IB Geography HL Internal Assessment Example

The student frames a clearly geographical investigation and uses an evaluative wording such as “to what extent,” which is appropriate for hypothesis-led fieldwork. This gives the enquiry a focused analytical direction rather than a purely descriptive topic.

The location is specific enough to be feasible, but the geographic context would be stronger if the student added coordinates, a transect sketch, or named sampling points. That would make the fieldwork easier to replicate and the site boundary clearer.

This caption is geographically inaccurate: Kenya’s coast is on the eastern side of the country, not the south-west. Accurate locational framing matters because the map is supposed to orient the reader and support the investigation’s spatial context.

The theoretical background is relevant and correctly linked to coastal dune processes. By introducing aeolian transport terms such as saltation, suspension and surface creep, the student provides a conceptual basis for the wind hypothesis.

This map establishes the site well, but it would be stronger if the student added the actual inland transect and sampling points. Showing exactly where data were collected would make the investigation much more transparent and spatially precise.

How does this theory specifically help the student predict the dune-height pattern used later in the investigation? Making that link explicit would strengthen the logic connecting theory, hypothesis and the actual data collected.

The sampling intervals are unclear and inconsistent with the rest of the report. The student needs to explain the exact spacing used at each site, because method accuracy depends on the reader being able to reproduce the procedure precisely.

The wind method would be more robust if the student specified the number of repeated readings and the exact position relative to the ground. That would reduce random error and make the dataset easier to trust.

This gives some implementation detail, but it is still too broad to show strong control of the method. The student should state how the groups were assigned, how many readings each group took, and whether the same protocol was followed at every site.

The student chooses a systematic transect approach, which is appropriate for detecting spatial change from the shoreline inland. This is a sensible method for a dune study because it allows patterns to be compared across distance.

This hypothesis introduces a mechanism about vegetation and dune height, but the method only measures pH. The student should separate the hypothesis from the procedure more clearly and explain how pH is expected to affect the actual variable being investigated.

Why was a 5 cm hole chosen, and was that depth kept consistent at every site? Clarifying this would help show that the pH readings are comparable across the transect.

The figure title says wind speed, but the graph content shown below includes dune height and vegetation cover. This mismatch makes the presentation unreliable because the reader cannot tell which variable the figure is actually representing.

The student includes raw repeated readings and averages, which is a good basis for comparison across the transect. Replication improves the usefulness of the data because it allows the reader to see whether the pattern is consistent rather than based on a single observation.

The table heading is internally inconsistent: it refers to both wind speed and dune height, but the visible rows only show wind data. The student should keep titles, variables and table contents aligned so the evidence can be interpreted accurately.

The reported coefficient is not credible given the ranked values shown in the table. The student should recalculate the Spearman’s rank result carefully, because an incorrect coefficient undermines the validity of the whole analysis.

This interpretation overstates what the graph shows. The data demonstrates an association, but it does not prove that vegetation height directly increases dune height; the student should distinguish correlation from causation and support the claim with the actual plotted values.

The pH analysis would be stronger if the student checked both the arithmetic and the sign of the coefficient. A value close to zero does not describe a very strong relationship, so recalculating this carefully would improve the reliability of the evidence.

This statement is mathematically and logically imprecise: the student should describe the relationship between distance from the shoreline and wind speed directly. Clear interpretation of the slope is essential because it is being used to support the hypothesis.

This is a strong analytical link because it connects the observed inland pattern to coastal-process theory. The student is not just describing the trend but explaining why the trend matters geographically.

This contradicts the data shown earlier, where wind speed appears to decline consistently. The student should reconcile the written discussion with the displayed values so the analysis remains internally consistent.

This is a useful attempt to consider anomalies, but the reasoning is too vague. The student should identify which sites are anomalous and explain what specific local factors could have caused them to deviate from the main pattern.

What does this graph show beyond a general downward trend? The student would strengthen the analysis by linking the graph more explicitly to the hypothesis and by explaining whether the pattern is strong enough to be meaningful.

A conclusion section is present, which is important because it signals that the investigation is being brought back to the original enquiry. The student also attempts to summarize the methods and limitations, showing awareness of the full fieldwork process.

A stronger conclusion would briefly synthesise the numerical findings, not just the method. The student should state the overall pattern for each variable and then judge how far the evidence supports the research question.

This conclusion is not fully supported because the statement about pH increasing inland conflicts with the hypothesis and with the preceding explanation. The student needs a clearer, evidence-based final judgment that matches the data and the earlier analysis.

This is useful evaluation content, but it does not function as a conclusion. The student should end by directly answering the fieldwork question and stating which hypothesis or factor was most supported by the evidence.

The student could make the evaluation sharper by separating strengths in the method from strengths in the analysis. Explaining why each instrument and each statistical technique improves reliability would produce a more analytical evaluation.

The student identifies realistic limitations that affect validity, especially the risk of missing small-scale variation and the influence of time-specific wind change. This shows awareness that field data are shaped by environmental conditions as well as method choice.

The improvement ideas are relevant, but they are still too general. The student should explain how many samples to take, how strata would be defined, and which specific limitation each improvement would address to make the evaluation more convincing.

These limitations are relevant, but the student does not explain their effect on each hypothesis. The evaluation would be stronger if it stated exactly how each factor could distort wind, vegetation or pH data and therefore weaken the conclusions.

Which of these factors was most likely to matter for each variable? Prioritising the most significant limitations would show a deeper understanding of methodological weakness and its impact on the results.