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

The hypothesis logically follows the context but is too general. Specify expected effect size or difference in mean awareness for clarity and testability.

The research question is relevant but imprecisely worded. It should specify the awareness measurement tool and respondent characteristics. Refine wording to clearly define independent and dependent variables.

The aim statement restates the research question but does not introduce new specific objectives. Consider breaking it into measurable sub-objectives (e.g., compare mean awareness scores).

The introduction outlines the environmental challenge of food waste and methane emissions (6–8%), but it lacks depth in stakeholder analysis and global context. Consider elaborating on regional policies’ impact and broader implications for Penang’s climate strategy.

The methodology section outlines survey divisions but omits questionnaire validation, pilot testing and scaling details (Likert anchor definitions). Add these elements to strengthen method design.

No explicit section addresses risk and ethics (consent, anonymity, data protection). Include a structured risk/ethics assessment in future to meet IB standards.

Sampling strategy references 30 respondents per site but lacks justification for representativeness or recruitment procedure. Detail how participants were selected and why this sample ensures validity.

The raw data table (Table 1) includes 23 variables but lacks clear labels and units. Consider splitting into smaller tables or using appendices to maintain readability.

Bar charts in Sections B–E lack axis labels, units and error-bar definitions. Ensure all figures are self-explanatory with legends and clear axis descriptions.

Several frequency tables use nonstandard symbols (θ, っ, ⇁), likely OCR errors. Clean and verify all data entries before analysis.

Standard deviation calculation for Q1 Georgetown applies formula over five categories rather than 30 total responses. Recompute using frequencies and correct denominator.

Mean and standard deviation formulas use n instead of n–1 for a sample. Clarify whether population or sample SD is intended and use consistent notation.

The t-test table provides p-values but lacks assumptions testing (normality, equal variances). Discuss whether data meet t-test requirements.

Conclusions summarize which area scored higher, but statements on cultural unity and reliability are speculative and not directly supported by data. Ground conclusions in observed statistics.

Interpretation in Section B attributes higher mean to social media campaigns without referencing survey data on information sources. Link claims to specific question results.

The discussion of consistency cites lower SD for Kubang Semang but doesn’t quantify the difference. Include comparative values to substantiate claims.

Evaluation of the method acknowledges small sample and bias but omits discussion on questionnaire validity, mode effects and sampling bias. Expand to cover all limitations.

Suggested modifications include systematic regional sampling and a 20% population sample. To enhance, specify sampling frame, randomization procedures and target demographic quotas.

Solution evaluation notes inclusion of youth and exclusion of older generation but omits cost, feasibility and potential unintended consequences. Broaden evaluation.

The application proposal of social media hashtags is relevant but lacks alignment with survey findings. Justify why this solution addresses specific awareness gaps revealed by data.

Language is verbose and occasionally ungrammatical (e.g., “to what extent does people … is aware”). Revise for clarity and concision, using precise subject terminology.

Formatting inconsistencies (broken tables, irregular headings) interrupt flow. Ensure consistent spacing, font sizes, and headings throughout the report.