes strong contextual grounding for the research question.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 2
The justification for focusing on Mauritius could be expanded by referencing specific policy or educational initiatives that motivate the study.
1.4·Strength
Page 2
The research question is focused, specifies age range, variables and population, showing excellent coherence and precision.
Criteria B: Planning (PLA)
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Method design
Excellent
B.2Sampling strategy
Good
B.3Risk and ethical considerations
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- Repeatable, appropriate online survey method with clear variable definitions
- Sound stratified sampling strategy ensuring age‐group representation
- Consideration of digital carbon footprint risk and anonymity measures
- Insufficient justification of sample size and recruitment channels
- Ethical section omits data‐storage security and explicit consent procedures
- Missing details on question phrasing, pilot testing and response validation
2.1·Strength
Page 3
The variables table correctly names independent, dependent, and controlled variables, demonstrating clear experimental design planning.
2.2·Suggestion
Page 3
The hypothesis is clearly stated but could indicate expected direction of difference (e.g., “younger will outperform older”).
2.3·Weakness
Page 3
Step 1 in the method simply states “used online survey.” Details on question phrasing, pilot testing, or response validation are missing.
2.4·Suggestion
Page 3
Age range justification is reasonable but controlling nationality alone may overlook other demographic confounders (e.g., education level).
2.5·Strength
Page 4
Stratified sampling by age group is a sound strategy, ensuring representation across cohorts.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 5
Sampling strategy lacks justification of total sample size (149) relative to population. Include margin of error or power calculation.
2.7·Suggestion
Page 6
The ethical consideration of digital carbon footprint shows thoughtful planning, but explicit consent procedures and data storage security are not addressed.
Criteria C: Results, Analysis and Conclusion (RAC)
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
C.1Data presentation
Excellent
C.2Data analysis
Excellent
C.3Conclusion drawing
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- All relevant data are presented in labeled tables and stacked bar charts
- Correct use of chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests with accurate p-values
- Conclusion ties statistical outcomes back to hypotheses
- Formatting of raw data tables is crowded, hindering readability
- Null-hypothesis statements and causal wording need more precise statistical language
- Graphing software and version not specified for reproducibility
3.1·Suggestion
Page 7
Raw data tables are very dense. Consider summarizing key trends in concise graphs to improve readability.
3.2·Strength
Page 7
Charts and tables are correctly labelled and present all relevant data, facilitating clear data interpretation.
3.3·Suggestion
Page 11
P-value interpretation is correct, but the null hypothesis statement could be rephrased to match standard statistical notation.
3.4·Suggestion
Page 11
Using online calculators is acceptable but methods should specify which software and versions were used to enhance reproducibility.
3.5·Strength
Page 12
The chi-square table reports DF, statistic and p-value accurately, demonstrating correct analysis.
3.6·Suggestion
Page 12
The conclusion correctly references p-values but makes causal language (“age causes awareness differences”). Replace with “associated” to avoid overinterpretation.
Criteria D: Discussion and Evaluation (DEV)
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
D.1Conclusion evaluation
Good
D.2Method evaluation
Good
D.3Improvements and extensions
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Identified key strengths (age range, anonymity) and weaknesses (sampling bias, unequal strata)
- Suggested significant methodological improvements (mixed survey modes, equal strata)
- Proposed meaningful extensions (include income and education variables)
- Evaluation of conclusion omitted discussion of cross-sectional causation limits
- Method evaluation did not address self-report and non-response bias in depth
- Improvements lack practical implementation detail
4.1·Suggestion
Page 18
Evaluation of conclusion highlights policy relevance but omits discussing the limitation that cross-sectional surveys cannot infer causation.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 19
The method evaluation recognizes sampling bias but could further discuss limitations of self-reported data and non-response bias.
4.3·Suggestion
Page 20
Suggest adding open-ended questions to capture qualitative insights on motivations and barriers, enriching the analysis.
Criteria E: Applications (APP)
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
E.1Application proposal
Excellent
E.2Solution evaluation
Good
Criteria Feedback
- Solution to extend government climate-education campaigns is directly linked to findings
- Justification outlines expected long-term benefits for policy and education gaps
- Evaluation of the proposal omits cost, scalability and monitoring considerations
- Only one mitigation measure for drawbacks was explored
- Broader application contexts (e.g., NGOs, private sector) not considered
5.1·Suggestion
Page 20
Government campaign extension proposal is well linked to findings but lacks evaluation of cost, scalability, and monitoring metrics.
Criteria F: Communication (COM)
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
F.1Structure and organization
Excellent
F.2Terminology and concision
Good
F.3Logic and coherence
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Well-structured throughout with clear headings and logical sequencing
- Arguments progress coherently from context through to evaluation
- Citation format is inconsistent, with distracting footnote and superscript errors
- Narrative occasionally verbose and could be more concise
- Misplaced mathematical notation in equipment list reduces clarity
6.1·Strength
Page 1
Overall structure follows IA guidelines with clear headings and logical flow, aiding reader comprehension.
6.2·Weakness
Page 1
Citation formatting in the footnotes is inconsistent (‘<sup’) and could distract readers. Ensure proper superscript tags are used.
6.3·Suggestion
Page 1
Language is generally precise but occasional verbosity could be trimmed for conciseness (e.g., long clauses in the introduction).
6.4·Weakness
Page 3
Including mathematical notation (e.g., “\omega_{rm{eff}}”) in the equipment list is confusing and appears misplaced. Remove or clarify.
6.5·Suggestion
Page 22
Bibliography demonstrates wide research but citation styles vary; apply a consistent referencing format throughout.