IB Geography SL Internal Assessment Example

The fieldwork question is clear, geographical, and tightly linked to a recognised river model. The student also shows immediate theoretical awareness by naming the Bradshaw Model, which makes the investigation testable rather than purely descriptive.

The inclusion of a locational map strengthens the geographical context because it helps the reader place the river within a wider regional setting. This is good practice for Criterion A because it supports both orientation and fieldwork planning.

The student could strengthen geographic context further by explicitly showing how this confluence affects downstream conditions. Linking the location description to a likely fieldwork variable would make the setting feel even more purposeful.

This location description is specific enough to show where the investigation took place and why it is geographically meaningful. The named counties, river length, and source-to-confluence context all help establish clear fieldwork feasibility.

These hypotheses are well framed because they are measurable and directly operationalise the Bradshaw Model. The student has chosen variables that can actually be tested in the field, which is exactly what makes a fieldwork question workable.

The map is useful, but the site positions are not precise enough to fully distinguish individual sampling points. To reach the highest standard, the student should make the site distribution easier to read so that the route of primary data collection is unambiguous.

The sampling strategy is appropriate and clearly tied to the river’s downstream structure. Dividing the course into upper, middle, and lower sections is a sensible way to ensure the data can be compared across the Bradshaw Model gradient.

This is a strong methodological description because it standardises the measurement procedure. Consistency like this improves reliability and makes the final results more comparable across the 20 sites.

The float method is relevant, but this description does not acknowledge that a tennis ball measures surface flow rather than mean channel velocity. The student should explain how that limitation affects the validity of the discharge calculation, not just the timing procedure.

Repeated trials are a real strength here because they reduce the impact of random error. The student is showing awareness that one-off measurements would be less trustworthy than averaged results.

This is a thoughtful attempt to reduce subjectivity in a normally judgement-based method. By averaging group judgements, the student improves reliability and shows awareness of a common weakness in sediment roundness classification.

The student could improve the method section by explaining why Spearman’s rank is statistically appropriate for these variables, especially given the ranked and non-parametric nature of the data. That would make the choice of test feel more explicitly justified.

The interpretation is clear and directly connected to the hypothesis. The student does not just describe the graph; they explain what the pattern means for downstream change in the river.

What does this anomaly suggest about the reliability of the prediction at this site, and how might local channel conditions have altered the result? A more explicit answer here would deepen the interpretation of the data.

This is effective because the student extracts a clear downstream trend from a visual source and links it to geomorphic processes. The explanation of attrition and abrasion makes the evidence geographically meaningful rather than purely numerical.

The student could strengthen the treatment of information by stating the range, rate of change, or the most significant anomalies on the graph itself. That would make the visual analysis more analytical and less purely descriptive.

The student uses the scatter graph effectively to address the third hypothesis. More importantly, they also go beyond the trend line by identifying anomalies and proposing plausible river-based explanations.

This link is a little too loose: the Hjulström Curve relates velocity and particle size, not discharge directly. The student should be more precise about the distinction between velocity, discharge, and sediment transport if they want the comparison to be scientifically convincing.

The conclusion is supported by the analysis and uses appropriately cautious wording. The student avoids claiming total conformity, which reflects a more accurate understanding of how real rivers behave.

This is a strong use of quantitative evidence because it gives the reader a specific statistical result rather than a vague claim. The calculation is then used to support the argument, which is exactly what data treatment should do.

This is a clear overall judgement that directly answers the research question. It works well because the student does not just restate trends; they synthesise the evidence into a final position.

The conclusion is well supported by specific evidence, which is exactly what makes it persuasive. Referring to numerical values helps show that the final judgement is based on the analysis rather than impression alone.

The wording here is too absolute for fieldwork conclusions. The student should say the hypothesis was supported or partially supported, because empirical river data can indicate strong tendencies without proving a claim beyond doubt.

This conclusion is strongly anchored in the sediment data. The student effectively uses comparative figures to demonstrate change over space, which makes the final judgement much more credible.

The student could make the conclusion even stronger by briefly summarising the strength of the third result in the same sentence, rather than only restating the hypothesis. That would make the final section feel more evaluative and less repetitive.

The student could deepen evaluation by explaining more explicitly how this alternative model would change the interpretation of their own data. That would move the comment from a relevant comparison to a more analytical critique of the investigation’s framework.

This is a balanced evaluation because the student recognises both the benefit and the cost of the decision. That kind of trade-off analysis is exactly what makes evaluation convincing.

The evaluation is effective here because it links sample size to statistical confidence and representativeness. That makes the weakness meaningful rather than simply observational.

If a flow meter had been available, how might the revised velocity data have changed the discharge pattern and the Spearman’s result? Considering the likely impact on the final correlation would make the evaluation even more insightful.

This is a useful point, but it stays fairly general. The student should connect each limitation to a specific method or site result, so the evaluation demonstrates precisely where the investigation was weakened and why.

This is a strong evaluative point because it identifies a real methodological limitation and explains why it matters. The student shows genuine reflection by connecting the weakness to validity, not just mentioning it.