Physics IA Exemplar: How does the current (I) flowing through a… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Physics SL Internal Assessment Example

How does the current (I) flowing through a circuit affect the terminal potential difference (V) across a 9V alkaline battery, and to what extent can this relationship be used to determine the battery's electromotive force (ε) and internal resistance (r)?SL

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

Excellent

A.3Methodological considerations

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is focused, specific, and clearly linked to a real physical model.
The student explains why the investigation is feasible and relevant, with strong background context on non-ideal batteries.
The student's method is detailed enough that another student could largely reproduce the investigation.
The student shows good awareness of controls, especially temperature, discharge, and repeat trials.

The independent variable should be stated more precisely, since the manipulated factor is rheostat position/resistance rather than current itself.
A few procedural details are still slightly ambiguous, such as the exact rheostat positions or resistance values used.
Some timing language is too vague for perfect reproducibility, such as words like 'immediately' and 'momentarily'.
The fixed reading order creates a risk of discharge effects influencing later measurements.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student records and presents their data clearly, with raw tables, processed values, units, and a graph that includes error bars and a regression line.
The student shows good awareness of uncertainty by including instrument resolutions, repeat measurements, and percentage uncertainties.
The student's processing method is appropriate in principle, and they correctly connect the graph to the physical meaning of EMF and internal resistance.
The student uses the graph to interpret the relationship rather than just displaying it.

One processed mean does not match the raw readings, so some arithmetic checking is still needed.
The student's rounding and uncertainty reporting are not always fully consistent with the precision of the measurements.
The treatment of uncertainty would be stronger if the student justified the worst-fit line more explicitly.
Systematic drift across the repeated readings is not separated clearly from random scatter.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

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

Excellent

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

Excellent

A.3Methodological considerations

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is focused, specific, and clearly linked to a real physical model.
The student explains why the investigation is feasible and relevant, with strong background context on non-ideal batteries.
The student's method is detailed enough that another student could largely reproduce the investigation.
The student shows good awareness of controls, especially temperature, discharge, and repeat trials.

The independent variable should be stated more precisely, since the manipulated factor is rheostat position/resistance rather than current itself.
A few procedural details are still slightly ambiguous, such as the exact rheostat positions or resistance values used.
Some timing language is too vague for perfect reproducibility, such as words like 'immediately' and 'momentarily'.
The fixed reading order creates a risk of discharge effects influencing later measurements.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Good

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student records and presents their data clearly, with raw tables, processed values, units, and a graph that includes error bars and a regression line.
The student shows good awareness of uncertainty by including instrument resolutions, repeat measurements, and percentage uncertainties.
The student's processing method is appropriate in principle, and they correctly connect the graph to the physical meaning of EMF and internal resistance.
The student uses the graph to interpret the relationship rather than just displaying it.

One processed mean does not match the raw readings, so some arithmetic checking is still needed.
The student's rounding and uncertainty reporting are not always fully consistent with the precision of the measurements.
The treatment of uncertainty would be stronger if the student justified the worst-fit line more explicitly.
Systematic drift across the repeated readings is not separated clearly from random scatter.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

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

Excellent

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.