Staying with the difficult puzzleSL
Loading scores...
7
Official IB Result
22/24
Criteria A: Criterion A: Introduction
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Aim or research question
Excellent
A.2Real-life problem
Excellent
A.3Findings and conclusions of research
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- You state a focused research question that clearly identifies the population, independent variable, dependent variable, and task context.
- You explain the real-world significance of the problem for Year 8 students and why persistence matters in that setting.
- You link two relevant pieces of prior research directly to your investigation and prediction.
- The link between the prior research and your exact operationalisation could be unpacked a little more tightly.
- Some of the broader research conclusions could be translated into more specific, testable features of your design.
Criteria B: Criterion B: Research methodology
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Research method choice
Excellent
B.2Procedure
Excellent
B.3Ethical considerations
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- You explain why an independent-measures laboratory experiment is an appropriate choice for the question.
- You describe a clear, ordered procedure with strong standardisation, including scripted instructions, controlled timing, and automatic feedback delivery.
- You address ethical issues in a relevant and specific way, including consent, assent, withdrawal, confidentiality, and participant wellbeing.
- A few procedural details could be specified more fully to make the method even easier to replicate.
- Some ethical logistics after debriefing could be explained in more detail for younger participants.
1.1·Strength
Page 2
This is a strong methodological choice because stratification and random allocation work together to balance tutor-group differences while still preserving experimental control. The student shows why the design fits the research question, rather than just naming the method.
1.2·Suggestion
Page 3
The procedure would be even clearer if the student stated how repeated sessions would be matched to the original one, especially whether the same allocation and puzzle order would be kept. That would help readers judge consistency across participants.
Criteria C: Criterion C: Data collection
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Data collection tool
Good
C.2Decisions made when creating the tool
Excellent
C.3Potential challenges
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- You create an appropriate behavioural measurement tool for persistence using a computer-based puzzle task with timed recording.
- You explain several design decisions that are relevant to the research question, including piloting, timing limits, and the use of a neutral comparison condition.
- You identify realistic data-collection challenges such as demand characteristics, ceiling effects, and interruptions, and you consider how they affect the study.
- The actual appearance or full contents of the tool are not shown in enough detail to judge its effectiveness completely from the proposal alone.
- Some design choices could be tied even more explicitly to how they improve the accuracy of the measurement.
2.1·Strength
Page 3
This is a strong data-collection decision because the pilot thresholds show the student is actively calibrating task difficulty to avoid both ceiling effects and tasks that are too discouraging. That makes the tool more likely to measure persistence rather than frustration alone.
2.2·Suggestion
Page 3
This is a sensible decision; the student could strengthen it further by stating how right-censored times will be interpreted in the analysis. For example, clarifying whether a ceiling proportion would be treated as evidence of task ease would improve transparency.
2.3·Weakness
Page 3
This instruction is clear, but it may also make the study purpose obvious and increase demand characteristics. The student should consider whether some of this explanation could be delayed or reframed so that participants understand consent without being primed to expect a persistence study.
Criteria D: Criterion D: Discussion
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Potential findings and implications
Excellent
D.2Researcher bias
Excellent
D.3Additional research method
Good
Criteria Feedback
- You discuss several likely outcome patterns and interpret what each would mean for the relationship between praise and persistence.
- You connect your discussion to practical implications while still recognising that conclusions should be applied cautiously.
- You identify bias-related issues and explain how they could shape participants’ behaviour and the results.
- The practical application could be made even more concrete by specifying exactly how the findings would be used in a classroom setting.
- The additional research method could be developed more fully as a distinct method rather than mainly as a refinement of the current design.
3.1·Question
Page 4
What would the student do with the responses from that post-task question so that they improve understanding rather than becoming an unsupported extra variable? Thinking this through would help decide whether the method adds clarity or just complexity.
3.2·Suggestion
Page 4
This implication is strong because it is cautious and realistic. The student could make it even more actionable by specifying what a 'small trial' would look like, for example piloting wording in one tutor group before wider use.
3.3·Suggestion
Page 4
The student already identifies demand characteristics well; to strengthen the discussion, they could explain one concrete adjustment that would reduce them further, such as disguising the study as a general problem-solving task with an unrelated cover story. That would make the bias-mitigation link more methodologically useful.