Overall Score: 15/24
IB Grade: 5
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
15/24
0
12
24
5.1·weakness
Page 1
The definition of inelastic collisions is incorrect: it refers to collisions conserving kinetic energy, which should be classified as elastic. This misdefinition could lead to conceptual confusion.
5.2·suggestion
Page 12
Expand the bibliography by including peer‐reviewed journal articles or textbooks to reinforce the scientific context of elastic collision theory.
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 within a clear, discipline‐specific context with reference to conservation laws and real‐world applications.
- The step‐by‐step method, annotated diagram and materials list largely allow for reproducibility.
- A comprehensive risk assessment and identification of control variables demonstrate robust methodological planning.
- Exact positions for motion‐sensor placement and the measured spring displacement value are not specified, reducing experimental reproducibility.
- Explanations for why nine mass ratios and three trials ensure sufficient data are thin.
- Potential energy losses (e.g. sound, deformation) are not acknowledged in the theoretical context.
Criteria B: Data Analysis
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Communication of data recording and processing
Good
Consideration of uncertainties
Excellent
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Data tables and graphs are both clear and precise, with units, uncertainties and sample calculations clearly shown.
- Uncertainty propagation and gradient‐uncertainty calculations are methodical and correctly reference standard formulas.
- Processing steps (averaging, correlation) align accurately with theory and are presented consistently.
- Some raw-data tables contain empty cells, creating minor confusion.
- Uncertainty sources rely on reaction‐time estimates rather than sensor resolution, leading to significant omissions.
- Determination of distance uncertainty (±0.001 m) is not explained through calibration or instrument limits.
Criteria C: Conclusion
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Conclusion relevance and support
Moderate
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- The conclusion explicitly references Pearson coefficients, p-values and qualitative agreement with theoretical expectations.
- Key findings are restated in the context of conservation laws, demonstrating conceptual understanding.
- No quantitative comparison between measured and predicted velocities is provided (no residual analysis).
- The strength of agreement with theoretical predictions is not numerically evaluated or discussed.
- Scientific context comparison lacks depth and explicit linkage to high-school physics conventions.
Criteria D: Evaluation
3/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Methodological weaknesses
Moderate
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Specific methodological weaknesses (air resistance, friction, sensor precision, sample size) are identified and linked to energy losses or statistical power.
- Realistic and relevant improvements (vacuum chamber, track maintenance, sensor calibration, increased sample size) are described.
- The relative impact of each methodological weakness (e.g., percentage energy loss) is not quantified.
- Improvements are not explained in terms of how much they would enhance accuracy or reliability.
- The suggestion to conduct a power analysis is not fully elaborated.