Physics IA Exemplar: How does the mass (0.05000, 0.100000, 0.15000,… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Physics SL Internal Assessment Example

How does the mass (0.05000, 0.100000, 0.15000, 0.20000, 0.25000, 0.30000 kg, 0.00001 kg) attached to a spring with a spring constant of 11.0 Nm⁻¹ or 0.1 Nm⁻¹ affect the angular frequency of a vertical mass-spring system under simple harmonic motion?SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Good

A.3Methodological considerations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is specific, focused, and clearly grounded in the spring–mass SHM model.
The student connects the question to the theory well by explaining the expected inverse-square-root relationship and the linearized form used later.
The student's method is detailed enough to be repeated in broad terms, with a clear range of masses, repeated trials, and a sensible timing strategy.

Some procedural details are inconsistent, especially the stated displacement and uncertainty values.
The method would be stronger if the student defined the timing reference point more precisely.
The student's methodological justification would be improved by explicitly stating how they ensured the spring stayed within the linear elastic region throughout the investigation.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student's data are organized clearly through raw, mean, and processed tables, making the calculation chain easy to follow.
The student correctly transforms the measurements into period, angular frequency, and o^2 values and uses a linearized graph that matches the model.
The student shows awareness of uncertainty through repeats, error bars, and gradient estimation using best-fit bounds.

The student's uncertainty treatment is not fully consistent, especially where mass uncertainties are stated differently in different parts of the report.
Some notation and units are not always precise, particularly for angular frequency and its square.
The standard deviation is not used in a way that meaningfully represents repeatability for this dataset, so that part of the uncertainty analysis is not well justified.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

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

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Suggested improvements

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.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Good

A.3Methodological considerations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student's research question is specific, focused, and clearly grounded in the spring–mass SHM model.
The student connects the question to the theory well by explaining the expected inverse-square-root relationship and the linearized form used later.
The student's method is detailed enough to be repeated in broad terms, with a clear range of masses, repeated trials, and a sensible timing strategy.

Some procedural details are inconsistent, especially the stated displacement and uncertainty values.
The method would be stronger if the student defined the timing reference point more precisely.
The student's methodological justification would be improved by explicitly stating how they ensured the spring stayed within the linear elastic region throughout the investigation.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

6/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student's data are organized clearly through raw, mean, and processed tables, making the calculation chain easy to follow.
The student correctly transforms the measurements into period, angular frequency, and o^2 values and uses a linearized graph that matches the model.
The student shows awareness of uncertainty through repeats, error bars, and gradient estimation using best-fit bounds.

The student's uncertainty treatment is not fully consistent, especially where mass uncertainties are stated differently in different parts of the report.
Some notation and units are not always precise, particularly for angular frequency and its square.
The standard deviation is not used in a way that meaningfully represents repeatability for this dataset, so that part of the uncertainty analysis is not well justified.

Criteria C: Conclusion

5/6

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

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Methodological weaknesses

Good

D.2Suggested improvements

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.