Internal Assessment

This section of the site is dedicated to support for the internal assessment [IA]. In addition to guidelines for setting up and carrying out the IA, there are materials to help students monitor their own progress, tips for assessing the drafts, ideas for studies to replicate, and samples of good papers.

To access the entire contents of this site, you need to log in or subscribe to it..

Click the free stuff button on the home page to access free pages or check the blog (which is also free).

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 22

Danyelle Cawood 18 October 2017 - 06:13

Hi John
I am about to start my IAs with my class. Thank you for your resources on the IA (although I could not open the power points you have - any suggestions on that?). I mainly have SL students so I was wanting to ask how close to replication do SL students need to be. I am giving them the choice between Loftus & Palmer 1974, Craik & Tulving 1975 and Peterson & Peterson 1959. For example we don't know what other questions were asked in the L & P study besides the critical questions, can SL students therefore create some other relevant questions to embed the critical one in or they should just ask the one critical question? (As can be seen in your sample 2 SL IA). For P & P do students have to use trigrams and if so can they make up their own list of trigrams and make up own list of numbers as I cant find the original. For C & T can SL students do structural - (words are presented in upper or lower case) and asked if it was in capitals and semantic - they ask the participant to put the word in to a sentence (which is slightly different from the study)? And do they have to do the same number of words - 40 words? This class is doing the old version of the course. I would appreciate your comments. Thank you

John Crane 19 October 2017 - 04:50

Dear Danyelle

Do you mean that you couldn't download the ppts or that you cannot open them? If you cannot open them, do you have the newest version of ppt?

You do not have to do an exact replication. Your students will design their own materials, so it does not matter that they do not have the original questions asked in the L & P study or the trigrams from P & P. All of your modifications to the original studies are totally fine.

Danyelle Cawood 22 October 2017 - 00:26

Thanks John for the feedback and I have now managed to open and save the powerpoints. Danyelle

Erin Townley 21 November 2017 - 16:08

Hi John

I have a student replicating Tversky and Kahneman's 1973 study on the availability heuristic. My student has her IV defined as the fame of the male names in a list of 20 female names and 19 male names (so in one group the male names are famous, and in the other they are not) but she is having issues defining a single DV that accurately reflects the aim of the original study. Just recording the number of male names recalled doesn't seem adequate because the original study also incorporated asking participants if they thought there were more male or female names in the list. That follow up question seems important for the aim of the study, but my student can't find a way to combine the answer to that question and the number of names recalled into a single measurable DV.

Do you have any suggestions for how to get a "good" DV for this study?

Thank you!

John Crane 21 November 2017 - 18:16

I am not sure that there is a "good" way to clarify this. Isn't it simply the perception of which list is longer?

Erin Townley 21 November 2017 - 20:10

But is it ok to have a binary DV like that? I've always tried to get them to have a more measurable DV

John Crane 22 November 2017 - 19:58

Erin, you are right that they need to have an operationalized DV. The perception of which list is longer has to be operationalized so that their "guess" of the length of the list would be the DV.

Steven Morris 26 November 2017 - 07:16

Hi John,
Thanks for all of the above information. SO helpful. I'm afraid I have another question for you...
In my SL class we are currently onto writing the results section and a few issues have come up with the replication of Kahneman and Tversky (1973) as it produces only nominal data (as pps choose either list 1 or list 2).
Would it be OK if I advise these students to simply state the mode / give percentages and explain why a measure of dispersion is not possible with this level of measurement?
You say in your textbook that studies which produce nominal data at SL are "not advised". Here's hoping that this doesn't mean to say that they shouldn't be done at all!
Thanks again,

John Crane 26 November 2017 - 17:13

Dear Steve,

The assessment rubic assesses them on their ability to discuss variability in the data - so they may be penalized for not having a true measure of variance - hence the comment about not using nominal data. This will go away in the new curriculum, but currently SL candidates may not apply inferential stats to compensate. They may try what you suggest, but they may lose marks for not meeting the demands of the assessment rubric.

Julie Wood 5 December 2017 - 18:28

Hi there-
I am brand new to teaching IB Psych and have some clarifications for the IA that I am really hoping you can help with. Our current program limits students to only two choices--Loftus and Palmer or Stroop.

Is there a list that opens it up more for students and still affirms that they will do well and it is a well suited choice.
I am overwhelmed and any support would be appreciated.

John Crane 6 December 2017 - 05:28

Dear Julie,

here is an example of a list of studies students could replicate:

Tracy Campbell 14 December 2017 - 20:44

Hi John - I have students who are doing the Chameleon Effect for an HL IA. The IV is presence (or not) of mannerism and the DV is frequency of mannerisms in the participants. They want to do repeated measures and have 2 minutes of an interview where they count the number of times the participant touches their face (with the interview in a neutral position) and then 2 minutes of the interviewer performing the face touching mannerism and counting how many times the participants mimic their face-touching. I am having trouble guiding students towards an inferential statistics test. Any advice/ideas?

John Crane 15 December 2017 - 05:03

Since it is repeated measures, you can use Wilcoxon signed ranks.

Ian Latham 20 December 2017 - 09:51

Explaining that he has reduced the 5 conditions in the original experiment to just 2 in the replication, a student has argued that this enabled him to increase the number of participants in each of the independent group conditions. Two questions due to uncertainty about explaining statistics:-

i. Is this an acceptable justification within an IA? (Regardless of whether it is not the most important or most relevant.)

ii. Supposing the explanation were worthwhile, how do we explain the effect of the larger number of participants on results? Does the increased number of participants mean that the results are 'more reliable' or 'more valid' or 'more credible'? Or should you refer directly to the size of the data set and the amount of variation?

John Crane 25 December 2017 - 14:36

Dear Ian

As the requirement for only two levels of the IV in the current curriculum is set by the IB, I am not sure that this type of justification is required. I think that the justification of which two conditions would make more sense. In the case of Loftus, it would make more sense to choose "bump" and "smashed" than "bump" and "collided."

It all depends on how large the sample actually is. If the sample is the typical 20 participants total, then I would not attempt to make this claim. If the sample is significantly larger, then perhaps this could argue that the data is more reliable, but the level of variation is a better indication of the reliability of the data.

Erin Townley 12 January 2018 - 16:24

Hi John,
Will an HL student automatically get 0 pts in the Participants section if they have no target population?

John Crane 13 January 2018 - 14:23

No. There has been a lot of discussion of this, especially because it is not part of the assessment rubric. If the student has described the sample well, they should include the population from which the sample was drawn. The most that they could get marked down is to a "1."

Margrethe Hall Christensen 16 January 2018 - 08:40

Hi John! I am a teacher new to this course who have had to take over a class midway. Now my students are working on their IAs - which they started lasted year, and I wonder if replicating Loftus' study of whether estimating a car's speed depends on the verb used to describe a collision using four different verbs is ok. Or whether they should only compare the difference of estimations between two words. Thank you in advance for your answer!

Margrethe Hall Christensen 16 January 2018 - 09:05

Oh. I see that you have answered the question higher up here. What should my students do when they have already done the experiment and calculations - with four words? They can of course only look at two of the words, but then the number of participants will be very low.

John Crane 17 January 2018 - 19:42

Dear Margrethe - How low is "very low?" Even if they used four words, each condition should have at least 10 participants. If that is the case, then they are fine. If, however, they have significantly lower than that, it would be best for them to redo the data collection.

SREEJITH A.P 18 January 2018 - 06:20

Dear sir,
Do we have any cover sheet for IA and EE for the submission (May 2018)?

John Crane 18 January 2018 - 15:21

They should have a title page with their title, word count, session (May 2018) and date of submission. If they have their identification code, they may include that as well.

To post comments you need to log in. If it is your first time you will need to subscribe.