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

The research question is concise, unambiguous and focused, specifying the independent and dependent variables clearly, meeting the top‐band CXT descriptors.

Consider specifying the geographic or site context within the research question (e.g., Margam Park hillside) to increase precision and scope clarity.

Connections between donkey trampling, reduced pore space and increased flood risk are clearly explained, demonstrating strong conceptual linkage.

The environmental issue context is detailed with causes and impacts, clearly linking soil degradation processes to flooding risk.

The discussion of flood impacts is broad and sometimes generic; focus more on the local hillside site implications to strengthen relevance.

The variable table repeats the temperature control statement for rainfall; revise controls so each confounding variable is properly addressed.

Hypotheses are clearly stated with both null and alternative formulations, supporting repeatable statistical testing.

Equipment list omits calibration protocols; include detailed calibration procedures (e.g., for the moisture meter) to ensure measurement reliability.

Method step 8 notes percolation tube failure but does not discuss how omitting this measurement affects the overall data sufficiency.

Sampling strategy justification is coherent, demonstrating a clear rationale for stratified random sampling to reduce bias.

Risk table lists hazards and controls but omits likelihood and severity ratings; integrate a risk scoring system for comprehensive assessment.

Units for soil compaction and moisture are missing in both tables; include ‘cm’ in all headings to clarify measurement scales.

The t-test result is correctly calculated; include an effect size (e.g., Cohen’s d) and report confidence intervals to contextualize the magnitude of the difference.

Raw data tables are complete but lack graphical representation, hindering the reader’s ability to quickly identify distribution patterns.

Processed data table uses placeholders ‘X1’ and ‘X2’; replace these with the actual mean values to avoid ambiguity.

Conclusion clearly links the statistical outcome to soil compaction and flooding risk, reinforcing the research focus.

Consider quantifying the increased flooding likelihood (e.g., runoff coefficient or infiltration rate change) to strengthen the data‐supported conclusion.

Suggested extensions are meaningful but could also address alternative compaction metrics (e.g., bulk density) to strengthen future protocols.

The method evaluation lists strengths, weaknesses and limitations comprehensively, demonstrating strong reflective practice.

Evaluation of the conclusion is brief and lacks comparison to existing studies; extend this section by contrasting findings with relevant literature.

Evaluation of the rotational grazing solution lacks economic feasibility and stakeholder acceptance considerations; include these for a thorough analysis.

The application proposal for rotational grazing is well justified by empirical findings, meeting the top APP descriptors.

Ensure the table of contents consistently indents subsections to improve readability and visual hierarchy for the reader.

The table of contents is comprehensive and reflects sustained organization, enhancing navigation and reader orientation throughout the report.

Typographical error in section header ‘Research Questin’ may distract readers; correct to ‘Research Question’ for professionalism.

Figures illustrate equipment effectively, but captions should specify scale or dimensions to contextualize the size and orientation.

References are relevant but missing primary research on soil compaction measurement; consider adding peer‐reviewed articles to strengthen scholarly rigor.

Bibliography entries use inconsistent formatting and punctuation; apply a consistent referencing style (e.g., APA or MLA) throughout.