IB Sports Science IA: Designing a Strong Investigation

You have an idea for your IB Sports, Exercise and Health Science Internal Assessment. Perhaps you want to investigate reaction time, throwing accuracy, heart rate recovery or the relationship between movement and performance.

But how do you turn an interesting sports question into a scientific investigation?

You might have access to a smartphone, stopwatch and school sports equipment, but not expensive motion capture systems or laboratory testing devices.

The good news is that a strong IB SEHS IA does not require sophisticated equipment. It requires a focused research question, an appropriate method, reliable measurements and scientifically justified conclusions.

The revised SEHS syllabus, first assessed in May 2026, places greater emphasis on scientific inquiry across exercise physiology, biomechanics and sports psychology.

This guide explains the current assessment criteria and demonstrates how to design a feasible, ethical investigation using affordable equipment.

What Is the IB SEHS IA?

The International Baccalaureate introduced the revised Sports, Exercise and Health Science course for first teaching in August 2024 and first assessment in May 2026.

Students at both Standard Level and Higher Level complete an individual scientific investigation.

According to the official SEHS guide, the IA has the following requirements.

Requirement	Current SEHS IA
Assessment task	Individual scientific investigation
Weighting	24% at SL and HL
Maximum marks	24
Maximum report length	3,200 words
Recommended IA time	10 hours
Assessment	Teacher assessed, externally moderated by the IB

The research question must be developed by the student.

Students may investigate a problem through practical experiments, fieldwork, simulations, modelling or suitable existing datasets.

The investigation must involve quantitative data, supported by qualitative observations where relevant.

These requirements apply to the revised course rather than the older SEHS assessment model.

Understand the Four SEHS IA Assessment Criteria

The current scientific investigation uses four equally weighted criteria.

Criterion	Maximum marks	Main focus
Research design	6	Focused question, relevant methodology and justified decisions
Data analysis	6	Accurate processing, clear presentation and treatment of uncertainty
Conclusion	6	Evidence-supported findings, scientific context and practical implications
Evaluation	6	Specific limitations, their effects and justified improvements
Total	24

The official guide's assessment descriptors establish an important priority.

Half of the available marks are awarded for the conclusion and evaluation.

Collecting data is therefore only one part of the investigation.

Students must also interpret what the results mean for human health or performance and assess how confidently those results can be used.

Choose a Topic From the Three Revised Syllabus Themes

The IB SEHS curriculum contains three major themes.

Exercise physiology and nutrition of the human body examines physiological responses, communication between body systems, hydration and nutrition.

Biomechanics explores movement, forces, mechanical relationships and injury-related principles.

Sports psychology and motor learning investigates motivation, individual differences, stress, psychological skills and motor performance.

Each theme offers opportunities for student investigations.

However, some topics are more practical than others in a school environment.

Compare Realistic SEHS IA Investigation Ideas

The following are original research directions, not approved IA titles.

Theme	Possible investigation	Accessible equipment	Main feasibility issue
Exercise physiology	Relationship between a standardised low-intensity activity and heart rate recovery	Heart rate monitor, timer	Individual fitness differences and exercise safety
Biomechanics	Relationship between release angle and the horizontal distance of a soft projectile	Smartphone camera, measuring tape	Accurate angle measurement
Biomechanics	Changes in movement technique across repeated attempts	Smartphone video, markers	Camera angle and reliable movement measurements
Sports psychology	Effect of attentional instructions on target-throwing accuracy	Beanbags, target, measuring tape	Order effects and variation between participants
Motor learning	Changes in task accuracy across repeated practice sessions	Simple target game, recording sheet	Distinguishing temporary performance from learning

The strongest choice is not necessarily the most technically challenging.

It is the investigation for which you can obtain meaningful measurements, control relevant variables and explain the underlying science.

Avoid choosing a topic only because it appears on a list of high-scoring IA examples.

Turn a Broad Interest Into a Research Question

Consider this starting idea:

Does psychology affect sports performance?

This is too broad to test meaningfully.

A more focused direction is:

How do different attentional instructions affect accuracy during a standardised target-throwing task?

The question identifies an independent variable, a dependent variable and a measurable performance context.

A provisional research question could be:

"How does an external attentional focus instruction, compared with an internal attentional focus instruction, affect mean target-throwing error in a group of consenting students aged 16 or older?"

This is an original hypothetical question.

It would need refinement through a pilot study and teacher approval before becoming an actual IA investigation.

Worked Example: Attentional Focus and Throwing Accuracy

Attentional focus is relevant to the sports psychology and motor learning theme.

An internal focus directs attention towards body movements.

An external focus directs attention towards an intended movement outcome.

A simple investigation could compare performance under these two instruction conditions.

For example:

Internal instruction: "Concentrate on moving your throwing arm smoothly."

External instruction: "Concentrate on making the beanbag land at the centre of the target."

The student investigates whether the instruction condition is associated with a difference in immediate throwing accuracy.

This study would not establish long-term motor learning unless retention was tested over an appropriate period.

Identify the Independent, Dependent and Controlled Variables

A strong methodology defines what changes, what is measured and what should remain consistent.

Variable type	Example
Independent variable	Internal or external attentional instruction
Dependent variable	Distance from the target centre in centimetres
Controlled variable	Throwing distance
Controlled variable	Beanbag mass and type
Controlled variable	Target size and position
Controlled variable	Throwing technique and starting position
Controlled variable	Number of attempts and rest intervals

The dependent variable should be operationally defined.

For example, a student might measure the distance between the target centre and the point where the beanbag first lands.

A smaller distance indicates greater accuracy.

This is more informative than awarding an undefined score such as "good throw" or "bad throw."

The measurement procedure must be applied consistently.

Design a Repeatable, Low-Cost Procedure

A possible teacher-approved design could involve 12 consenting participants, each completing both instruction conditions.

Each participant could perform three familiarisation throws followed by ten recorded throws per condition.

Participants would use the same beanbag, target and throwing distance.

To reduce order effects, half could complete the internal condition first and half the external condition first, with order randomly allocated.

A standardised rest period would separate conditions.

The student would record the distance from the target centre for each attempt.

This design has several advantages.

Participants act as their own comparison, reducing the influence of some individual differences in throwing ability.

Counterbalancing helps reduce the risk that one condition consistently benefits from being performed second.

However, the design still has limitations.

Participants may improve through practice, remember earlier instructions or vary in how closely they follow the attentional cue.

A sample of 12 participants is an illustrative planning choice, not an IB minimum or a guarantee of sufficient statistical power.

A pilot test should establish whether the proposed number of participants and trials can produce useful data.

How to Process the Experimental Data

Suppose the student collects the following fictional summary results.

Condition	Illustrative mean target error
Internal attentional focus	23 cm
External attentional focus	18 cm

The difference between the condition means is:

[ 23-18=5\text{ cm} ]

In this fictional example, the external-focus condition produced a mean target error five centimetres smaller.

That is a descriptive finding.

It does not automatically demonstrate a statistically significant difference or establish that external instructions improve performance for every participant.

A stronger analysis would calculate each participant's mean error in each condition, examine the paired differences and report their variation.

Students could produce a graph comparing individual participant results or a plot of paired differences.

If an inferential statistical test is appropriate, its assumptions and limitations must be justified.

The choice of analysis should follow the dataset rather than an attempt to make the investigation appear advanced.

Understand Measurement Uncertainty

Data analysis in SEHS requires appropriate consideration of uncertainty.

For the throwing example, possible sources include:

• Limited precision when locating the centre of the beanbag's landing position.
• Inconsistent identification of the first contact point.
• Variation in the participant's starting position.
• Differences in throwing technique between attempts.

If a tape measure has millimetre markings, that does not mean the landing position can necessarily be determined to the nearest millimetre.

The overall precision depends on the measurement process.

Report a justified measurement uncertainty and use suitable units and significant figures.

Distinguish uncertainty in the measurement from biological variation between attempts and participants.

Those sources of variation may require different methods of analysis.

What Makes a Strong SEHS IA Conclusion?

The Conclusion criterion requires more than restating an average.

According to the official SEHS assessment guide, students should justify their findings using processed data, compare results with accepted scientific understanding and explain practical implications for health or performance.

For the fictional throwing investigation, a cautious conclusion might explain that the external-focus condition was associated with a lower mean target error in the observed sample.

The student should then examine the variation in paired results, uncertainty and relevant research on attentional focus.

A practical implication could involve how coaches phrase instructions during a simple motor task.

However, one short testing session would not establish that a particular instruction improves long-term skill learning.

The strength of the conclusion must match the strength of the evidence.

Evaluate Specific Limitations and Improvements

Criterion D rewards evaluation of methodological weaknesses and justified improvements.

Limitation	Possible effect	Targeted improvement
Practice effects	Participants may perform better during their second condition	Counterbalance condition order
Inconsistent instructions	Participants may interpret cues differently	Use standardised written instructions
Measurement inconsistency	Landing distances may contain additional error	Standardise the measurement method and check reliability
Small participant sample	Results may not represent a wider population	Recruit a larger suitable sample if feasible
Single testing session	Results reflect immediate performance rather than lasting learning	Add a delayed retention test for a revised learning-focused question

A weak evaluation might recommend repeating the experiment without explaining why.

A stronger evaluation identifies which weakness matters most and how a specific change could improve the validity or reliability of the investigation.

Not every limitation has the same impact.

For example, practice effects may be particularly important in a task where participants improve rapidly through repetition.

Follow IB Rules for Human Participants

SEHS investigations often involve human volunteers.

Ethical planning is therefore essential.

The IB sciences experimentation guidelines require teacher approval before experiments involving human participants.

The guidelines also specify written informed consent from participants.

For participants under 16, written parental or guardian consent is additionally required. Schools may apply stricter safeguarding requirements for all minors.

Moderate or vigorous physical activity investigations require appropriate health-readiness declarations.

Participants must not be pressured to participate or continue.

The guidelines prohibit administering substances such as drugs, supplements and caffeinated or energy drinks as experimental interventions, as well as experiments involving human body fluids.

Choose low-risk tasks, protect participant confidentiality and follow school safeguarding procedures.

An experiment that looks scientifically interesting is not suitable if it exposes participants to unnecessary risk.

Can Students Collaborate on the SEHS IA?

The revised course permits limited collaboration during the investigation process.

According to the IB curriculum update, students may work in small groups while developing methodology or collecting data.

The official guide limits collaborative groups to three students.

However, students must investigate individual research questions and use distinct data selections or variables as specified by the guide.

Every student writes an independent report.

Sharing identical raw data and submitting differently worded versions of the same analysis is not an acceptable substitute for independent investigation.

Discuss any collaborative design with the teacher before collecting data.

How to Structure the 3,200-Word Report

The IB does not prescribe a compulsory heading structure.

A practical report could contain:

1. Research question and scientific background.
2. Variables, methodology and ethical considerations.
3. Raw and processed data.
4. Mathematical or statistical analysis.
5. Conclusion and practical implications.
6. Evaluation of limitations and improvements.
7. References.

The report should explain methodological decisions rather than include unnecessary textbook content.

Use clearly labelled tables and graphs.

Cite published research and any externally sourced data.

Do not invent measurements, remove inconvenient observations without justification or claim that an experimental outcome was predicted correctly when the evidence does not support that statement.

Final IB SEHS IA Investigation Checklist

Before committing to a topic, confirm that:

1. Your research question identifies a measurable relationship.
2. Your method connects clearly to a revised SEHS syllabus theme.
3. The necessary equipment and participants are realistically available.
4. Independent, dependent and controlled variables are defined.
5. Safety and ethical requirements can be satisfied.
6. The dataset will be sufficient for meaningful analysis.
7. Measurement uncertainty can be evaluated.
8. Your conclusion can connect findings to accepted science and practical implications.
9. Your evaluation can identify specific limitations and improvements.

A strong IB SEHS IA is not defined by expensive equipment or complex experimental techniques.

It is defined by the quality of the scientific question, the reliability of the evidence and the reasoning used to interpret and evaluate the findings.

A simple investigation of movement, performance or motor learning can provide meaningful scientific depth when every methodological decision is justified.

Start with a feasible question, validate the method through a pilot study and build your investigation around what the evidence can genuinely establish.

For official guidance, consult the IB Sports, Exercise and Health Science curriculum, the revised SEHS updates and the SEHS subject guide.