Overall Score: 14/22
IB Grade: 6
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
14/22
0
11
22
5.1·suggestion
Page 6
Ethical procedures are noted but could be improved by detailing debrief content and how data confidentiality is preserved.
Criteria A: Introduction
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Investigation aim and relevance
Excellent
Theory/model description and connection
Excellent
Hypothesis and variables
Criteria Feedback
- Clear statement of aim linked to Landry & Bartling replication
- Accurate description of the working‐memory model and explicit connection to the investigation
- Operationalised independent and dependent variables with both null and research hypotheses
- Limited real‐world elaboration of the investigation’s relevance
- Minor over‐simplification in describing subcomponents of the phonological loop
- Stylistic issues in hypothesis wording
Criteria B: Exploration
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Research design
Good
Sampling and participants
Good
Variables and materials
Criteria Feedback
- Independent‐measures design is identified and its rationale (avoiding order effects) is explained
- Opportunity sampling technique is described with basic reasoning about participant availability
- Controlled variables and materials are described with some justification for their choice
- Sampling rationale is brief and lacks discussion of external validity effects
- Limited depth in explaining how controls mitigate specific biases (e.g., fatigue)
- Justification of trial reduction and its impact on reliability is not addressed
Criteria C: Analysis
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Statistical analysis
Moderate
Graphical presentation
Excellent
Findings interpretation
Criteria Feedback
- Appropriate use and justification of descriptive (mean, SD) and inferential (Mann–Whitney U) statistics
- Interpretation of statistical findings linked clearly to the hypothesis and data
- Insightful analysis of box‐plot skewness and discussion of distributional shape
- Minor conceptual slip in labeling count data as ratio level
- Graphical presentation errors: inconsistent decimal notation and mixed use of percentages/raw means
- Slight overstatement in p‐value interpretation (phrasing of probability)
Criteria D: Evaluation
1/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Findings discussion
Excellent
Strengths and limitations
Poor
Modifications
Criteria Feedback
- Findings are discussed in relation to the working‐memory model and original study results
- Strengths and limitations are identified and explained in relation to validity and reliability
- No concrete modifications are proposed or linked to stated limitations
- Evaluation lacks suggested changes (e.g., stratified sampling, trial adjustments)
- Additional context (e.g., bilingual instructions) is not elaborated for limitations