Physics IA Exemplar: ¿Cómo afecta la concentración de glicerina (c ±… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Physics HL Internal Assessment Example

¿Cómo afecta la concentración de glicerina (c ± 0,01 g/g: 0,00, 0,20, 0,40, 0,60, 0,80, 1,00) en una solución acuosa al índice de refracción (n2 ± Δn2) de la solución, determinado a partir de la desviación de un rayo láser mediante la ley de Snell?HL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Good

A.3Methodological considerations

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student frames the investigation in a clear and specific scientific context and links it to a real application, which gives the project purpose.
The student's question is focused, measurable, and tightly connected to the chosen method and variables.
The student justifies several design choices thoughtfully, including concentration by mass fraction, the concentration range, and the use of repeated trials.

The procedure is not fully reproducible because the exact masses for each solution are not stated clearly enough.
Some controls are mentioned but not operationalised in enough detail, especially temperature, humidity, and camera alignment.
The GeoGebra workflow needs a more explicit step-by-step explanation so another researcher could repeat the data collection and tracing exactly.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student presents their raw data, processed values, and uncertainties in a way that is easy to follow.
The student's treatment of uncertainty is substantial, including instrumental uncertainties, spread across repeats, propagation through the refractive-index calculation, and error bars on the graph.
The processing sequence is clearly signposted, so the reader can trace the move from measured angles to refractive indices and then to the graph-based trend.

The uncertainty associated with the photographed angle is not justified in enough detail, even though the image tracing is central to the method.
Some statistical choices, such as using semidispersion from only three trials, need a clearer explanation of what that means for confidence in the mean.
Rounding and presentation are not always consistent, and the graph-based uncertainty in gradient would be more convincing if the acceptance of the extreme lines were explained more explicitly.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria D: Evaluation

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Suggested improvements

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Good

A.3Methodological considerations

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student frames the investigation in a clear and specific scientific context and links it to a real application, which gives the project purpose.
The student's question is focused, measurable, and tightly connected to the chosen method and variables.
The student justifies several design choices thoughtfully, including concentration by mass fraction, the concentration range, and the use of repeated trials.

The procedure is not fully reproducible because the exact masses for each solution are not stated clearly enough.
Some controls are mentioned but not operationalised in enough detail, especially temperature, humidity, and camera alignment.
The GeoGebra workflow needs a more explicit step-by-step explanation so another researcher could repeat the data collection and tracing exactly.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student presents their raw data, processed values, and uncertainties in a way that is easy to follow.
The student's treatment of uncertainty is substantial, including instrumental uncertainties, spread across repeats, propagation through the refractive-index calculation, and error bars on the graph.
The processing sequence is clearly signposted, so the reader can trace the move from measured angles to refractive indices and then to the graph-based trend.

The uncertainty associated with the photographed angle is not justified in enough detail, even though the image tracing is central to the method.
Some statistical choices, such as using semidispersion from only three trials, need a clearer explanation of what that means for confidence in the mean.
Rounding and presentation are not always consistent, and the graph-based uncertainty in gradient would be more convincing if the acceptance of the extreme lines were explained more explicitly.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria D: Evaluation

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Suggested improvements

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.