This document provides examiner marks and comments for an SL internal assessment (IA). The student received a total of 18 out of 25 marks, placing their work at a level 6. To achieve a level 7, the student should have provided more evidence, such as financial or quantitative data, to demonstrate the business growth implied by the research question. Several criteria received lower marks because the analysis and conclusions did not fully address the impact on business growth or show this impact was definitively positive. Minor presentation issues were also noted.
This document provides examiner marks and comments for an SL internal assessment (IA). The student received a total of 18 out of 25 marks, placing their work at a level 6. To achieve a level 7, the student should have provided more evidence, such as financial or quantitative data, to demonstrate the business growth implied by the research question. Several criteria received lower marks because the analysis and conclusions did not fully address the impact on business growth or show this impact was definitively positive. Minor presentation issues were also noted.
This document provides examiner marks and comments for an SL internal assessment (IA). The student received a total of 18 out of 25 marks, placing their work at a level 6. To achieve a level 7, the student should have provided more evidence, such as financial or quantitative data, to demonstrate the business growth implied by the research question. Several criteria received lower marks because the analysis and conclusions did not fully address the impact on business growth or show this impact was definitively positive. Minor presentation issues were also noted.
This document provides examiner marks and comments for an SL internal assessment (IA). The student received a total of 18 out of 25 marks, placing their work at a level 6. To achieve a level 7, the student should have provided more evidence, such as financial or quantitative data, to demonstrate the business growth implied by the research question. Several criteria received lower marks because the analysis and conclusions did not fully address the impact on business growth or show this impact was definitively positive. Minor presentation issues were also noted.
Criterion A 3 4 Criterion B 4 5 Criterion C 3 5 Criterion D 2 3 Criterion E 2 4 Criterion F 2 2 Criterion G 2 2 Total 18 25
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 supporting 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.
