Overall Score: 14/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
14/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 9
Figure screenshot is not numbered consistently with earlier figures and lacks full caption; use unified numbering and descriptive caption.
5.2·suggestion
Page 14
Bibliography cites credible sources but omits references on ruler material properties; include a materials characterization paper to support discussion.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Excellent
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Good
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- Research question anchored in a specific, well‐explained context linked to cantilever‐beam theory
- Comprehensive methodology with step‐by‐step procedures, diagrams, equipment list and clear sampling parameters
- Independent, dependent and control variables are clearly identified and justified, supporting reproducibility
- Depth of real‐world applications is limited (e.g., musical instruments, sensor design)
- Theoretical assumptions (small deflections, uniform beam) are not explicitly discussed
- Minor ambiguities remain in peak‐picking protocol and rationale for length increments
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Moderate
Consideration of uncertainties
Excellent
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Tables and graphs are well‐labelled, scaled and include regression equations with R² values
- Data processing (frequency calculation, power‐law regression and linearisation) is accurate and methodologically sound
- Communication of both raw and transformed data is generally clear and precise
- Uncertainty propagation is incomplete and error bars are omitted without sufficient justification
- No combined or percentage uncertainties are carried forward into the calibration constant
- Residual analysis and a more rigorous uncertainty propagation approach are absent
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Conclusion relevance and support
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion restates the inverse‐square relationship and acknowledges empirical deviations
- Some comparison to scientific context via cantilever‐beam theory and damping effects
- Overstates support for the hypothesis despite the exponent deviation of 1.66
- No statistical test (e.g., t-test) to assess the significance of the deviation
- Lacks quantitative comparison to published scientific data (e.g., EI values, damping ratios)
Criteria D: Evaluation
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Poor
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses (sampling rate, amplitude decay, displacement control) are identified
- Realistic improvements are proposed (e.g., higher sampling rate)
- Suggested improvements lack detail on implementation and expected impact
- Alternative enhancements (automated peak detection, different sensors) are omitted
- Impact of identified weaknesses is described qualitatively without quantification