IB Environmental systems and societies (ESS) - Old SL Internal Assessment Example

The research question is precise and focused, identifying key variables (income categories, PV awareness) and the geographic scope (Klang) clearly, facilitating targeted investigation.

The introduction provides strong environmental context but incorporates peripheral global mortality data; consider focusing on local PM10 exceedances for deeper relevance.

The connection section asserts socioeconomic influences on PV awareness but omits detailed mechanisms; unpack causal pathways and potential confounders for completeness.

The variables table outlines independent, dependent, and fixed factors well but lacks detail on coding non-responses and handling missing data; specify these to ensure method repeatability.

Ethical considerations omit data storage protocols and withdrawal rights; include these to comprehensively address participant protection and data security.

Quota sampling is clearly justified to ensure representation across income brackets, demonstrating sound sampling strategy aligned with research aims.

Tables present all demographic and awareness data clearly with percentages; the comprehensive presentation meets full-data visualization standards.

The mean formula is correctly displayed but would benefit from a brief reminder of symbol definitions inline to aid reader comprehension.

The standard deviation calculation uses population formula; clarify if n‐1 should be used for sample data or justify population approach.

The attitude questions table is fully comprehensive, presenting means and standard deviations for each group, facilitating thorough comparison.

Challenge data table is clear and presents both counts and percentages; consider aligning rows for better readability given multi-row question text.

Figure 9.0 illustrates group means and SDs effectively; add a note on p-value threshold and df to reinforce the ANOVA interpretation.

The ANOVA table reports df=4 for between groups but with three income groups df should be 2; correct this to ensure statistical accuracy.

The conclusion restates statistical findings (p<0.05) and ties results to the hypothesis clearly, providing a valid evidence-supported interpretation.

Evaluation of the conclusion mentions error bars but omits broader environmental implications; include interpretation in context of air-quality improvements.

The discussion identifies strengths and weaknesses of the survey but neglects sampling‐bias limitations; address representativeness concerns in the evaluation.

Consider adding qualitative interviews or focus groups to deepen insights on why income influences PV awareness, enhancing the study’s scope and depth.

The policy proposal focuses appropriately on the B40 bracket and aligns with findings; the targeted government MySuria scheme justification is well supported.

Solution evaluation mentions accessibility and cost but omits scalability and unintended environmental impacts; expand evaluation of potential trade-offs.

The RQ title is repeated in the hypothesis section; streamline to avoid redundancy and improve conciseness.

Survey question formatting is inconsistent (Likert anchors and numbering); standardize scale presentation to enhance clarity and reduce respondent error.

Large raw tables disrupt readability; consider summarizing key results and moving detailed data to an appendix to improve report flow.

Figure 3.0 and 4.0 axes labels could be more descriptive (e.g., include units or full question text) and error bars explained in captions for complete communication.

The individual score matrix is overly dense; split into summary statistics and present raw scores in an appendix to maintain coherence.