Overall Score: 16/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
16/24
0
12
24
5.1·strength
Page 5
The safety section demonstrates good lab practice and clearly communicates risk mitigation, enhancing the methodological rigor.
5.2·suggestion
Page 11
Consider performing a statistical test (e.g., paired t-test) on repeated trials to quantify the significance of measurement differences and validate suggested improvements.
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
- The research question is situated in a specific and authentic context (paint‐can lids, water‐strider locomotion), making the study’s relevance unambiguous.
- A detailed step‐by‐step procedure, complete materials list (with dimensions) and clear variable table are provided, supporting largely replicable methodology.
- Variables are systematically categorized with descriptions of measurement methods and uncertainties, underlining reproducibility.
- Temperature control lacks specified tolerances and monitoring frequency, limiting methodological rigour.
- Theoretical links (e.g. contact angle, immersion depth) are not fully developed; key assumptions in simplifying the force equation are unexplained.
- No schematic of the experimental setup is included, which would aid clarity and reproducibility.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data tables and graphs are well‐labelled, include units and uncertainties, and feature clear headings.
- Processed calculations (areas, force differences, averages) are logically presented and mathematically sound.
- The scatter-plot with best-fit line, error bars and R² value demonstrates precise data visualization.
- Uncertainty propagation is applied to only one data point and omitted from the final gradient uncertainty.
- Some raw data appear miscalibrated (e.g. 0.000 N initial reading) without explanation of zero-offset handling.
- The reported range of uncertainties (“2–13%”) is not linked to individual points or discussed in trend interpretation.
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Conclusion relevance and support
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- The conclusion restates the research question and cites specific numerical evidence (max force values, R², gradient), ensuring full consistency with analysis.
- Key findings are clearly articulated and justified by the processed data.
- Comparison to theoretical models remains qualitative; no quantitative assessment of agreement between experimental and theoretical gradients.
- The scientific context comparison lacks depth, limiting justification in the accepted scientific framework.
Criteria D: Evaluation
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses are described (pull angle, zero-offset, temperature effects) with discussion of their impact.
- Realistic improvements are suggested for each identified weakness (vertical guide, better temperature control, calibrated balances).
- Improvements are described rather than explained with quantitative estimates of how they would reduce uncertainties.
- Recommendations (e.g. cross-calibrating multiple spring balances) lack a detailed plan to ensure consistent systematic error control.