SL Sample A
01_SL_IA_A_BM_en.pdfExaminer comments
A very good SL IA that is clearly worth a level 7. Only minor aspects could have been better (especially for B).
Criterion A – Supporting documents
The five supporting documents are all recent and relevant, they are sufficiently in-depth and from a range of sources. The views they present are arguably varied enough to justify 4 marks; the teacher had awarded “only 3” but did not explain why (there was no comment and annotation on the IA); the moderator decided to raise this mark from 3 to 4 as it is not clear what else could have been provided here, for example what sort of other SD would have been needed to score higher.
Criterion B – Choice and application of tools, techniques and theories
A range of tools and concepts that are very well applied, notably SWOT and ratios; only minor aspects could have been better (for 5 marks), such as a) comparison over some years for some of the ratios in order to identify trends or patterns, or b) some inaccuracies in the SWOT where some opportunities are internal.
Criterion C – Use and analysis of data and integration of ideas
To quote the descriptor for 4 marks: “There is an appropriate selection of data from the supporting documents with good analysis and some integration of ideas.” A mark of 5 could have been considered by the teacher, who nonetheless did not do so; the moderator’s job is to agree with the teacher’s marks unless they have strong reasons to disagree, which is not the case here, so 4 stayed unchanged.
Criterion D – Conclusions
The conclusion page 9 answers the question very clearly, recapping the key points without adding new elements.
Criterion E – Evaluation
There is evidence of evaluation all along (for example in the section “customer and competition analysis” on page 8: “the risk is enhanced by… this is due to…”). The teacher awarded 3 and the moderator agreed, although a mark of 4 could have been considered.
Criterion F – Structure
Logical structure, easy to follow.
Criterion G – Presentation
In particular: very well referenced (see all footnotes).
SL Sample B
02_SL_IA_B_BM_en.pdfExaminer comments
With a mark of 18, this SL IA is a level 6; it is really good but for a level 7 some gaps should have been avoided, notably providing (financial, quantitative) evidence of the business growth (as implied by the research question).
Criterion A – Supporting documents
Three suporting documents meeting the time frame; relevant sections were translated (for example see pages 9 and 10).
Criterion B – Choice and application of tools, techniques and theories
The tools, theories and techniques are suitably applied, with correct use of subject terminology (internal growth, product portfolio, niche market, Ansoff for product development, cannibalism, etc). 4 marks is “best fit” as the commentary needed to address the latter part of the research question about “impact on the business in terms of growth” for top band; this phrase would imply financial calculations.
Criterion C – Use and analysis of data and integration of ideas
Simple, straightforward analysis in response to the research question; having more supporting documents with financial information may have helped score higher. 3 marks is “best fit” again as the analysis is “satisfactory”.
Criterion D – Conclusions
The conclusion page 5 needed more to support the judgement (the “seems to have had a positive effect” becomes “undeniably positive”, this was not really shown in the commentary); adding new information in the conclusion (for example about external growth and the planned conglomeration with Kaiku) can be confusing and should be avoided.
Criterion E – Evaluation
Some of the judgements are substantiated, for example about the Ansoff matrix (page 4) but the candidate never really shows the positive impact in terms of growth (although they just kept restating it).
Criterion F – Structure
The structure is appropriate and quite easy to follow.
Criterion G – Presentation
Very well presented (see footnotes); minor points could have been better (for example some missing page numbers and the whole page 6 is left blank) however overall the presentation is worth 2 marks, not 1.
SL Sample C
IA SL Sample 2.pdf