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

Personal narrative in the background shows genuine curiosity and self-motivation, reflecting strong personal engagement.

Practical recommendations for coaches show insightful real-world application, demonstrating personal engagement.

The research question clearly specifies the target population and context, enhancing relevance to the investigation.

Refine “to what extent” by defining a specific, quantifiable change in accuracy (e.g. percentage decrease) to tighten focus.

Background omits discussion of key biomechanical factors in shooting technique; include a concise summary of relevant kinematics literature.

Hypothesis and null hypothesis are clearly stated but could be formalized with H₀ and H₁ notation for statistical clarity.

Controlled variable table is comprehensive and demonstrates thoughtful experimental design.

Consider adding a note on how you will verify participants’ adherence to diet and sleep instructions.

Recognition of motivation, diet, and sleep as confounders shows methodological awareness.

Ethical section mentions PAR-Q but omits first-aid and hydration protocols—add explicit safety mitigation.

Procedure clearly outlines steps, demonstrating replicability of the experiment.

Running until Borg stage 9 yields variable circuit distances and undermines method consistency—standardize running distance or use heart rate.

Preliminary trial of one subject is a useful pilot but cannot support conclusions—plan mini‐sample of at least 3 for trial.

Interpretation of the pilot result overstates reliability; acknowledge the single‐subject limitation in your discussion.

Raw data table has formatting anomalies (blanks, overlines) that compromise clarity—ensure uniform numeric entries.

Methodology rationale clearly explains each mathematical process, linking purpose to investigation context.

Change table of shot changes uses notation (overlines) that obscures participant IDs—use plain numbers for ease of analysis.

Include estimates of measurement uncertainty propagation when calculating mean and SD for fuller quantitative rigour.

Mean calculation omits four data points; double-check sum and divisor to ensure accuracy of $-1.0525$ value.

Student correctly interprets negative mean change to indicate fatigue’s effect, demonstrating valid data interpretation.

Coefficient of variation result is negative; interpret absolute dispersion or use absolute mean to avoid sign confusion.

T-test calculation lacks stated degrees of freedom and significance threshold; include $df$ and $\alpha$ to contextualize $t=0.0813$.

Graph interpretation overlooks non-significant t-test; acknowledge this in the discussion to avoid overclaiming significance.

Recommendation to add a non-fatigued control group is valid; expand by outlining specific control protocol.

Strength section highlights large sample and repeated measures, reinforcing data reliability.

Physiological explanation of central fatigue is detailed and well-linked to results, showing strong evaluation.

Conclusion overstates negative effect without addressing statistical insignificance; temper claims to reflect $p>0.05$ result.

Change “effect the shooting accuracy” to “affect shooting accuracy” to use correct terminology.

Several sentences are lengthy and run-on, hindering clarity; break into shorter paragraphs and check punctuation.

The “feeding the chicken” and “closing the gate” items are unclear—use standard exercise terminology to maintain professionalism.

Table layout is cluttered; align text consistently and reduce cell overflow to improve readability.

The formula presentation is clear and student justifies each test appropriately, showing analytical understanding.

In Graph 1.5 label, “1.5” appears inexact; ensure consistent numbering (Graph 1.1 or 1.2) and clear axis titles.

Conclusion is lengthy and includes new recommendations; consider focusing on summarizing key findings and relocating recommendations to evaluation.