The ten seconds after a child gets stuckSL
Loading scores...
6
Official IB Result
19/24
General feedback
19/24
0
12
24
No overall summary is available for this report.
4.1·Weakness
Page 3
This is a thoughtful ethical point, but it weakens the methodology explanation slightly because it leaves overtness under-justified as a design choice. The student should clarify that overt observation was chosen both to meet consent requirements and to preserve ecological validity as much as possible.
4.2·Strength
Page 3
This is a strong methodological choice because the student does not just name the method, but weighs it against ethical and conceptual alternatives. That shows the method was selected for fit to the question, not convenience.
4.3·Suggestion
Page 5
The piloting section is useful because it shows the thresholds were checked against real reading behaviour. The student could strengthen it further by explaining why these two sessions were sufficient to settle the final thresholds and category 8.
4.4·Weakness
Page 5
The student recognises a reliability issue, but the choice to report only percentage agreement is not fully justified. Because this measure can overstate agreement, the student should explain why Cohen’s kappa was not used, or include it alongside percentage agreement.
4.5·Question
Page 6
What effect might this prior expectation have on the way borderline behaviours are coded, especially if a response could plausibly fit more than one category? Reflecting on this would strengthen the discussion of how bias could influence the findings, not just the observer’s attitude.
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
- The student's research question is tightly focused on a specific school context and a precise behavioural window.
- The student clearly explains the real-life problem and why it matters for the younger children involved.
- The student integrates two relevant sources well and shows how they support the rationale for their investigation.
- One research source is applied to the student's context with slightly limited explicit justification, so the link could be made even more direct.
- The introduction would be even stronger if the student more clearly synthesised how the two studies work together to justify the exact focus of the investigation.
Criteria B: Criterion B: Research methodology
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Research method choice
Excellent
B.2Procedure
Good
B.3Ethical considerations
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- The student clearly identifies and justifies a naturalistic structured observation as the most suitable way to study the behaviour in the real setting.
- The student's procedure is coherent and includes clear operational definitions, sampling decisions, and timing details.
- The student addresses ethical issues in a relevant and thoughtful way, including consent, assent, confidentiality, and safeguarding.
- Some practical aspects of carrying out the observation could be described more fully to make the procedure easier to implement consistently.
- The explanation of why the chosen method remains naturalistic could be made a little more explicit.
1.1·Suggestion
Page 3
This is a strong method choice, but the student could clarify more explicitly how the observation remains naturalistic despite using a fixed focal window and pre-set categories. A brief justification would make the design logic even sharper.
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
- The student creates an appropriate observation tool that is clearly aligned with the behaviour they want to measure.
- The student's category system is relevant to the research focus and shows thoughtful design decisions.
- The student identifies practical challenges in data collection and suggests sensible ways to manage them.
- The effectiveness of the tool cannot be fully confirmed from the material provided, so its layout and decision rules could be demonstrated more clearly.
- Some of the student's design choices would benefit from a fuller explanation, especially why the final set of categories is sufficient and how reliability is strengthened.
2.1·Strength
Page 4
The coding sheet is well aligned to the research question because it captures the full range of likely first responses after hesitation, not just the response the student expects. That breadth helps the tool measure behaviour rather than a single hypothesis.
2.2·Weakness
Page 4
This design decision is sensible for consistency, but the student should acknowledge the trade-off more directly: coding only the FRH limits what can be learned about the rest of the exchange and may miss follow-up scaffolding after the first response.
Criteria D: Criterion D: Discussion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Potential findings and implications
Excellent
D.2Researcher bias
Excellent
D.3Additional research method
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student identifies plausible outcomes and connects them to likely implications for practice.
- The student recognises possible sources of bias and shows that these could shape how the investigation is carried out and interpreted.
- The student proposes an additional method that could add useful information alongside observation.
- The range of possible findings is fairly narrow and could be developed to include more variation in patterns or category distributions.
- The added method would be stronger if the student explained more clearly how it would deepen understanding of the topic rather than only complement the observation.
- The discussion would benefit from a broader consideration of how different biases might affect the study.
3.1·Weakness
Page 5
The implications are promising, but they stop short of a fuller policy/practice discussion. The student should explain what the school would do if training does not solve the issue, and how the findings would inform the programme beyond a single 20-minute session.
3.2·Suggestion
Page 6
This is a relevant additional method. To reach a stronger discussion of usefulness, the student should explain how interview data would be analysed and how mismatches between beliefs and observed FRHs could deepen understanding of buddy training needs.