Overall Score: 18/24
IB Grade: 6
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
18/24
0
12
24
5.1·strength
Page 3
The formula is correctly stated and supports understanding of oscillatory period–frequency relationship.
5.2·strength
Page 5
Figure 2 effectively illustrates energy interchange in SHM, reinforcing the theoretical description of kinetic and potential energy.
5.3·suggestion
Page 19
Bibliography entries vary in format and completeness; apply a consistent citation style (e.g., APA) and include full author details and publication dates.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Good
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Moderate
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- The research question is precisely framed within a specific and appropriate physical context, detailing the spring‐mass system and disc diameters.
- The description of methodology—including variables, apparatus, and a step-by-step procedure—allows an investigator to reproduce the core of the experiment.
- Controlled-variables table demonstrates awareness of relevant factors and includes justification for mass compensation of the 20 cm disc.
- Important operational details are omitted (e.g., initial displacement size, sensor sampling rate and calibration, method for identifying successive maxima).
- The Q-factor formula is presented without derivation steps or citation, and symbols (, ) are undefined in the text.
- Some background material is overly narrative; the theoretical discussion could be more concise and directly focused on the role of cardboard discs in damping.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Good
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data tables, graphs and sample calculations are clearly laid out and labelled, with units and uncertainties usually indicated.
- Sample calculation of Q-factor is well demonstrated, aiding reproducibility of the processing method.
- Numerical processing is internally consistent and free from major arithmetic errors.
- Uncertainties are estimated by a simplistic half-range method, and propagation into the final Q-factor analysis is not shown.
- Figures and graphs lack complete labels (axes, units) and error bars or statistical metrics (e.g., R²) are missing.
- Outliers in the raw data table are unaddressed, and there is no discussion of instrument resolution or goodness-of-fit.
Criteria C: Conclusion
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and support
Good
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- The conclusion succinctly justifies the main finding and is fully consistent with the analyzed data and original hypothesis.
- Integration of peer-reviewed literature situates the result within an accepted scientific context.
- Logical linkage between data trends, the quantitative Q-factor results, and theoretical framework is clear.
- Statistical strength (e.g., goodness-of-fit, confidence intervals) is not discussed.
- The comparison to published values is qualitative and lacks numerical agreement or deeper critical analysis.
- The discussion of broader implications is brief and could be expanded with additional context.
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Poor
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses are identified (initial push variability, off-axis motion).
- Suggestions for improvement (increasing trial count, averaging data) are realistic and feasible.
- The relative impact of each weakness on the final Q-factor is not quantitatively explained.
- Proposed improvements remain generic and do not address all identified limitations (e.g., force-release standardization, alignment fixtures).
- No discussion of how to implement or test the suggested improvements in practice.