Overall Score: 12/24
IB Grade: 4
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
12/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 4
The theoretical section conflates solid and liquid expansion; focus on the solid state's linear expansion and remove gas/liquid references to avoid confusion.
Criteria A: Research Design
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Research question context
Good
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Moderate
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- The title clearly specifies the investigation topic and key variables, providing immediate focus.
- Apparatus list is detailed with accuracies, and a well-labelled diagram/photograph supports reproducibility.
- Variables are clearly defined with units and ranges, aiding understanding and replication.
- Safety considerations are thoughtfully addressed, demonstrating awareness of experimental risks.
- Research question is placed in a broad engineering context but lacks a tightly defined material/apparatus focus.
- Procedure omits specifics on temperature increments and dwell times, introducing ambiguity.
- The rationale for controlled variables is described but not fully explained in terms of data quality impact.
- Apparatus table omits specification and accuracy for the stick meter, and comparator alignment details are missing.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Good
Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data are presented in clear, structured tables with appropriate headings, units and significant figures.
- A well-labelled graph including a regression line and error bars conveys trends precisely.
- A sample calculation demonstrates the process for deriving mean ΔL, aiding reader comprehension.
- The uncertainty propagation formula is correctly applied for the largest data set, showing good error-analysis understanding.
- ΔT increments in the processed table do not match the described constant steps, indicating inconsistency.
- Notation issues (e.g. unconventional symbols, extraneous asterisks) reduce clarity.
- Uncertainty analysis is limited to one case; individual uncertainties for each interval are omitted.
- Minor inaccuracies in data processing (unit errors, inconsistent significant figures) persist.
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and support
Excellent
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- The conclusion quotes the averaged α value with its absolute uncertainty, directly supporting the hypothesis.
- Findings are explicitly linked to the observed linearity in the data, ensuring consistency with analysis.
- Comparison to accepted literature values, with percentage error calculation, grounds the result in a scientific context.
- The hypothesis is confirmed, and the conclusion ties theoretical expectations to experimental evidence.
- Density unit is misformatted (e.g. '2.77 kg/m³' without exponent), leading to potential confusion.
- Minor stylistic and formatting issues detract slightly from overall polish.
Criteria D: Evaluation
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Several specific methodological limitations are identified (e.g. non-uniform heating, evaporation, vibrations).
- Realistic improvements are proposed, such as using a digital micrometer and extending the temperature range.
- The relative impact of each limitation on the final α value is not explained.
- Proposed improvements are not elaborated in terms of how they would quantitatively reduce uncertainties.
- No discussion of broader applicability or quantitative benefit of suggested changes.