enter!?

tus amigos

YOU ARE A MASSIVE LOSER

or... happy birthday!

winner winner chicken dinner + pathetic!

imagine losing our rigged perfectly fair game. embarrassing for you. im not really the best with messages (you know of my dreadful communication skills) but i hope this will suffice anyway. happy birthday! so i guess you can drive now but maybe dont. you could donate blood. you kinda unlock open world next year though so this is just a weird agethanks for being born i guess, you made the past 5 months of my life actually tolerable at times. you are definitely a human being, and sometimes even an adequate one. i hope you have a decent year, and that everything treats you kindly. life is shit and ib is shit but whenever you feel down ill be there. not to comfort you just to feel bad in tandem lolsorry for all the stupid shit i did. keep being my friend so i have to renew the domain next year. :-)

• nigel's page ඞ

productivity!

school stuff:
3.6.25 is ee draft
24.6.25 is psychology ia final
28.6.25 is maths ia draft

others:
spotify search 25 in whatsapp, link shouldnt expire

pass ib

• Email

against all odds i didnt kms and you didnt die tragically and stupidly

• i will make this more helpful eventually

you are not failing psychology i will not allow it
you are much better than gavin you can get an 8

• wip doc
• ia help

• ia feedback from jones + rubric

paragraph 1 is for theory– be very specific, specialised view
basically tl;dr schema theory then a focus on the impact of pre-activation, evidence of its existenceparagraph 2 is a description of the original study, just outline it; IV, participants, findings, condense it massively. also be specific to the IV we picked, dont talk about the other conditions or give too much detail. just “to test the effects of pre-activation of schema on memory”paragraph 3 is “the aim of …”, be very very clear and link it to the original study, specify relevance. relevance can either be in the real world (learning requires memory, IB winnem) or in psychology: how does knowing this get us closer to understanding the mind?then just: IV (describe image prior context and link it to appendix), explain why this is the IV; DV, give idea units “out of a maximum of 14” and marking criteria; research hypothesis (significantly more idea units recalled); null hypothesis (no significant difference between 2 conditions on quantity of information recalled)i dont know exactly how bad you are at psychology so ill just explain the rubric toothe aim of the investigation is stated and its relevance is explained → what are we doing? why are we doing it? how does the aim link to theory? the aim is to find out whether prior context enhances memory because teaching and learning, ib students yada yada and then talk about the theory specificallythe theory or model upon which the investigation is based is described and the link to the investigation is explained → summarise important points of original study, then talk about oursthe IV and DV are stated and operationalized in the null and research hypotheses → so stating is easy, be very clear with operationalising: accuracy of recall is stupid because its more like the quantity of information, hence the 14 units.

• exploration
• analysis
• evaluation

• ia feedback from jones + rubric

so heres the rubricthe research design is described & explained
the sampling technique is described & explained
characteristics of the participants are described & choice is explained
controlled variables are described & explained
the materials used or described & choice is explainedfor research design it was independent measures(what is this? all participants only participate in one condition) then explained why we picked it (fairly obvious it eliminates order and learning effects, they would remember the passage or image etc)sampling technique was opportunity/convenience sampling(what is this? non-probability sampling that takes participants who are just convenient, we picked students in our sixth form) and why did we do that (time constraints, more representative method outside of scope for ia)our participants had a 1:1 gender ratio so thats neat, all aged 15-18, for explaining choice you could just say well they can all speak english and can hear and are not blind. also link choice specifically to what we are doing: using young people specifically in a memory study = better memory also might be more relevant to students to improve memoryfor control variables & materials i didnt do this but jones suggested just bullet point the procedure, mention control variables & explain why theyre controlled (using 1 language limits ambiguity, recall is better if they understand; environment was largely devoid of stimulus and free of distractions, this means participant focus is relatively consistent; passage was the same, image given was the same; time permitted was 7 minutes so that it wouldnt be significant, less time might be stressful, no time pressure; time between hearing and recalling passage was very short so they wouldnt forget it immediately)explain all materials as well: signed consent form, well what is informed consent? why did we use it? give reasons for everything. describe briefing and debrief

• introduction
• analysis
• evaluation

• ia feedback from jones + rubric

i got basically no feedback on this because mine was fine so i assume yours will be too but heredescriptive and inferential statistics are appropriately and accurately appliedso you did the mann whitney (inferential). i feel like that will be without massive error. mention ordinal data meaning a T-test would be invalid, u value, critical value explained and put the source in the appendix. then descriptive statistics is just percentages and central tendency whatever this much you can probably dothe graph is correctly presented and addresses the hypothesisour graph is good but make sure the labels on the axis correlate to what you called the groups in your IV, maybe correct rectalled as well LOL.the statistical findings are interpreted with regard to the data and linked to the hypothesisstate findings very very clearly, h1 is accepted and h0 is rejected, how does the data confirm h1? context == better recall!!!

• introduction
• exploration
• evaluation

• ia feedback from jones + rubric

so you just have to:-state findings in context of theory
(we found the same thing as the original study, is it because of the existence or the activation of schema?, discuss pre-context as schema and its effectiveness, potential applications, what is still unknown? schema theory has no biological evidence, isnt falsifiable or directly observable, what does this mean for our study etc)
findings! theory! background!-strengths and limitations, modifications
-do not mention sample size or mr jones will nuke youdesign--
GOOD: independent measures is good at eliminating learning/practice effects (so study is valid), obviously the alternative would have been catastrophic to the results
BAD: individual differences mean maybe we accidentally made all the smart people have context. alternative could be having a test beforehand and matching pairs of people depending on their score on thatsampling--
GOOD: consent yippee + could discuss literally anything, we had very varied people which could be to the merit of the sample but also everyone was westernised
BAD: non probabilistic so another might have been betterprocedure--
GOOD: standardised (even if it wasnt just lie), controlled
BAD: recording for voice since clarity and speed may have varied + 3 people were reading itand here is the rubric for 5-6marksthe findings of the investigation are discussed with reference to the background theory or modelstrengths and limitations of the design, sample or procedure are stated and explained and relevant to the investigationmodifications are explicitly linked to the limitations of the investigation and fully justified

• introduction
• exploration
• analysis