Physics IA Exemplar: Research Question: How do masses (5.30, 5.40,… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Physics HL Internal Assessment Example

Research Question: How do masses (5.30, 5.40, 5.50, 5.60, 5.70, 5.80 ± 0.01 g) of spherical marble affect its terminal velocity when falling through glycerine of density 1260 kg m-3 in a cylinder of height 35 ± 0.05 cm and radius 2.5 ± 0.05 cm?HL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Moderate

A.3Methodological considerations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student defined a focused investigation with clear variables and a relevant fluid-dynamics context.
The student included several meaningful methodological controls and showed awareness of how geometry, temperature, and distance affect the outcome.
The student's procedure is detailed enough in many places to make the investigation broadly reproducible.

The student's apparatus and timing descriptions contain contradictions, especially around cylinder dimensions and where timing begins and ends.
The student assumes a drag regime before fully justifying that it applies to the system.
Some important practical details are missing, such as a clear check that terminal velocity was reached and how marble dimensions were verified.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student presents their raw and processed data clearly with repeated trials, means, and graphical presentation.
The student makes meaningful use of uncertainty through standard deviations, percentage uncertainties, and discussion of repeatability.
The student's processing steps are generally easy to follow and show a real attempt to move from raw video measurements to a final result.

Some timing and interval descriptions are inconsistent, which makes it harder to know exactly what physical quantity was processed.
The student's uncertainty treatment is incomplete because key sources such as frame count, distance, calibration, and propagation into later calculations are not fully handled.
The chosen graph and model are not fully consistent with the later low-Reynolds-number interpretation.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Excellent

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: 6

Criteria A: Research Design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations for collecting data

Moderate

A.3Methodological considerations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student defined a focused investigation with clear variables and a relevant fluid-dynamics context.
The student included several meaningful methodological controls and showed awareness of how geometry, temperature, and distance affect the outcome.
The student's procedure is detailed enough in many places to make the investigation broadly reproducible.

The student's apparatus and timing descriptions contain contradictions, especially around cylinder dimensions and where timing begins and ends.
The student assumes a drag regime before fully justifying that it applies to the system.
Some important practical details are missing, such as a clear check that terminal velocity was reached and how marble dimensions were verified.

Criteria B: Data Analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data recording and processing

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Data processing quality

Poor

Criteria Feedback

The student presents their raw and processed data clearly with repeated trials, means, and graphical presentation.
The student makes meaningful use of uncertainty through standard deviations, percentage uncertainties, and discussion of repeatability.
The student's processing steps are generally easy to follow and show a real attempt to move from raw video measurements to a final result.

Some timing and interval descriptions are inconsistent, which makes it harder to know exactly what physical quantity was processed.
The student's uncertainty treatment is incomplete because key sources such as frame count, distance, calibration, and propagation into later calculations are not fully handled.
The chosen graph and model are not fully consistent with the later low-Reynolds-number interpretation.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Conclusion relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Excellent

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.