Skip to Main Content

Concordian International School

Physics SL&HL: Internal Assessment

Internal Assessment

 

Descriptor

2
  • The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative and creativity
  • The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity
  • There is evidence of personal input and initiative in designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation

 

 

Remember in addition to the grade descriptor you must:

  • Give justification for choosing the research question and there must be more than one reference to personal interest
  • Show the topics under investigation demonstrate personal significance, interest and curiosity
  • Be evidence of personal input and initiative throughout the exploration
  • Combine syllabus content with personal interest
  • Be focused on the research topic
  • Be enthusiastic and passionate about the topic
  • Show some initiative in choosing the right simulation among various simulations which would help confirm the known equation (if you use a simulation)
  • Show evidence of significant thought implemented in your project
  • Show snapshots or drawings of experimental set-up and screen shots of data collection (from simulation if applicable)

 

Dos:

  1. Be an independent thinker by taking up self – initiative and applying creativity.
  2. Give justification for choosing the research question.
  3. The topic under investigation must demonstratepersonal significance, interest and curiosity.
  4. There must be evidence of personal input and initiative throughout the exploration.
  5. Combine syllabus content with personal interest.
  6. Be focussed on the research question.
  7. Be enthusiastic and passionate about the topic.
  8. If it revolves around a simulation, show some initiative in choosing the right simulation among various simulations which would help confirm the known equation.
  9. A lot of thought must be implemented into the project.
  10. It’s good to see a mathematical model being associated with a hands – on physics experiment; not necessarily though.
  11. There must be more than one or many references to personal interest.

Don’ts:

  1. There is little evidence of personal input or initiative.
  2. There is no genuine interest or curiosity for the research involved.
  3. There is only a slight personal connection to the topic.
  4. There is hardly one, two or any reference to personal engagement in the exploration.
  5. The design and method of the experimentation are straightforward and demonstrates no personal input/s.
  6. There is no insight, creativity and independent thinking.
  7. The justification for choosing the topic is minimal.

Descriptor

5-6
  • The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research question is described
  • The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation
  • The methodology (procedure) of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data (Treatment of Uncertainties)
  • The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation*

 

Remember in addition to the grade descriptor you must:

  • Show that sufficient social and historical, as well as scientific, background is covered
  • Have an investigation that is focused and interesting
  • Organize sections of your report clearly and concisely state the relevant scientific context and should be related to the physics syllabus
  • Appreciate the limitations of the simulation (if you use a simulation)
  • Independent, dependent, and controlled variables clearly described and how they will be varied (IV), measured (DV)and kept constant (CV)

Dos:

  1. The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research question is clearly described.
  2. The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.
  3. The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
  4. The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.
  5. Sufficient social and historical, as well as scientific background is covered.
  6. The method of analysis and presentation are relevant.
  7. The student has identified and focused on an appropriate investigation, and one that is interesting.
  8. Various sections clearly and concisely state the relevant scientific context, and this dovetails nicely with the physics syllabus.
  9. If the exploration is based on a simulation, the student appreciates the limitations of using a simulation.
  10. The methodology, given the limited nature of modelling, is most appropriate and indeed proves interesting (in the case of explorations based on modelling).
  11. The methods used are totally appropriate to the physics Diploma Programme

Don’ts:

  1. There is much more scientific context that needs to be explained.
  2. The background information provided for the investigation is superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation.
  3. The methodology of the investigation is only appropriate to address the research question to a very limited extent since it takes into consideration few of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.
  4. There is no thought given to the method; the student assumes essential aspects.
  5. The methodology is mostly mere calculations, much like a homework assignment.
  6. The student is not aware of assumptions, accuracy and precision in the data, errors and uncertainties.
  7. The variety of experiments makes any single research question unfocused.
  8. There is some weak use of language and the student often needs to get to the point more directly.
  9. The student shows no or some awareness of the key safety issues.

Descriptor

5-6
  • The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question
  • Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy required to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent with the experimental data
  • The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis (Treatment of Uncertainties)
  • The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced

 

Remember in addition to the grade descriptor you must:

  • Make a reasonable attempt at evaluative analysis
  • Select, record and process appropriate data and show an appreciation of the scope and limitation of the data
  • Give no doubt that you have selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the data in a way that directly addresses the RQ
  • Show the range of data to be adequate and the accuracy of the data has been represented with error bars where appropriate
  • Show that the research question has been addressed, answered, explained and understood
  • See Analysis breakdown for more in-depth detail of what is required

Dos:

  1. The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question.
  2. Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy required to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent with the experimental data.
  3. The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
  4. The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
  5. The student did make a reasonable attempt at evaluative analysis.
  6. The student has selected, recorded and processed appropriate data. He or she also appreciated the scope and limitations of the data.
  7. There is no doubt that the student has selected, recorded, processed and then interpreted the data in a way that directly addresses the question.
  8. The range of data is adequate (indeed, with a simulation the range may or may not be a significant issue).
  9. The accuracy of the data has been represented with error bars where appropriate.
  10. The research question has been addressed, answered, explained and understood.

Don’ts:

  1. Some basic data processing is carried out but is either too inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion.
  2. The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
  3. The processed data is incorrectly or insufficiently interpreted so that the conclusion is invalid or very incomplete.
  4. The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question.
  5. The study includes relevant but insufficient data, the processing is basic but confused, there is the expression of errors and uncertainties but they are not related to the measurements themselves, and the overall interpretation is confused.
  6. The impact of uncertainties has not been addressed under analysis (it could be a part of conclusion, though).
  7. The lack of any awareness of assumptions, errors, uncertainties, precision, accuracy or even significant figures is a fault under the analysis criterion.
  8. The student’s research project is so simplisti

Descriptor

5-6
  • A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented
  • A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context
  • Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing a conclusion (Treatment of Uncertainties)
  • The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation

 

Remember in addition to the grade descriptor you must:

  • Show that the conclusion is visually presented and summarized in the text
  • Show that the data supports the conclusion and the research question has been answered
  • Show that the conclusion of the investigation clearly addresses the research question and it appreciates in a qualitative sense the degree of accuracy
  • Show that the results illustrate any given equation, and the data range and graphs were all appropriate
  • Be aware of assumptions and uncertainties and systematic errors throughout the investigation, and these are all addressed in the concluding comments

Dos:

  1. A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented.
  2. A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
  3. Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.
  4. The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.
  5. The conclusion is visually presented and summarized in the text.
  6. The data supports the conclusion and the research question has been answered.
  7. The student’s conclusion of the investigation clearly addresses the research question and it appreciates in a qualitative sense the degree of accuracy.
  8. The results illustrate any given equation, and the data range and graphs were all appropriate.
  9. Although the student addresses all the descriptors under evaluation for any modelling investigation, more attention to the conclusions would be needed for the top mark.
  10. The student is aware of assumptions and uncertainties and systematic errors throughout the investigation, and these are all addressed in the concluding comments.

Don’ts:

  1.  A conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to the research question or is not supported by the data presented.
  2. Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an account of the practical or procedural issues faced.
  3.  A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.
  4. No or some attempt was made to evaluate the quality of the data in terms of uncertainties or assumptions.
  5. The conclusions as such are properly described but only partially justified.
  6. There is no attempt at addressing the methodology or technique of this investigation and improvements or extensions have not been addressed; this is an influencing factor in deciding the final mark.
  7. He or she did not do an “interesting” scientific investigation with the data.
  8. No thought is given to the scope or limit of the method, data analysis or any other aspect of the methodology.
  9. There are no suggestions for improvements.
  10. Strengths and weakness are not given the depth that one would like.

Descriptor

    3-4
  • The presentation of the investigation is clear.  Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes
  • The report is well structured and clear, the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way
  • The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation
  • The use of subject-specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct.  Any errors do not hamper understanding

 

Remember in addition to the grade descriptor you must:

  • Be clearly written and presented, and there are many illustrations and mathematical calculations to remove any doubt of what you are writing about
  • Flow nicely and be less than 12 pages in length.  There should be several personal touches to help make your report more interesting
  • Show that the structure of the report is clear and divided into manageable sections (see Exemplars on Haiku)
  • Show that the experimental process to be clear and qualitative and quantitative comments must be visible when relevant
  • Show that all calculation techniques are explained and the graphs must illustrate what the reader is to understand
  • It is critically important that you cite all work that you reference and have a work cited page at the end of your report

Dos:

  1. The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.
  2. The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
  3. The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.
  4. The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding.
  5. The student’s report is clearly written and presented, and there are many illustrations and mathematical calculations to remove any doubt of what the student is talking about.
  6. The report flows nicely and is within the page limit. There are a number of personal touches too that help make the work interesting.
  7. The structure is clear and divided into manageable sections.
  8. The experimental process was clear and the comments were relevant.
  9. Moreover, the calculation techniques are explained, and the graphs illustrate beautifully what the reader is to understand.

 

Don’ts:

  1. The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes.
  2. The report is not well structured and is unclear: The necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or disorganized way.
  3. The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information.
  4. There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions.
  5. The research issues are not as focused as they should have been.
  6. A number of sentences are vague, some scientific context and terminology is wrong, and the graphs do not always help the understanding of the data.
  7. Sometimes, the student was not as direct as he or she could have been.

Introduction & Examples

Personal Engagement

The student is clearly engaged with the investigation, demonstrating initiative and curiosity. Although restricted to a simulation, the student demonstrates insight and understanding in the use of appropriate methodology and presentation of data. Searching for the correct simulation alone demonstrates personal engagement. This work is an excellent example of a student owning their investigation.

Exploration

The investigation is relevant and focused, and clearly described in detail. The extensive background and context are nicely explained and fully support the research questions. The student missed a good nature of science issue; however, as in the original Millikan experiment there were two conflicting interpretations of the results. The methodology is appropriate (if hardly original) for a simulation and relevant factors are appreciated. The only weakness is that the student attempts two research questions; either one alone would have made a good internal assessment report. The assessment cost of this is the lack of some important details under Analysis.

Analysis

The selection and processing data was sufficient to establish the conclusions. The processing, however detailed as it may have been, did not propagate the uncertainties appropriately. The analysis only compared the experimental values with the accepted values (this is a false error analysis). This is a major weakness for this type of investigation. Although not a significant impact, this omission is one that the methodology should have addressed. The uncertainty on the graph of discrete charges would have been interesting. Also, the student knew ahead of time what quantity scale to graph, and this is unfair to the data. There were some inconsistent significant figures; units with quantities were assumed the same as the stated uncertainties.

Evaluation

Both research questions were answered in detail and justified by the analysis. The two experimental values were compared to the accepted values, but an experimental uncertainty should have been used as well as a comparison to the accepted value. We do not know the number of significant figures used in various calculations. However, this weakness was assessed under Analysis and is not penalized again under Evaluation (although it would be helpful in establishing the validity of the conclusions). Weakness and strengths were addressed and an extension was mentioned. For this type of internal assessment, the evaluation is fully established.

Communication

The presentation is clear but somewhat wordy; the single spaced text makes reading a little intense. The two research questions (instead of one) also effect a concise presentation. Graphs and table should have been labelled. The report is nonetheless interesting to read and is focused. Communication assessment is a weak 4.

Personal Engagement

Although the student makes an attempt at expressing his or her personal engagement, there is limited independent thinking and insight. Curiosity seems artificial. There is, however, some degree of initiative in the work. The design and implementation is standard for this well-known investigation. Personal engagement earns a solid 1 here.

Exploration

The student has selected two research questions, involving two independent variables. A more focused internal assessment would have looked at one in more depth. The topic of the investigation is clearly identified and much of the discussion is relevant to the research questions. The methodology is standard, but appropriate and relevant factors have been considered, even safety issues.

Analysis

The raw data is limited but sufficient for both investigations. Processing seems appropriate but is not easy to follow. There are a few arithmetic errors, and uncertainties are not always justified or explained. Units are missing in a number of places but the reader can figure this out. The uncertainty for 9016.2791 ohms is ±862.328286 ohms. The student often makes errors with significant figures. Nonetheless, the graphical analysis allows for a valid conclusion consistent with the data.

Evaluation

Directly proportional is an entirely wrong description of an otherwise informative graph. Reliability is addressed, a range of uncertainty is appreciated, but there is too much thought put into describing the mathematical information and not enough evaluation of the procedure, method or data. The conclusion that a large surface area relates to more light absorption is trivial but true. The energy of photons is related to frequency and not to the numbers of photons, so the student is clearly confused. Some strengths and weaknesses are addressed, some being relevant and others not. No quantitative assessment of the sources of errors was attempted. Some realistic improvements were suggested. Overall, the insight and understanding demonstrated in the evaluation is satisfactory but limited. Assessment mark 4 is the best fit.

Communication

The presentation of the investigation is clear, although minor errors and excessive information slow the reader down at times. The structure is good, the process and method are understandable. Irrelevant graphs and too many calculations, not to mention two research questions, all limit the communications somewhat. However, given the student’s purpose, these faults do not interfere much with the quality of the report.

Personal Engagement

The student demonstrates curiosity in the formulation of the investigation, and within the confines of the course, he or she demonstrates initiative in the design and implementation of the experiment. Comments about an interest in photography add nothing to the research question. Overall, personal engagement is on the 1–2 borderline but the moderator feels the student is genuinely involved.

Exploration

The topic of the investigation is identified but the research question is not highly focused. Why not investigate how the salt concentration affects wave speed (or wavelength)? The theory of diffraction and gap size is well known. The background information is superficial and limited at best. The scientific reasoning of the student is somewhat bogus. The methodology is highly appropriate and detailed, except for how to measure the length of a moving wave. The student is careful about relevant factors, and even too detailed about procedure. We do not need to know that the method includes gathering materials, setting up the equipment, and so on.

Analysis

The limited data range is acceptable given the complex method. An appropriate conclusion is possible. Processing seems authentic, but is confusing at times and significant figures are inconsistent. There is a clear appreciation of uncertainties. Benefit of doubt is given when the student claims the diffraction angle is good to ±1°. The quality of the graphed data is amazing, but the student claims an inverse relationship when in fact a linear (with negative slope) one is demonstrated. This is not penalized under Analysis.

Evaluation

A clear and concise conclusion is stated, a conclusion based on the data. However, the results are contracted by a reference (McCowen) and the student does not follow this up. Moreover, the inverse function identified is really a linear one (for the limited range) with negative slope. Justification is missing. Superficial comments address some procedure but not methodology. There are few improvements based on evidence, and extension is only briefly mentioned (sound, laser) without any explanations. Evaluation is in the 3–4-markband.

Communication

The presentation is clear, and the occasional minor digressions are well intended. The report structure is excellent, but too much detail is given. A methodology with 24 steps is overkill, and distracting. The quality of the graphs is poor but benefit of doubt is given here (due to poor scanning). There are occasionally confusions in notation and significant figures, but the overall relevance and focus are maintained. Terminology is mostly correct. A careful reading of a draft by the teacher could have directed the student to improve this report.

Personal Engagement

There is ample evidence of personal engagement and curiosity, and good use of research to select appropriate methodology and an online database. Personal input is evident in the design, implementation and presentation (even where flawed in part) of the investigation.

Exploration

The research question clearly describes the aim of this investigation. The background information is entirely relevant, detailed, and helps explain the methodology, which is initially well laid out. The selection of stars is limited (there are no O, B, A, F stars), and given the "hypothesis" in Section 1, a wider range would have been appropriate. Some explanation of the values for inner and outer range would also have been helpful. More common details, like the AU, are explained.

Analysis

The data is properly selected (from a wide variety of options) despite using only three star types. The processing is done correctly and follows the Morris method for calculating CHZ. The bar graph, for some unknown reasons, is incorrect (although the values are correct); the graph does not show the CHZ region. The habitable zone for our Sun is given as 0.95 to 1.37, and this should have been on the graph. There is a genuine attempt to consider and propagate uncertainties although the data source is somewhat limited. Error analysis is consistent but is not a main issue in this type of investigation. There is no citation for the log 10 error but it is handled correctly. Finally, the interpretation is correct despite the major error on the graph.

Evaluation

The conclusion is appropriate and justified by the data analysis. Although there may be no accepted values for the selected stars, there are similar CHZ boundaries and that Tau Ceti is Sun-like in its extensive CHZ range. The student outlines strengths and weakness, and highlights areas of concern for data sources. The student notes that there are several methods to construct CHZ boundaries, and these calculations do not show that liquid water may be present. There is a valid and appropriate extension suggested. The use of a spreadsheet would have enabled much more data to be processed and included in this investigation, but the student acknowledges this.

Communication

Communication is generally good and the text is clear but errors such as the graph (which expresses the purpose of the investigation) is a major fault. Some of the calculations are dense but the presentation and organization of the report is nicely structured. Communication, then, is not as concise or focused as required for a mark 4. Terminology is correct.

Personal Engagement

Attention to detail and precision, and the overall competence in this otherwise straightforward investigation, earns full marks for personal engagement. The student clearly shows initiative and interest, and to confirm a known equation for a subject of interest one might say that the student also shows curiosity.

Exploration

The topic is nicely identified, and the text is relevant and focused. Because the theory is well known, the research question could have been rephrased as an investigation to confirm the limits of the theory. The background is entirely appropriate. The methodology could not be improved, but the theory shows a horizontal mass while the method shows a vertical mass. There is an issue of the centre of mass to consider. The range of data is acceptable given the detail to each set of measurements. It would be interesting to test extreme lengths. All the other factors are clearly identified.

Analysis

There is sufficient data, but the range could have been larger. The processing and accuracy are most appropriate. There is almost too much detail, but the analysis is sound. The impact of uncertainties is appreciated and the analysis allows for a consistent conclusion based on the data. However, the major systematic shift of the nicely linearized line needs some attention in the conclusion and evaluation section. One might argue that the gradient uncertainty should nonetheless be determined, either using the time-squared error bars. Nonetheless, the student addresses this issue with the sometimes-dubious correlation coefficient.

Evaluation

The student addresses the important issue of a systematic shift, but their comments are misguided. The issue of air resistance is exaggerated due to the vertical placement of the mass. There are more than enough sufficient details in the quantitative analysis evaluation to earn a good mark. However, the methodology is not seriously approached. An extended range could count as an extension of the investigation. Evaluation is someplace on the 4-5 borderlines, but given the overall competence (a best-fit assessment) a 5 is awarded.

Communication

The student has produced an interesting report. The presentation is clear, the text is nicely structured, and the focus is always on the experiment. The only criticism is that sometimes there is too much detail, but it is acceptable. The text remains focused and relevant. Terminology and conventions are appropriate. The few ambiguities do not keep the student from earning top marks for this criterion.

Personal Engagement

Teacher’s comments suggest that the student spent a lot of time performing this investigation. There is evidence of personal interest and curiosity, but the design and method are standard, and the work shows little independent thinking or insight.

Exploration

The research question and its purpose are defined and focused. However, the student means relative permeability and not permeability of free space, a distinction that should have been recognized. Also, permeability is a defined quantity, and only the permittivity is an experimental value. There is sufficient background information although some points are missing, and the safety issue of high current was recognized (up to 10 A is enough for the high school laboratory). The methodology is standard but appropriate.

Analysis

Sufficient data was collected. The current range was justified. Appreciation of the Earth’s magnetic field was nicely stated. Significant figures, however, were mixed and inconsistent, demonstrating a lack of appreciation for precision. Often units were missing from tables and calculations. A calculator, spreadsheet or website can do standard deviation, and details need not be shown. The major offset of a zero-zero origin required more attention. Results are indeed linear but not proportional.

Evaluation

The results were compared to the accepted value but the experimental value should have been expressed with an uncertainty. The "slight error" of the conclusion misses the point of the investigation. Precision and not accuracy is relevant in this investigation. The issue of the Earth’s magnetic field could have been dealt with in a more appropriate way. Although the comments of evaluation are general, they are not based on critical analysis. Improvements are rather simplistic. The methodology was not sufficiently addressed.

Communication

The report is clear and easy to follow. The focus is never lost, and the information is presented in a coherent way. The few errors or mistakes do not hamper the understanding. Communication can earn top marks even with the mistakes mentioned under the other criteria. It is a pleasure to read a concise report.