Overall Score: 16/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
16/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 2
The table’s heading “Dependant Variable” has a typo; correct to “Dependent” and ensure consistency.
5.2·suggestion
Page 14
Strengths table articulates key successes, but could note data precision strengths in processed data for balance.
5.3·suggestion
Page 14
Extension section provides interesting future ideas; consider including statistical methods (e.g., ANOVA) to evaluate varied projectiles.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Excellent
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Excellent
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- Focused research question embedded in a clear, specific elastic-slingshot context
- Background theory (Hooke’s law and energy conservation) explicitly linked to apparatus
- Detailed materials list, variable table and annotated photos support reproducibility
- Methodological choices (number of levels/trials, k-value derivation, safety trials) are justified and relevant
- Minor ambiguity in phrasing of the research question (‘transfer of kinetic energy from the projectile’ could be more precise)
- No discussion of frictional or air-resistance effects to justify energy-loss assumptions
- Step-by-step method omits specification of an alignment tool or tolerance for the aiming line
- Key derivation of the spring constant relegated to appendix rather than main text
Criteria B: Data Analysis
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Good
Consideration of uncertainties
Excellent
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data tables and graphs are clearly labeled with units and uncertainties, including sample calculations
- Processing of means, percent uncertainties, gradient and efficiency calculations is accurate
- Presentation (titles, axis labels, best‐fit/min‐max lines) is clear and precise
- Uncertainty in the independent variable (extension) is never propagated or shown in the main graph
- Error bars are absent from key figures, reducing visual communication of precision
- Efficiency calculations lack propagated uncertainties and discussion of significance
- Pearson R value reported without commentary on statistical confidence
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and support
Excellent
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion directly references numerical trend, gradient and correlation coefficient to confirm the hypothesis
- Statement is consistent with processed data and supported by uncertainty discussion
- Comparison to accepted scientific context (Hooke’s law, energy conservation) is relevant and well justified
- Does not compare the empirical gradient quantitatively to the theoretical value predicted by energy equations
- Some discussion of limitations from losses is implied but could be more explicitly tied to the final statement
Criteria D: Evaluation
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Methodological weaknesses
Excellent
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses are identified (angle deviation, mis-reading of extension, energy losses) and relative impacts are explained
- Realistic and relevant improvements (mechanical launcher, more trials, literature comparison) are proposed and linked to error reduction
- Evaluation lacks quantitative linkage of uncertainty ranges to the slope’s confidence interval
- Formatting issues (duplicated header in the systematic error table) detract slightly from clarity