Checklist for IA report
You cannot submit your IA report if:
The following details should be stated in the header of the report
Report should consist of following components
Appendices should include (note: they do not count towards the word count but should be kept to a minimum)
(note: if one of the main criteria is not present at all - missing, 0 points will be rewarded for whole section)
| Very good (5-6) | Good (3-4) | Average (1-2) | Missing (0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aim of investigation is stated | ||||
| Relevance for investigation is explained | (only identified) | |||
| Theory or model upon which the investigation is based is described | (only identified)(contains errors)(is incomplete) | |||
| Link of theory/model to student’s investigation is explained | ||||
| Independent and dependent variables are stated | ||||
| Independent and dependent variables are operationalized in the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis | (IV and DV stated, not correctly operationalized) |
| Yes | Not sure | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Have you explained why is this topic relevant to study? | |||
| Do you have enough details for the theory/model you are describing? | |||
| Do you have appropriate number of resources for the theory/model that you are describing? | |||
| Are your resources from peer-reviewed journals? | |||
| Have you searched scientific databases for the recent research articles connected to your topic? | |||
| Is every information properly referenced? | |||
| Are all important terms defined? | |||
| Is your investigation clearly connected to the described theory? | |||
| Is the aim of your study clear? (even for your grandmother?) | |||
| Have you stated whether alternative hypothesis is one-tailed or two-tailed? | |||
| Are null and alternative hypotheses clearly stated and are they clearly connected to the aim of the investigation? | |||
| Is independent (IV) and dependent variable (DV) operationalized? | |||
| Do you have only one IV and one DV? |
(note: if one of the main criteria is not present at all - missing, 0 points will be rewarded for whole section)
| Explained (3-4) | Described (1-2) | Missing (0) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The research design (experimental: independent samples/ repeated measures / matched pairs) | |||
| Including procedure | |||
| The sampling technique | |||
| Characteristics of the participants | |||
| Controlled variables | |||
| The materials (Including how exactly are IV and DV operationalized) |
| Yes | Not sure | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Have you clearly structured your exploration section? (e.g. Research design, Participants, Materials, Procedure, Controlled variables…) | |||
| Have you justified the decision of experimental design? | |||
| Have you explained how participants where allocated to conditions and justified its use? | |||
| Are relevant characteristics of participants described? | |||
| Have you stated if your experiment is single or double-blind? | |||
| Have you clearly operationalized independent and dependent variables when describing the materials used? | |||
| Are all materials referenced and present in the appendix? (including standardized instructions, debriefing notes, blank copy of informed consent…) | |||
| Have you explained how you controlled for extraneous variables? | |||
| Is it evident that you made thorough preparation before conducting the experiment so you didn’t do some mistake that could be avoided with this preparation? | |||
| Is the procedure so clearly described (or shown, e.g. by flow charts) so that every monkey (or examiner) could repeat it without the need to re-read the exploration section? | |||
| Is it clear that you followed the ethical principles? (eg. Informed consent, debriefing) |
(note: if one of the main criteria is not present at all - missing, 0 points will be rewarded for whole section)
| Very good (5-6) | Good (3-4) | Average (1-2) | Missing (0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate descriptive statistics is applied | ||||
| The graph is correctly and clearly presented | ||||
| Graph addresses the hypothesis | ||||
| Appropriate inferential statistics is applied | ||||
| Statistical findings are interpreted with regards to the data and linked to the hypothesis | ||||
| Clear statement of findings (ie. Rejecting or retaining the null hypothesis) |
| Yes | Not sure | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are raw (unprocessed) data available in the appendix? | |||
| Have you provided copy of calculations in the appendix? | |||
| Have you presented your main data RELEVANT for the hypothesis in table with clear description? | |||
| Have you stated the number of participants (eg. N=21) in the table and/or graph? | |||
| Is your graph clearly described, including labels? | |||
| Have you refered to the tables and graph in the text? | |||
| Do you have only one graph that is directly addressing the hypothesis? | |||
| Did you included only tables that are necessary and are needed for interpretation of the hypothesis? (don’t overuse the tables…) | |||
| Have you provided appropriate measure of central tendency (mean, median, mode…) regarding the nature of your data? | |||
| Have you provided appropriate measure of dispersion (standard deviation, range…) regarding the nature of your data? | |||
| Have you used appropriate inferential statistics? | |||
| Have you stated exact p-value (2-3 decimal places)? | |||
| Have you clearly stated the conclusion of inferential statistics (that is if null hypothesis is rejected or retained)? | |||
| Are results displayed concisely, precisely and effectively? | |||
| Did you refrain from interpreting results? (interpretation of the data should be done in evaluation section; analysis section should show hard data without over-interpreting what can it mean) |
(note: if one of the main criteria is not present at all - missing, 0 points will be rewarded for whole section)
| Very good (5-6) | Good (3-4) | Average (1-2) | Missing (0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Findings are discussed with reference to the background theory/model. | ||||
| Relevant strenghts of the research design and/or sample and/or procedure are discussed (stated and explained) | ||||
| Relevant limitations of the research design and/or sample and/or procedure are discussed | ||||
| Suggested modifications are explicitly linked to the limitations of the student’s investigation and fully justified. |
Important note regarding the relevant limitations of the method:
„The limitations of the method are those factors which are likely to have had an influence on the outcome of the experiment but could not have been avoided (human error or accidents and omissions that could easily have been avoided with a little foresight and planning are not acceptable as limitations)“ (IB guide)
| Yes | Not sure | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Have you compared your findings to the original study that you were replicating? | |||
| If your results were different from the original study, did you explain possible answers to why it happened? | |||
| Did you offer interpretations of the results connected to the original theory/model? | |||
| If possible, did you offer alternative interpretation of the results? | |||
| Have you explained several strenghts of your design, procedure and/or sample? | |||
| Have you explained several limitations of your design, procedure and/or sample? | |||
| Have you suggested possible modifications for the future replications of your study? | |||
| Are some suggested modifications based on the limitations identified above? | |||
| Have you given concluding statement regarding your hypotheses and aim of your investigation? |
May result in penalization if following criteria are not met
| Yes | Not sure | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the appendices clearly labeled and referenced in your IA report? | |||
| Are appendices complete? (materials used, standardized instructions, debriefing notes, informed consent statements empty sheet, empty participant response sheet, calculations, tables of raw data…) | |||
| Have you correctly referenced all the sources where needed? | |||
| Have you consistently used one referencing style (eg. APA)? | |||
| Have you included all used references and are all cited in the text of IA report? | |||
| Do the references to digital sources include URLs? | |||
| Are the references sorted alphabetically? | |||
| Did you use appropriate format (eg. Type 12 font, double spacing…) so the report is comfortable to read for the examiner? | |||
| Is everything what is needed included in the title page? (title, IB candidate code, IB candidate codes of other members in the group, date, month and year of submission, word count) | |||
| Is every information included in the section where it should be? (eg. Justification of research design in exploration section, not in introduction section; interpretation of the results with regards to the theory in Evaluation section, not in analysis section…) | |||
| Do you have word count between 1800-2200? (title page, graph and tables in analysis part, references after the main body and appendices do not count into the word count) |