HL SAMPLE 1
HL Sample 1 Grading Notes
This was Scored 21 out of 28
This is an exemplary introduction. The introduction begins by setting up a context for the study, explaining why this field of study is relevant. The three studies are clearly related and they are well described. The aim is clearly stated with regard to the target population. The null and alternative hypotheses are correctly stated. Sources, however, are not correctly cited. That is not penalized here, but in the citation section, criterion H. 5 marks.
The design method is correctly identified and justified. The IV is correctly identified, but the DV is not. The DV is not "the number of participants" but rather which offer is chosen from the list. In addition, the student should refer to appendices when discussing the ethical considerations in order to provide evidence that they were met. The evidence is there, so marks should not be deducted. However, inadequate reference to the appendices is penalized in section H – report format. 1 mark
The sampling method is correctly identified and justified. Relevant traits of the sample are described, and how the participants were allocated to groups is clearly stated. 2 marks.
The procedure is clearly written and replicable. Materials are identified and available in the appendices. 2 marks.
E: Results: Descriptive
The level of data is identified, and thus the use of the mode is justified as the only viable descriptive statistic. The data are then represented as frequencies, and an appropriate graph, which is correctly labeled and reflects the hypothesis, is included. No measure of variance is mentioned. I would recommend that the student add that it is not possible to calculate variance on nominal data, and that is why it is important to apply inferential statistics. 2 marks.
F: Results: Inferential
A correct inferential statistic was applied and the null hypothesis was correctly rejected. The result should then be stated in the context of the hypothesis – that is, the decoy option had no effect on the participants’ choice of subscription. Any differences may be attributed to chance. 2 marks.
A very good discussion, but more reference to the results compared to the original results obtained by Ariely would make it even stronger. 6 marks.
Citation in the introduction is not correct. Though attempted, it does not meet the standard as no standard citation method is applied. 0 marks.
I: Report Format
The abstract meets the requirements as outlined in the assessment rubric. Inadequate reference to the appendices. 1 mark.
21/28 This IA receives a 6 under the current IB HL IA markbands. The markband for 6 is 18 – 21 marks.