Physics IA Exemplar: How does varying the length of a simple… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Physics SL Internal Assessment Example

How does varying the length of a simple pendulum of : 0.2000m0.0005m ,0.3000m0.0005m ,0.4000m0.0005m ,0.5000m0.0005m ,0.6000m0.0005m ,0.7000m0.0005m , 0.8000m0.0005m ,0.9000m0.0005m ,1.000m 0.0005m , affect the frequency in Hz of a dense pendulum bob ,while keeping the angle of release constant at 10 degrees 0.5degrees whilst undergoing 20 oscillations ?SL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 7

Criteria A: Research Design

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Moderate

A.3Methodological considerations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student poses a focused quantitative question with clear variables and an appropriate simple-pendulum context.
The student's background theory is relevant and correctly links the expected relationship between period, length, and frequency.
The student identifies several important controls and shows awareness of why they matter for the investigation.

The method is not fully internally consistent, especially where the stated length range and release-angle details do not match across the write-up.
Some methodological justifications are weak or speculative, such as the humidity point.
The investigation would be more reproducible if the exact measurement definitions and starting/stopping conditions were stated more precisely.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

3/6

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 raw data are organized clearly and systematically, with five trials for each of nine lengths.
The student processes the measurements appropriately by averaging, converting to period and frequency, and linearizing the relationship.
The student shows meaningful awareness of uncertainty through repeated trials, error bars, and discussion of instrumental limitations.

Some uncertainty values are not carried through consistently, so the final stated uncertainties are not always well justified.
There are important numerical errors in the processing, especially the percentage discrepancy calculation.
The communication is clear in places but not consistently precise enough for the highest band.

Criteria C: Conclusion

3/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Moderate

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

4/6

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

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Moderate

A.3Methodological considerations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student poses a focused quantitative question with clear variables and an appropriate simple-pendulum context.
The student's background theory is relevant and correctly links the expected relationship between period, length, and frequency.
The student identifies several important controls and shows awareness of why they matter for the investigation.

The method is not fully internally consistent, especially where the stated length range and release-angle details do not match across the write-up.
Some methodological justifications are weak or speculative, such as the humidity point.
The investigation would be more reproducible if the exact measurement definitions and starting/stopping conditions were stated more precisely.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

3/6

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 raw data are organized clearly and systematically, with five trials for each of nine lengths.
The student processes the measurements appropriately by averaging, converting to period and frequency, and linearizing the relationship.
The student shows meaningful awareness of uncertainty through repeated trials, error bars, and discussion of instrumental limitations.

Some uncertainty values are not carried through consistently, so the final stated uncertainties are not always well justified.
There are important numerical errors in the processing, especially the percentage discrepancy calculation.
The communication is clear in places but not consistently precise enough for the highest band.

Criteria C: Conclusion

3/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Moderate

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

4/6

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.