To what extent does the thickness of an electrophoretically deposited (EPD) reduced graphene oxide (rGO) coating affect the electrical conductivity of copper (Cu) wire?
A
Official IB Result
30/34
Was this exemplar helpful?
Want a report just like this?
Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Topic communication and explanation
Excellent
Research question formulation and focus
Excellent
Research methodology
Criteria Feedback
Clear and effective topic communication throughout the report
Well-focused research question repeatedly linked to methodology and discussion
Comprehensive methodology with appropriate choice of sources and clearly identified variables
Minor drift in extensive theoretical background (band theory) that was not tightly linked to the research question
Some methodological details (e.g., foil purity, justification for applied voltage) lacked explicit justification
Reliance on theoretical thickness calculations acknowledged as a limitation
1.1·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The research question is explicitly stated and narrowly focused on coating thickness and conductivity, demonstrating strong alignment with the investigation aim.
1.2·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The title concisely frames the investigation’s focus on rGO coatings and copper wire conductivity, establishing clear purpose and relevance.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The second paragraph mentions rGO synthesis challenges but does not explicitly tie them to conductivity metrics; strengthen link to the RQ.
1.4·Weakness
Page 3• Click to view
The introduction provides extensive graphene background but spends limited space linking key literature directly to the research question; refocus to avoid drift.
1.5·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
The band theory exposition is thorough but lengthy; consider summarizing key points and relating directly to rGO’s conductivity for conciseness.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 11• Click to view
Al foil addition calculation is clear but lacks a stated purity or surface area of the foil, which influences reaction kinetics; specify grade.
1.7·Suggestion
Page 13• Click to view
The rationale for selecting 5 V in the EPD process is not justified; reference literature to support the chosen field strength and its effect on deposition rate.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Application of source material
Good
Subject knowledge
Good
Use of terminology and concepts
Criteria Feedback
Source material is largely peer-reviewed and applied correctly to calculations
Clear and coherent subject knowledge of graphene chemistry and conductivity theory
Generally accurate use of specialized terminology (Smoluchowski equation, Dirac point, contact resistance)
Occasional misapplication of numerical values (viscosity units, sheet resistance notation)
Conceptual slips (contradictory copper resistance values, misspelling of ‘van der Waals forces’)
Some descriptive passages rely on speculative statements without supporting data
2.1·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
Numerical citations are applied correctly, but some claims (e.g., ‘super material’) lack direct data support; include more evidence from sources.
2.2·Weakness
Page 4• Click to view
The sheet resistance units () do not match standard notation for surface resistivity; verify and correct unit conventions.
2.3·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
The stated bulk copper sheet resistance (~0.5 Ω m⁻¹) contradicts the literature on IACS standards; cross-check values to ensure accurate data application.
2.4·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
The term ‘van de Walls forces’ is misspelled and inconsistent; use precise chemical terminology (‘van der Waals forces’) throughout.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
When discussing Dirac points and massless electrons, explicitly contrast the behavior in pure graphene vs rGO to highlight relevance to the RQ.
2.6·Weakness
Page 15• Click to view
Inline calculation of viscosity uses 0.89 mPa·s rather than 0.89 cP; clarify units to avoid confusion in dynamic viscosity values.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
12/12
0
6
12
Criteria Strands
Good
Research quality
Moderate
Analysis depth
Moderate
Discussion and evaluation
Criteria Feedback
Research is extensive, up-to-date and consistently aligned with the research question
Analysis is thorough, with well-supported conclusions and clear interpretation of anomalies
Discussion and evaluation are critical, with detailed consideration of systematic/random errors and suggestions for methodological improvement
No formal statistical significance testing or error-propagation calculations were performed
Dependence on theoretically estimated coating thickness rather than direct measurement limits complete empirical validation
A few innovative apparatus choices (e.g., custom filtration setup) were unreferenced
3.1·Question
Page 10• Click to view
The custom filtration apparatus is innovative but unreferenced; explain why this method was chosen over conventional vacuum filtration.
3.2·Suggestion
Page 16• Click to view
The Smoluchowski mobility calculation is thorough but could be strengthened by citing the Debye length value used in the ka ≪ 1 justification.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Structure appropriateness
Excellent
Layout considerations
Criteria Feedback
Clearly appropriate structure following IB conventions with logical headings and subsections
All layout considerations present (title, word count, page numbers, figures, tables)
Equations and references are consistently formatted and integrated
Minor formatting inconsistencies in figure scaling and caption detail
Inconsistent numbering fonts in the table of contents
4.1·Suggestion
Page 2• Click to view
The table of contents effectively outlines sections but inconsistent numbering and font styles reduce navigational clarity; standardize numbering format.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
Figure 1 caption lacks detail on experimental conditions; expand caption to describe axes, units, and sample preparation.
4.3·Suggestion
Page 11• Click to view
pH progression is tracked well but the figure could benefit from a supporting table of values to aid numerical interpretation.
