This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) IA Exemplar: Static vs… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) SL Internal Assessment Example
How does pre-performance static stretching compared to dynamic stretches (IV) impact the hand-eye coordination of a male cricket player, aged 16-18, measured by the number of successful catches across a 30 second (+/- 0.25 seconds) time period in an alternate hand-wall toss (DV)?SL
Loading scores...
6
Official IB Result
18/24
Was this exemplar helpful?
Want a report just like this?
Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing
Criteria A: Personal Engagement
2/2
0
1
2
Criteria Strands
A.1Evidence of personal engagement and independent thinking
Excellent
A.2Justification and personal significance
Excellent
A.3Personal input and initiative
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
Vivid cultural connection to cricket and seven-year club experience demonstrating clear personal engagement
Investigation choice and design driven by student’s own performance goals, showing sustained independent thinking throughout
Limited reflection on how the findings inform the student’s broader personal or academic growth
Could include more personal narrative on challenges encountered during data collection
1.1·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The student’s vivid cultural connection to cricket and 7-year club experience enhances personal engagement and shows independent thinking throughout the investigation.
Criteria B: Exploration
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
B.1Research question focus and relevance
Excellent
B.2Background information quality
Good
B.3Methodology appropriateness
Moderate
B.4Safety and ethical considerations
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
Research question is fully focused, specifying IV, DV, population, and measurement method
Comprehensive safety and ethical considerations (detailed PAR-Q, environmental and consent controls)
Extensive control list demonstrating high methodological planning
Background material is mainly appropriate, linking literature findings to the investigation’s hypothesis
Method does not include counterbalancing of static vs dynamic conditions or justification of timing error margins
Background relies in part on non-peer-reviewed sources and speculative application of boxing studies to cricket
2.1·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The research question explicitly identifies the independent variable, dependent variable, population, and measurement, demonstrating strong focus and relevance.
2.2·Suggestion
Page 1• Click to view
Background relies on non-peer-reviewed sites and speculative links; incorporate more sport-science journal sources and strengthen justification of relevance.
2.3·Suggestion
Page 2• Click to view
While noting the boxing study’s limitation, discuss how differences in skill demands between boxing and cricket may affect hand-eye coordination outcomes.
2.4·Suggestion
Page 2• Click to view
Definitions of static and dynamic stretching are adequate, but dependence on general health websites reduces academic rigor; consider peer-reviewed sport-science sources.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 2• Click to view
The Ellison Paul study is relevant, but its direct application to pre-performance stretching should be elaborated to better link it to your research question.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 4• Click to view
No counterbalancing of trial order is described; randomizing the sequence of static and dynamic conditions would reduce order effects.
2.7·Strength
Page 4• Click to view
The controlled variables section is exceptionally thorough, demonstrating clear methodological planning to minimize confounding factors.
2.8·Strength
Page 5• Click to view
The confounding variables list is well-constructed, evidencing awareness of environmental and personal factors beyond control.
2.9·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
The method for static and dynamic exercise types should clearly define both exercises; currently only planks are specified for static stretches.
2.10·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
Procedure lacks random assignment of stretch conditions; counterbalancing the order would reduce potential sequence bias.
Criteria C: Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
C.1Raw data quality and quantity
Excellent
C.2Data processing and accuracy
Good
C.3Consideration of measurement uncertainty
Moderate
C.4Data interpretation and conclusion validity
Good
Criteria Feedback
Raw data are comprehensive (270 data points) with clear units and no missing entries
Statistical processing (means, standard deviations, t-test) is appropriate and largely accurate
Interpretation is broadly valid and detailed, with plausible explanations for anomalies
Consideration of measurement uncertainty is limited (no propagation calculations or confidence intervals)
Some inconsistencies in rounding and lack of formal justification for choice of unpaired vs paired t-test
3.1·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The hypothesis is clear but would be stronger if you explicitly stated both null and alternative hypotheses for statistical testing.
3.2·Weakness
Page 6• Click to view
The equipment list specifies “130g ± 0.15 mg,” which is inconsistent; change “mg” to “g” to accurately reflect mass precision.
3.3·Strength
Page 7• Click to view
Raw data in Table 1 is comprehensive and supports detailed analysis, meeting high standards for data quality.
3.4·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
Participant 7’s average of 11 catches under dynamic stretching is a clear outlier; discuss its impact or consider robust measures to address it.
3.5·Suggestion
Page 9• Click to view
The T-test description should specify degrees of freedom and justify whether a paired or unpaired test was used to validate appropriateness.
3.6·Weakness
Page 9• Click to view
The standard deviation formula lacks explicit definitions of symbols (e.g., clarify s, n, Σ); define each term for accuracy.
3.7·Suggestion
Page 9• Click to view
Graph 1 would benefit from error bars representing standard deviation to visually convey variability alongside the means.
3.8·Suggestion
Page 10• Click to view
Describe the statistical test software and steps taken (e.g., paired t-test on raw means) to improve transparency of analysis.
3.9·Suggestion
Page 11• Click to view
Interpreting SD in terms of variability is correct; consider discussing percentage error or confidence intervals to deepen uncertainty treatment.
Criteria D: Evaluation
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
D.1Conclusion relevance and support
Good
D.2Comparison to scientific context
Good
D.3Discussion of limitations and errors
Good
D.4Suggestions for improvement
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Conclusion directly addresses the research question and is supported by statistical findings
Relevant comparisons to multiple scientific studies are correctly justified
Methodological limitations are clearly identified and their effects on data quality are well discussed
Suggestions for improvement are realistic but lack detailed implementation strategies (e.g., power analysis, recruitment matching)
4.1·Weakness
Page 10• Click to view
The conclusion introduces qualitative data (player/coach interviews) without outlining the qualitative methodology; include method details or separate qualitative findings.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 11• Click to view
Limitations are well identified, but future improvement suggestions lack implementation details; specify recruitment strategy, power analysis or protocol adjustments.
4.3·Strength
Page 11• Click to view
Highlighting the use of a no-stretch baseline is a major strength, providing a clear reference for evaluating both static and dynamic stretch effects.
4.4·Suggestion
Page 12• Click to view
Discussing the small sample size is appropriate; conducting a statistical power analysis would strengthen justification for future participant numbers.
4.5·Strength
Page 12• Click to view
In-depth discussion of weather and environmental factors shows strong methodological awareness of uncontrollable influences on data quality.
4.6·Suggestion
Page 12• Click to view
The recommendation to standardize participant characteristics is realistic; including specific recruitment criteria or matching procedures would enhance reliability.
Criteria E: Communication
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
E.1Clarity of presentation
Good
E.2Structure and organization
Excellent
E.3Focus and relevance
Good
E.4Use of terminology and conventions
Good
Criteria Feedback
Report is well structured with logical IB-style sections and appropriately labeled figures
Use of subject-specific terminology is correct with only minor errors
Presentation impeded by typographical artifacts and dense paragraphs reducing clarity
Inconsistencies in table/graph numbering, caption placement, and unit notation affect conciseness
5.1·Weakness
Page 1• Click to view
The phrase “hand-eve coordination” is a typographical error; please correct it to “hand-eye coordination” to maintain professionalism.
5.2·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
Re-stating the research question verbatim is redundant; consider removing the repetition here to maintain conciseness.
5.3·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The neuroscience discussion is thorough but dense; breaking into shorter sentences or bullet points would enhance clarity and reader engagement.
5.4·Suggestion
Page 4• Click to view
The age control description is overly verbose; condense the rationale to improve readability and avoid redundancy.
5.5·Suggestion
Page 5• Click to view
The discussion of wall material elasticity is informative but could be shortened to focus on its direct impact on rebound speed.
5.6·Strength
Page 6• Click to view
Figure 1 clearly illustrates the alternate hand-wall toss, supporting readers’ understanding of the procedure.
5.7·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
The caption for Table 1 appears below the table; placing captions above tables is standard practice to guide interpretation.
5.8·Weakness
Page 7• Click to view
Inconsistent mathematical symbols (τ, overline) and missing standard notation in Table 1 may confuse readers; standardize notation throughout.
5.9·Weakness
Page 8• Click to view
Graph and table numbering are inconsistent across sections; aligning labels (Table 2, Table 3, Graph 1) will improve organization and navigation.
5.10·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
Include units alongside average catch rates in Tables 2 and 3 (e.g., catches per 30 s) to improve clarity for the reader.
5.11·Suggestion
Page 10• Click to view
The conclusion is overly verbose; summarizing key findings succinctly will maintain focus and enhance readability.
