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

Minor wording redundancy in “influence differences” reduces precision; consider rephrasing the research question to avoid duplication of terms.

Link between the issue and research question would be stronger with local statistics on household consumption to support claims about Surabaya.

The environmental context is thorough but drifts into generic climate facts; tighten focus by incorporating Surabaya-specific emissions or electricity data.

Economic, social, and technological factors are mentioned superficially; deepen the connection with specific policy or demographic evidence for Surabaya.

The final sentence on survey scope is cut off; complete the thought and clarify how the design addresses the research aims.

Hypotheses are stated clearly, but adding anticipated directionality (e.g., “higher income → lower consumption score”) would enhance specificity.

Variable classification is comprehensive; strengthen by specifying planned sample sizes per income group to justify the five categories.

Procedure is replicable but omits guidelines for managing missing or partial survey responses; include a data-cleaning protocol.

Sampling via friends and teachers introduces bias; justify this convenience approach or propose stratification to improve representativeness.

The Likert scale is appropriate for frequency measures; consider pilot testing to ensure items function equivalently across income groups.

Justification of one-way ANOVA is sound; add explicit mention of assumption checks (normality, homogeneity of variance) before analysis.

Environmental risks and data security are under-addressed; elaborate on measures for protecting respondents’ digital data and privacy.

Ethical evaluation notes privacy but omit whether IRB or institutional review approval was obtained; clarify research oversight.

Referencing processed data is helpful, but summary statistics (means, SDs) should be displayed immediately to guide reader understanding.

Interpretation of p > 0.05 is correct; consider reporting effect size (e.g., ${\eta }^2$) to convey the magnitude of non-significance.

ANOVA table for Question 1 is malformed and contains placeholder text; reconstruct output to show actual F- and p-values clearly.

The Tukey HSD figure is useful; ensure axes, group labels, and confidence intervals are legible and annotated for clarity.

ANOVA output for Question 4 contains nonsensical symbols; rerun analysis and ensure software export displays numeric results correctly.

ANOVA table for Question 6 is illegible; replace placeholder symbols with actual F- and p-values to support the conclusion.

Group-level null results are clear; consider summarizing non-significant outcomes in a consolidated table to streamline reading.

Controlled variables ensure consistency, but limiting age to 25–40 may reduce generalizability; discuss this trade-off in the evaluation section.

After rejecting H₀ for high-energy appliances, briefly discuss potential policy actions tailored to Surabaya households for this behaviour.

Conclusion restates key findings but would benefit from comparing results with literature to provide broader theoretical context.

Limitations table notes focus on income; include discussion of unequal group sizes’ effect on ANOVA validity to fully evaluate method.

Proposed inclusion of actual electricity usage is strong; extend suggestion by outlining mixed-methods integration of meter data with self-reports.

Application proposal is well tied to findings; further evaluate potential rebound effects and outline monitoring strategies for subsidy success.

Good use of pre-paid meter system literature; ensure consistent citation formatting and include more local policy examples for depth.

The title is concise and clearly conveys the study focus on income and energy behaviours in Surabaya, using precise terminology.

Interpretation of group differences is detailed but repetitive; summarize key findings succinctly to improve concision.

Avoid duplicate evaluation tables; consolidate strengths and limitations into one section for coherence and to prevent redundancy.

Bibliography entries are relevant but citation styles vary; apply a consistent format (e.g., APA) throughout to improve professionalism.