The effect of arm swing condition (no arms, restricted arms, normal arms, exaggerated arms) on heart rate (bpm) during 5 minutes of treadmill running at 10 km h⁻¹ in adolescents aged 14–16 years.SL
Loading scores...
6
Official IB Result
IB Grade: 6
Criteria A: Research design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Research question context
Excellent
A.2Methodological considerations
Excellent
A.3Reproducibility of methodology
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student framed a focused and scientifically appropriate question with clear variables, population, speed, and duration.
- The student explained a wide range of methodological choices, including controls, randomisation, repeated measures, safety, and participant selection.
- The student established relevant scientific context and used prior research to justify why the investigation matters.
- Some controls are described as though they were achieved, but the report does not fully show that they were actually secured.
- A few methodological details needed for full reproducibility are still missing or too vague, especially around the exact arm positions and the resistance-band setup.
- The fitness-matching and recovery procedures are sensible but not tightly operationalised enough to eliminate ambiguity.
Criteria B: Data analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Communication of data
Excellent
B.2Consideration of uncertainties
Good
B.3Processing quality
Poor
Criteria Feedback
- The student presents the raw and processed data clearly, with a traceable path from repeated trials to participant means and group summaries.
- The student shows genuine awareness of uncertainty by stating instrument precision, reporting SD and CoV, and examining the impact of an anomalous participant.
- The student's tables and graph make the overall pattern readable and the data interpretation reasonably accessible.
- The inferential statistics contain important inconsistencies, including a mismatch between the described test and the spreadsheet formula.
- The reported p-values are not convincingly supported by the paired participant data shown, which weakens the reliability of the significance claims.
- The treatment of uncertainty is only partial, because it does not fully separate measurement uncertainty from biological variation or validate the inferential outcomes.
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Relevance and support
Moderate
C.2Scientific context comparison
Good
C.3Practical implications
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Criteria D: Evaluation
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Weaknesses and limitations
Excellent
D.2Improvements
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
- Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
- Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
- Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.