IB Psychology SL Internal Assessment Example

The theory is not only identified but also connected to the underlying memory model, which gives the investigation a clear conceptual base. This helps the reader see why recency should change when recall is delayed.

What specific part of Glanzer and Cunitz’s findings is most relevant to the student's own design, and how does it justify focusing only on the last five words? Making that connection explicit would strengthen the rationale for their operational choice.

The hypothesis is operationalized clearly: the sample, the conditions, and the dependent measure are all stated. That precision makes the prediction testable and aligns well with the stated aim.

The aim is focused and clearly narrowed to one manipulation, which makes the investigation manageable and easy to test. This tight scope helps the reader immediately understand what is being measured and why the study is feasible at SL level.

The student shows awareness of feasibility and participant burden, which is good experimental thinking. This is a sensible adaptation because it keeps the task realistic while preserving the core manipulation.

Consider matching the null-hypothesis wording even more tightly to the independent variable by naming the two conditions in the same format as the research hypothesis. That small stylistic consistency makes the variable relationship easier to follow.

The relevance is explained well by linking the recency effect to real educational practice. This works because the student does not just name an application; they show why understanding recency could matter when planning instruction.

The design is identified clearly and then explained in terms of order effects and demand characteristics. That works well because it shows the student understands not just the label, but why this design suits the research question.

The sampling technique is stated plainly, and the explanation makes the practical reason for using it transparent. Clear reporting like this helps the reader judge the limits of representativeness.

The student explains the choice of participants in practical terms, which shows the method was workable in the real setting. That is helpful because it links participant selection to actual research conditions rather than presenting it as arbitrary.

The limitation is appropriately balanced against the design choice, showing critical awareness. This is strong because it demonstrates the student can evaluate how a method affects internal validity, not just describe the procedure.

It would be even stronger to mention why random allocation is still sufficient for an SL school investigation despite this limitation. A brief link to sample size and balancing groups would show more nuanced methodological evaluation.

The control of environment and timing is well justified, showing an understanding of how situational variables can affect recall. This strengthens the study because it reduces alternative explanations for the results.

The material choice is well explained because it reduces language difficulty and emotional bias. This is a strong control because it helps ensure the dependent variable reflects memory performance rather than differences in word familiarity.

Using automatically timed presentations is a good control because it standardizes stimulus exposure across participants. That makes the procedure more reliable and reduces the risk of researcher timing error.

This comparison is incorrect because $1.03$ is lower than $1.10$, not higher. The student should recalculate or reread the table values before interpreting spread, since errors like this weaken confidence in the descriptive analysis.

The graph is relevant to the hypothesis because it compares the two recall conditions directly using the exact dependent measure. This makes the visual evidence easy to interpret alongside the written statistics.

The descriptive statistics are reported clearly and in a way that directly supports later comparison between conditions. This is effective because the reader can immediately see the size of the difference before looking at inferential testing.

The finding is interpreted thoughtfully rather than treated as a simple yes/no outcome. This shows good analytical maturity because the student recognises that the descriptive trend still matters even when the inferential test is not significant.

Consider using the more precise IB phrasing “fail to reject the null hypothesis” rather than “accept.” That wording better reflects what a non-significant result allows the researcher to conclude.

The choice of test is justified with appropriate methodological reasoning. This is strong analysis because the student links the test to the design and data type rather than naming a statistic without explanation.

The statistical decision is internally consistent here, but it conflicts with the later claim that $p=0.048$ was significant. The student needs to reconcile these results by checking the calculator output and ensuring the same test result is used throughout the analysis and evaluation.

If the difference was not significant, what does that imply about the strength of evidence rather than the absence of any effect? Reflecting on this distinction would make the interpretation more statistically accurate.

The discussion is clearly linked back to the background theory and key study, which is exactly what this strand requires. This works because the student is not just describing the result but judging it against a theoretical prediction.

This claim is not supported by the earlier inferential decision, which reported the result as non-significant. The student should revise the evaluation so the discussion of significance matches the actual test outcome; otherwise the conclusion becomes contradictory.

The strength is relevant and clearly justified because it explains how standardization improved reliability. That is effective evaluation: the student identifies a feature and then shows its methodological consequence.

This is a strong limitation because it is directly tied to the core manipulation: if rehearsal was still possible, the delayed condition may not truly isolate STM decay. That makes the evaluation meaningfully relevant to the hypothesis.

The limitation is well explained and tied directly to the investigation, showing a clear understanding of why participant homogeneity matters. This is strong evaluation because it connects sample characteristics to internal validity and interpretive confidence.

How would the evaluation change if the words had been tested in English instead of the participants’ native language? Considering that alternative helps show why this strength matters for controlling confounds.

The modification is appropriate; it would be even stronger if the student also explained how this specific task would reduce rehearsal and therefore improve construct validity. Linking the fix to the limitation would make the justification more complete.