Overall Score: 13/24
IB Grade: 4
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
13/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 16
Bibliography lists a single source; extend references to include primary literature on COR measurements in sports equipment for stronger academic grounding.
Criteria A: Research Design
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Good
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Moderate
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- Clear and specific research question grounded in a real-world sports context
- Introduction links mechanics concepts (inelastic collisions, energy transformations) to practical training scenarios
- Procedure and materials list include key details (pressure values, trial repetition, controlled variables) supporting reproducibility
- Hypothesis articulates causal mechanisms between pressure, deformation, contact time, and energy retention
- Background citation breadth is limited and repeats ideas; lacks broader literature on ball elasticity
- Omissions in materials list (e.g., pressure gauge accuracy, tape type) hinder exact replication
- Procedure numbering is inconsistent and some steps (camera distance, frame rate, drop-height consistency) remain ambiguous
- Rationale for neglecting drag force is not justified with quantitative estimates
Criteria B: Data Analysis
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Mathematical derivation of e=√(h_final/h_initial) is sound and clearly presented
- Raw data tables consistently include uncertainties, units, and significant figures
- Worked examples for averages and coefficient of restitution calculations are detailed
- Processed tables list averages and derived COR values with stated uncertainties
- Several uncertainty calculations are incorrect or inconsistent with propagation rules
- Error bars are omitted from graphs despite non-zero uncertainties
- Graph labels, axis units, and legends are incomplete or misaligned
- No quantitative assessment of correlation strength (e.g., fitted trendline or R²)
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Conclusion relevance and support
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion correctly interprets the relationship between internal pressure and rebound height, linking back to the hypothesis
- Quantitative comparisons (e.g., bounce height decrements) are used to support qualitative explanations
- Discussion invokes deformation and energy dissipation consistent with the processed results
- Conclusion is cut off mid-sentence and ends abruptly, indicating incompleteness
- Comparison to theoretical or published COR values is purely qualitative; lacks engagement with external literature
- Claims of trend linearity are made without testing alternative models or fitting data trends
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Evaluation identifies specific methodological weaknesses (surface roughness, unintended spin, manual video analysis)
- Proposes realistic improvements directly tied to identified limitations (smoother ball surface, mechanical release, motion-tracking software)
- Does not quantify the relative impact of each limitation on results
- Improvement suggestions lack explanation of how much uncertainty or bias each change will reduce
- Details on software choice, calibration procedures, and expected error reduction are omitted