Overall Score: 18/24
IB Grade: 6
Was this exemplar helpful?
General feedback
18/24
0
12
24
5.1·suggestion
Page 12
Reference list is minimal; add full citation details (authors, publication date, DOI) to adhere to academic standards.
Criteria A: Research Design
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Research question context
Good
Methodological considerations for collecting data
Good
Methodological considerations
Criteria Feedback
- Research question is clearly articulated within a specific, discipline-specific context
- Prediction of coefficient of friction from literature grounds the investigation in prior work
- Procedure is described step-by-step with enough detail for a knowledgeable reader to reproduce the core investigation
- Control variables are identified with justification, and derivation of the work–energy relationship is correctly presented
- Context discussion is concise and would benefit from quantitative details (e.g., surface roughness, block dimensions)
- Key procedural details are omitted (camera frame rate, video resolution, exact table length, number of repeats per force increment)
- Minor typographical error (gravitational acceleration denoted as “q” instead of “g”)
- Some methodological assumptions (surface preparation and temperature control) are not addressed
Criteria B: Data Analysis
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Good
Communication of data recording and processing
Good
Consideration of uncertainties
Moderate
Data processing quality
Criteria Feedback
- Raw-data tables, graphs and units are presented clearly and legibly
- Sample calculation narrative and error-bar inclusion demonstrate clear communication of processing steps
- Uncertainties for displacement and gradient are estimated and discussed
- Processed graph includes correlation coefficient and fit equation for interpretation
- Raw-data table contains duplicate entries and lacks trial identifiers
- Velocity uncertainty propagation is miscomputed (linear rather than quadrature)
- Slope units are mislabelled and numerical units are inconsistent
- Overall uncertainty on the coefficient of friction is not propagated
Criteria C: Conclusion
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Conclusion relevance and support
Good
Scientific context comparison
Criteria Feedback
- Conclusion section is clearly structured and labeled
- A quantitative comparison to a published coefficient of friction is provided with percentage error
- Uses correlation coefficient and intercept deviation to link back to analysis
- Internal inconsistencies: oscillates between validating and not validating the hypothesis without reconciling intercept significance
- Lacks discussion of significant-figure conventions to support scientific rigor
- Does not fully integrate the strong correlation result with the intercept uncertainty
Criteria D: Evaluation
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Excellent
Methodological weaknesses
Excellent
Suggested improvements
Criteria Feedback
- Identifies multiple specific methodological weaknesses with realistic, feasible improvements
- Explains how each suggested improvement (e.g., camera positioning, table length, sample size) mitigates systematic or random errors
- Addresses both equipment-related and procedural sources of error with clear rationales
- Impact descriptions in the evaluation table are sometimes truncated and could be expanded for clarity
- Quantitative estimates of how much each improvement would affect results are not provided
- Extension proposals are relevant but lack detailed experimental modification steps