IB Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) SL Internal Assessment Example

The student shows initiative by turning the personal interest into a testable investigation and using preliminary research to justify the meditation intervention. This is a stronger sign of engagement than simply choosing a topic for convenience.

The opening is effective because it clearly connects the investigation to the student’s own sporting experience. That personal link makes the topic feel purposeful rather than generic, and it helps explain why reaction time is a meaningful variable to the student.

The method relies heavily on a standard online reaction-time test with little evidence of independent design. To show more personal input, the student should explain why this specific test was chosen, how it was adapted, and what controls were added to improve validity.

The choice to test everyone again after a fixed 5-hour gap is not justified. The student should explain why this interval was selected and consider whether it actually reduces warming-up effects or instead introduces practice and fatigue effects.

The discussion here is mostly descriptive rather than independently analytical. The student should move beyond describing the chart and explain what the patterns mean in relation to the hypothesis, including whether the observed changes are large enough to matter.

What additional decisions could the student have made personally to strengthen the investigation, such as counterbalancing the order of conditions or controlling device type and test environment?

The student does well to connect meditation to focus and reduced stress rather than treating it as an unsupported idea. That makes the rationale for the independent variable more credible.

Including research on sex differences in reaction time is a relevant background choice because it directly supports the secondary hypothesis. This shows the student is trying to build a focused rationale rather than using unrelated sources.

The background section gives a clear definition of reaction time and links it to the research question. This helps establish the scientific context before the hypothesis is introduced.

The age-range justification is still quite general. The student should add a stronger scientific reason for why ages 16–18 are developmentalively relevant to reaction time, rather than only noting that the group is important for sports and driving.

How would the secondary hypothesis change if the student considered that gender differences might be smaller than the effect of practice or device latency?

The methodology still does not address safety and ethics clearly enough. The student should explicitly mention informed consent, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw, especially because the participants are minors aged 16–18.

The sampling and testing procedure is underdeveloped. The student should specify how participants were selected, whether the same participants completed both conditions, and how order effects were controlled so the method can actually test the question fairly.

The hypothesis is clear, but it would be stronger if the expected direction and basis were more precise. The student should state what change is predicted in measurable terms and explain why meditation should affect simple reaction time in this particular task.

The variables table identifies the independent, dependent, and controlled variables, but some controls are still too vague to be fully useful. The student should define them operationally, for example by stating exactly what counts as the same environment, device, posture, and timing conditions.

The research question is written clearly and includes the key variables and population. That precision helps the reader immediately understand what is being tested.

The use of section headings makes the report easy to navigate. The reader can quickly identify the major stages of the investigation and follow the argument in order.

The hypothesis would communicate more cleanly if the student avoided vague phrasing such as “This m...” and stated the expected direction in one complete, precise sentence. Clearer wording reduces ambiguity in the investigation design.

The variables table would be stronger if each controlled variable were written in a fully operational way. For example, the student could specify exact device type, environment, hand used, and posture so the controls are measurable.

Presenting the data in tables is effective because it allows the reader to inspect individual trials and averages without needing to infer them from the graphs alone.

This sentence becomes difficult to follow because it moves from one participant to another without clearly finishing the first point. The student should split long explanations into shorter, direct sentences so each claim is easier to track.

The heading uses inconsistent terminology compared with the rest of the report. The student should keep the same key term throughout so the reader does not have to guess whether the section refers to mediation or meditation.

The writing here contains a few grammatical and word-choice issues that reduce clarity, such as awkward sentence structure and imprecise reference to the participants. Tightening the phrasing would make the analysis read more professionally.

The phrase “tighter ranges” is too informal for a scientific evaluation. The student should use more precise language, such as comparing ranges, means, or standard deviations.

The final conclusion would be clearer if it explicitly restated the research question and summarised the main numerical finding. Right now, the wording is understandable, but not as concise or precise as it could be.