How does the distance z (0.10 m, 0.20 m, 0.30 m, 0.40 m, 0.50 m, 0.60 m, 0.70 m, 0.80 m) between the pivot point and the center of mass of a compound pendulum (wooden plank) affect its oscillation period T0?HL
Loading scores...
7
Official IB Result
IB Grade: 7
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Research question context
Excellent
A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data
Good
A.3Methodological considerations
Excellent
Criteria Feedback
- The student posed a focused, feasible research question with clearly defined variables and a specific physical system.
- The student grounded the investigation in relevant rotational dynamics and explained why the chosen independent variable should affect the period.
- The student's method is detailed enough to be mostly reproducible, with repeated trials, stated equipment, and a logical data-collection sequence.
- Some procedural details are still not fully operationalized, especially how the pivot setup, center of mass measurement, and initial angle were controlled.
- A few controls are discussed conceptually but not described with enough precision to show how they were kept consistent in practice.
- The method and later discussion do not always align perfectly, particularly where changing release angle and damping affect the interpretation of the variable being tested.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Communication of data recording and processing
Excellent
B.2Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
B.3Data processing quality
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The student's raw and processed data are presented clearly, with complete trial sets, units, and organized tables.
- The student shows appropriate use of repeated measurements and produces a coherent processing chain from five-cycle timings to mean periods and squared periods.
- The student's graphs and worked examples make their data handling easy to follow, and they attempt to address uncertainty in a meaningful way.
- The uncertainty treatment is not fully consistent, since individual point uncertainties are replaced by a common plotted value even when the calculated values differ.
- Some of the processing notation and rounding choices are not fully explained, which reduces precision and polish.
- The analysis relies heavily on fitted statistics without enough discussion of residuals, model limitations, or whether the uncertainty bounds actually support the claims being made.
Criteria C: Conclusion
6/6
0
3
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
6/6
0
3
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.