IB Psychology (First Exam 2027) SL Internal Assessment Example

Strong contextual framing: the student clearly describes the merged-school setting and why the issue matters now. This gives the investigation a concrete real-life basis and helps the reader see why former-campus identity could still influence helping.

Consider making the hypothesis a complete, separate sentence and linking it to the IV and DV explicitly. That would make the prediction easier to identify and would strengthen the introduction’s logical flow from literature to investigation.

The aim is focused, but it is still not fully operationalised here. The student should state the exact comparison being made, such as mean questionnaire ratings of in-group versus out-group scenarios, so the RQ matches the later method more precisely.

The procedure is clear, but it is still missing some standardisation details, such as the exact instructions given, whether any adult supervises completion, and whether participants have a time limit. These details matter because they affect consistency across participants.

Relevant ethics are identified, but the write-up still omits age-related consent issues. Because Year 12 may include students under 16, the student should check whether parental consent is required and explain how that would be handled.

This is a well-justified method choice: the student explains both feasibility and comparability. The reasoning shows awareness of why a questionnaire is more practical than waiting for rare real-life helping events.

Good control of demand characteristics: the student explains why alternating labels is better than clustering all in-group or out-group items together. This shows that the tool was designed with response bias in mind.

This is a thoughtful measurement decision because it matches the psychology of the task rather than forcing an artificial midpoint. It shows that the student is thinking carefully about how the scale will capture the intended construct.

The pilot is well chosen; the student could strengthen it further by stating what will count as success. For example, specifying how unclear items will be revised would make the pilot process more purposeful and easier to evaluate.

What specific information would observation add beyond the questionnaire—such as how context, urgency, or familiarity changes helping? Naming the extra insight would make the value of the additional method much more convincing.

This is a strong link to policy/practice because the student moves beyond describing a result and proposes a realistic school response. The recommendation is also clearly tied to the mechanism being investigated: identity salience.

The limitation is valid, but the discussion would be stronger if it explained how this might affect interpretation of the findings. The student should clarify whether high ratings would really mean actual helping, or only socially acceptable self-presentation.