Internal Assessment

HL and SL candidates both have the same internal assessment requirements.  They must carry out a replication of a published study and then write an 1800 - 2200 word report, including an introduction, exploration of the methodology, analysis of results and an evaluation of their process.

This section contains sample IA's, tips for organizing the IA, guidance for statistics and analysis of results and guidance for how to write each of the required sections.

All materials on this website are for the exclusive use of teachers and students at subscribing schools for the period of their subscription. Any unauthorised copying or posting of materials on other websites is an infringement of our copyright and could result in your account being blocked and legal action being taken against you.

Comments 18

-- This comment has been deleted --

Chandana Bhandari 27 January 2018 - 16:35

glad to hear that. Yes all three studies were looking at the same premise

Tayyba Qureshi 28 April 2018 - 13:30

Hi John,
Many thanks for the sample for the IA on levels of processing they are very helpful. I am in my first year of teaching IB Psychology. What experiment would you say are the most popular to use? Some teachers have been saying Loftus and Palmer and others Stroop effect. Is there a particular one which is highly recommended?

John Crane 29 April 2018 - 05:32

Dear Tayyba

There are several. You can find my IA Menu under Internal Assessment. These are some of the most commonly done IA's.

Sara Dean 11 May 2018 - 09:32

Hi John,

With the new IA, it doesn't make mention that citations, titles, etc. are not included in the word count. Am I to assume those items are not counted?

Should students cite where they got background information (theory information) and the cite they used to calculate the stats and also their Loftus and Palmer video? In the past, I have had students include these in the works cited, but in some of the samples the only item cited is the original study.

Finally, should they mention, within the text where their resources are in the appendix as they used to have to do? For example, in the procedure, when they talk about distributing the Informed Consent form, do they then have to put (see appendix i)?

I always appreciate your help. You have been a life saver for me these past could years as I get a firmer and firmer grasp on the IB.

Sara

John Crane 11 May 2018 - 10:21

Dear Sara

Yes, you should assume that they are not included in the word count. They should cite where they accessed the original study. Most often, this is secondary citation. That is totally fine and actually expected. They do not need to cite their statistics program, but they should put a printout of the results in an appendix. Yes, they should cite the video. And yes, they should reference the appendices whenever necessary.

Glad I am able to help! I am especially happy that Inthinking now emails me when people post on the forum! It has made my job a lot easier!

Sara Dean 14 May 2018 - 16:51

Thanks John, as always. One more follow up question. If students are writing about a theory and they got the information from me in class (which comes from a variety of sources), does this need to be cited? In many samples I have seen in the past few years, that information hadn't been cited.
Many, many thanks,
Sara

John Crane 15 May 2018 - 05:04

Dear Sara

The IB is really cracking down on citation. They are no longer assessed on citation; if they lack citation, they may be flagged for academic dishonesty. I would make sure that they have some citation for their theory.

Sara Dean 15 May 2018 - 07:14

Ok, thank you!

Jessica Brown 16 July 2018 - 04:06

Hi John,

I am a first time IB psych teacher. I'm just wondering if the following studies are appropriate for replication? Loftus and Palmer (1974) even though it is popular, Glanzer & Cunitz (1966) and Landry and Bartling (2011)?

Thanks so much!

Jess

John Crane 17 July 2018 - 07:20

Dear Jess, yes, all of these are fine, but should be simplified to one IV and one DV.

Jessica Brown 17 July 2018 - 23:14

Thankyou !

Jessica Brown 20 July 2018 - 05:24

Hi John,

Just wondering, for students who choose to replicate Tversky and Kahneman (1981) framing effects, is it recommended that they split participants into two groups (e,g, condition 1 will examine whether more Ss choose program 1 and condition 2 will examine whether more Ss choose program B)? E.g. the same methodology as Tversky and Kahneman's original but could change the scenario to suit school aged students?

If so, I am unsure of what statistical analysis they will use?

Thankyou again!!

Jess

John Crane 22 July 2018 - 18:59

Dear Jessica

Yes, I think that it would be totally appropriate to change the context and this would be part of the justification of their materials. They would have to use a chi squared for the results as the data will be nominal.

Tripti Rathore 17 August 2018 - 16:57

Dear John,
What all strengths can be added for Loftus and Palmer (1974) which are considered specific to the IA

John Crane 18 August 2018 - 06:35

Dear Tripti,

I am sorry but there is no answer to that question. Students should apply their own critical thinking about how they did their own replication. The IA is not about evaluating the original study, but about their own method, sample and materials.

Sandra Shepley 24 September 2018 - 13:28

Hi John,
Thank you for your continued support with this. I am new to teaching IB Pscyhology and therefore new to the IA. One group is doing Loftus and Palmer - the video they showed was 9 seconds long and not the 1 minute as in the original study. Their results accepted the null hypothesis (unlike the orginial). How do they go writing about this result? Or should they redo the expereiment with a different group using the original video?

John Crane 24 September 2018 - 14:01

Dear Sandra

It is fine that they did not have significant results. This often makes it easier for them to evaluate their own work. No need to redo it.