Examiners’ Report

Principal Examiner Feedback

October 2020

Pearson Edexcel International Advance

Subsidiary Level
In Physics (WPH12)
Paper 01 Waves and Electricity
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications are awarded by Pearson, the UK’s largest awarding body. We
provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational, occupational and specific
programmes for employers. For further information visit our qualifications websites at
www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk. Alternatively, you can get in touch with us using the
details on our contact us page at www.edexcel.com/contactus.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Pearson aspires to be the world’s leading learning company. Our aim is to help everyone
progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of learning, for all kinds of
people, wherever they are in the world. We’ve been involved in education for over 150 years,
and by working across 70 countries, in 100 languages, we have built an international reputation
for our commitment to high standards and raising achievement through innovation in
education. Find out more about how we can help you and your students at:
www.pearson.com/uk

Grade Boundaries

Grade boundaries for all papers can be found on the website at:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-topics/results-certification/grade-
boundaries.html

October 2020
Publications Code WPH12_01_2010_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2020
Introduction

This unit assesses student understanding of the topics of Waves and Electricity
(specification points 33 to 80). Section A has 10 multiple choice questions,
whilst section B contains a mixture of short and long answer questions,
calculations, and one 6 mark linkage question.

As with all A level courses, this paper assesses both the ability of students to
understand the content, and their ability to apply this understanding to a
number of different applications.

This section of the specification contains core practicals 4 to 8. These are

practicals that students are expected to have undertaken themselves, and
questions about these practicals can be asked within the papers. Question 17
was centred around Core Practical 5, whilst aspects of Core Practical 8
appeared in Question 12.

Section A – Multiple Choice

On average, students scored between 5 and 6 marks out of 10 on this section.
Question 8 was the most successfully answered, although it was the only
multiple choice that more than two thirds of students answered correctly.
Three of the questions were answered correctly by less than half of the
students. These were questions 3, 5 and 10. Generally, these could be
considered to be the multiple choice questions that required the highest levels
of application of understanding to a novel situation.

Section B

Q11 (a)

This question was generally answered very well, with the significant majority of
students scoring both marks. Most were able to insert both of the given
refractive index values along with the angle of incidence given in the question.
Only a small number failed to include both refractive index values, or got the
refractive index values the wrong way round in the equation. A small number
decided to only use one of the given refractive index values in the calculation,
implying that they were working out the angle of refraction for a boundary
between one of the materials and air. For those who had the correct numerical
answer, there were a very small percentage who forgot to include the correct
units.

Q11 (b)

This part of the question proved more demanding, considering that the
equation as listed in the formula sheet only included one refractive index (n).
Many students did not realise that they had to work out the ratio of the
refractive indices before inserting that into the equation as “n”. Of course,
some chose to go back to the base equation n1sinθ1 = n2sinθ2, where one of the
angles was 90°, and this could also lead to the correct answer. In spite of the
greater difficulty of this question, once again the vast majority of students
scored 1 or 2 marks.

Q12 (a)

This question was generally answered well, and both alternative methods were
seen frequently. As both of the resistors were in kΩ, if the calculation was done
consistently the effect of having kΩ was negated; so many students scored
both marks without needing to show any sort of conversion. Almost three
quarters of students scored both marks, with the majority of incorrect answers
being related to either using the wrong resistance value in calculations, or
simply finding the potential difference across the other resistor (0.27V). It was
concerning to see a large number of students trying to establish a whole circuit
current using just one of the resistance values given, rather than adding them
together.

Q12 (b)

A number of students were unable to access the marks on this question,

suggesting that they did not have a full grasp of the practical issues that could
make an idealised voltmeter reading differ from a measured one.
It was clear that a number of students when answering part (a) had not taken
full notice of the fact that the resistances of the resistors were in kΩ, so on part
(b) more generosity was being given to those who suggested that the internal
resistance of the cell could be a cause of the different voltmeter reading. When
awarding marks, this was the mark that was awarded most commonly. A
significant number of students mentioned about resistance in the wires or
connections, but very few considered the resistance of the voltmeter in the
correct way. Indeed, some answers suggested that the voltmeter was
supposed to have no resistance, as they mentioned that the reading on the
voltmeter would be different if the voltmeter had a resistance.

Q13 (a)

More than half of the students scored full marks on this question,
demonstrating an understanding of both the calculation and the conclusion
required. The majority of the students scoring 2 marks failed to make a
relevant conclusion based upon their calculation. Some of these did not make
any conclusion whatsoever. However, there was also a significant number who
concluded that there would be constructive interference between the waves as
the calculated wavelength matched the graph wavelength, thus making them
unsuitable for noise cancelling.
The original conception of the question was that students would calculate the
wavelength mathematically and then compare it to the graph wavelength.
However, perfectly acceptable alternatives involved taking the wavelength
from the graph and substituting it into the equation to calculate either the
frequency or speed. Most of the students who did this had no problem
identifying that 850 Hz was the same as the 0.85 kHz given in the question.

Q13 (b)

Students tend to find the 6 mark linkage questions difficult to access. There
were a reasonable number of students who scored 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 marks in total
on this question, but very few scored 5 or 6. This was largely due to the fact
that more than one aspect of physics was required in order to fully answer the
question. A full answer needed to discuss both the aspect of diffraction
allowing the sound to reach the ear on the other side of the head, as well as
discussing the interference between the engine noise and the ANR sound. The
majority of even the high scoring students focussed entirely on the effect of
interference and how it was perceived differently for each ear.
Although it is pleasing to recognise that some students have seen past paper
questions, it is important to note that questions which look similar at the
outset may well not be identical. A question with a similar diagram to the one
given on this question appeared in the previous specification paper WPH02 in
June 2017. On the earlier paper, the question was purely about the effects of
diffraction, and how the amplitude of sound decreased over distance. It was
only really the first indicative content mark on this paper where diffraction was
relevant, so students focussing purely on diffraction did not tend to score very
well.
There was a good understanding of the interference effects from a lot of
students who clearly understood that a loud sound would be related to
constructive interference whilst a quiet sound was due to destructive
interference. However, very few students managed to link this to the
calculation they had completed in part (a). As such, indicative content point 6
was also rarely awarded.

Q14 (a)

The majority of students scored this definition mark. It is a standard definition,

yet many students forget that it is the “minimum” energy required, rather than
just the energy required. A small number of students wrote confused answers
where it was not entirely clear if photons or electrons were being released
during the process. Although the “surface of a metal” part of the answer was
bracketed (meaning that it did not need to be stated in order to be able to
consider awarding the mark), a number of students clearly stated that the
electron was being released from an incorrectly identified location e.g. from
the ground state of an atom. These students did not score the mark even if
they had correctly stated that the work function was the minimum energy
required to release an electron.

Q14 (b)

It is pleasing to see that so many students were able to answer this question
with a full 3 mark response. Although the calculated answer for the work
function came out to be slightly different to the one given in the table (when
considering the third significant figure) this did not cause an issue when
coming to a conclusion. However, there were a significant number of students
who determined the work function, and then named more than one metal that
could be used for the plate. This suggested that they might be confusing the
question with another style of question where candidates are given a photon
energy and then have to determine which of the metals would release
electrons. In this case, however, there was an expectation that only one metal
should be named.
Aside from the calculation part of the question, it was also good to see that so
many candidates knew that they had to select the metal from the table, rather
than simply calculate the work function.
The majority of incorrect answers appeared to be trying to substitute numbers
into the kinetic energy formula, rather than simply using the given value.
However, most students were able to calculate photon energy for the first
marking point.

Q14 (c) (i)

This question proved to be a good discriminator between students of different

abilities, as relatively equal numbers of students scored 0, 1, 2 or 3 marks.
However, as with the previous calculation, the most common score was 3
marks.
There were two main errors made for students who did not achieve full marks.
The first was a failure to recognise that for marking point 2, the energy that
was required was the work function value from the table at the start of the
question. Some students used the photon energy they had calculated in part
(b), whilst others used the kinetic energy given in part (b). The other error was
for a significant number of students who did not recognise that the intensity
provided was in mWm−2 rather than Wm−2. So the most common incorrect
answer seen was 0.118 seconds.

Q14 (c) (ii)

The low marks achieved for this part of the question can largely be attributed
to the fact that many students failed to mention the role of photons in the
particle theory of light. Indeed, a significant number repeated information that
had been given in the lead up to the question, such as “the electrons are
released instantaneously”. The photoelectric effect equation hf = Φ + ½ mv2
should be considered as an equation demonstrating the conservation of
energy. Hence descriptions should discuss the role of photons in transferring
all of their energy to the electrons at the surface of the metal. The wave theory
also suggests that energy is provided by the light to the metal surface, but this
is a gradual process and could not explain the instantaneous release of
electrons.

Q15 (a)

This question was answered very well, with the majority of candidates scoring
all 3 marks. In spite of this, a number of mistakes were seen when substituting
values into the given equation, most commonly associated with forgetting to
square certain terms.
Considering that energy levels questions about hydrogen appear quite
frequently in examinations (as hydrogen is the simplest atom to work with),
there is a possibility that some students might have been aware of the
ionisation energy of a hydrogen atom as being 13.6eV. As such, this meant that
there needed to be some clear evidence of working that resulted in the correct
answer, so bald answers of 13.6eV were not accepted. However, the majority
of students showed very clear working that made it easy to score the response.

Q15 (b)

As with question 14 (c) (i), there were large numbers of students who achieved
each of the possible marks available on this question, so scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 were seen frequently. The most commonly awarded mark was 2, usually
as a result of students successfully inserting values into the given equation for
the radius of the atom. However, there was some confusion over whether the
mass of an electron or a neutron should be inserted into this equation, with
some candidates doing the same calculation twice (one with the elctron mass,
one with the neutron mass).
Many students did not realise that they should perform a calculation to
establish a de Broglie wavelength for the neutron, so failed to score anything
beyond the first two marking points. Those who did use the de Broglie
equation appeared to be more aware that the mass of the neutron (rather
than the electron) needed to be used in the calculation, although there were
still some who used the incorrect mass.
Unfortunately, those candidates who used the incorrect mass in the first
equation tended to get answers for atom radius and neutron wavelength that
were very similar, concluding that the student was incorrect. There is no
internal error carried forward within a question, so the conclusion was
dependent upon correct calculation of the two values which should have been
different enough to conclude that the student was incorrect.
Q16 (a)

This question was written to be one of the harder parts of the paper, and this
clearly proved so in terms of the answers produced by the students. When
answering questions about refraction, students should be aware that although
all waves can be refracted, terms such as “refractive index” and “optical
density” are generally only applied to light waves. This question was about
sound waves, but many chose to answer it as if it were related to light waves.
Another issue in terms of the way this question was answered was due to
students not focussing clearly on what was happening between 700m and
900m, the depths considered in the question. The whole concept of refraction
taking place gradually when there is no clear “boundary” between one material
and another was poorly understood. This is perhaps due to the fact that the
majority of practical exercises consider light travelling from air into glass or
perspex when there is a sudden change of material. However, many waves
such as the ones in this question (or earthquake waves travelling through the
earth) change direction gradually. A few students realised that in order to
reflect at 700m, there had to be total internal reflection taking place, and a few
of these also clearly stated that the angle of incidence was greater than the
critical angle when this happened.
The most commonly awarded marking points were marking points 1, 4 and 5,
with marking points 2 and 3 very rarely seen.

Q16 (b)

A number of students scored marking point 2 on this question, but very few
achieved marking point 1. There needed to be a clear recognition that the
path shown in diagram B was actually a longer distance than a wave
continuously travelling at 900m depth, but few considered it in their argument.
Most commonly, marking point 2 would simply be linked back to the question
stating that it took less time to arrive.

Q16 (c)

Students are expected to have a general understanding of factors that can

affect the speed of waves in different substances, and it was pleasing to see
that well over half of the candidates were able to name at least one of the
possible factors to explain why the speed of sound waves varied with water
depth. Although a number of students were discussing refractive index again,
the most common incorrect answers tended to be those who listed
“wavelength” and “frequency” as the two main factors.

Q17 (a)

This question required a full understanding of how a stationary wave is

produced, along with explaining the formation of nodes and antinodes.
However, a number of students were unable to describe the situation
technically-enough, often omitting correct statements relating to amplitude or
interference. The majority of students scored at least one mark on the
question. The most commonly awarded marking points were 1 and 3, although
a significant number did manage to correctly state marking point 2.

Q17 (b)

It was disappointing to see that a question which related to the analysis of a

core practical was answered so poorly. A large number of students did not
realise that they should be writing about how equations could be combined in
order to draw a straight line graph. Many of these students simply repeated
information from the question, discussing that if f2 was proportional to W,
there would be a straight line through the origin. Unfortunately, none of that
information explained why f2 would be proportional to W, which was needed
for the marks.
Those students who did realise that they needed to combine two separate
equations to lead to the expression required commonly scored well, although
some of these still failed to replace T with W in the equation; showing an
equation with T instead of W could not explain why f2 would be proportional to
W.
Many of the students who scored well on this question still failed to achieve
marking point 4, as they did not clearly state that the components making up
the gradient would be constant.

Q17 (c)

Very few candidates achieved these marks. There were two alternative methods
for achieving marking point 1, as it was not an expectation that all students would
have used a Cathode Ray Oscilloscope at this point in their A level course. In spite
of this, the CRO option was seen more commonly than the video camera option.
Generally, the main reason for a number of students failing to achieve marks on
this question was due to them suggesting use of the graph that had been
described in part (b). Unfortunately, many of the students using this argument did
not realise that the frequency that they would use to plot the graph was the one
they were intending to check, which made it an unsuitable method to check the
frequency.
Clearly both alternatives to marking point 1 would lead to students determining a
time period for the motion, so the further processing would need them to invert
this to calculate frequency (marking point 2). Unfortunately, as most of the
students did not suggest a method for measuring the time period of the wave, the
second marking point was inaccessible to them, even though it was not dependent
on them having achieved marking point 1.
Q17 (d)

On such a question as this, common scores would be 1 or 3 marks, due to the fact
that marking point 3 could only be gained if students had recognised that the
wavelength was equal to 2L (marking point 2). However, there were still a number
of candidates who scored 2 marks in total for this question, as there were a lot of
unit errors on the answer. A number of students failed to rearrange the equation
correctly, although these students could still potentially access marking point 2.
The most common incorrect answer seen was 1.7 × 10−3 kgm−1, which was a result
of using λ as the length of the string. This scored marking point 1 only.

Q18 (a)

This question had a really good range of responses, with fairly similar numbers of
students achieving each of the available mark totals for the question. Impressively,
the two most common scores achieved were 5 and 6, showing that the students
had a generally good understanding. This is to be particularly commended
considering that the calculations required to achieve the answers were complex
and in multiple steps.
The fact that this question tested many sections of the electricity topic made it
quite challenging. For the first two marking points, students needed to understand
how to work out the resistance of parallel branches of a circuit. For the third
marking point, they needed to understand resistance in series. For the fourth
marking point they needed to use I = V/R, and the fifth marking point required the
use of a relevant power equation. Many students coped very well with all of these
stages in order to achieve a correct power value for resistor A. However, some
students were confused about how the p.d. or current would share between
components, so gained an incorrect value for B, C or D.
Of the lower scoring students, some simply tried to use a power equation straight
away (commonly using the p.d. for the whole circuit {10V} along with the resistance
of an individual resistor {2Ω} in the equation P = V2/R). Others who attempted the
resistors in parallel commonly forgot to invert the equation so calculated a parallel
resistance of 0.75 Ω. Some assumed that they should use the resistors in parallel
formula with all 3 resistors (B, C and D) treated as being in parallel with each other.

Q18 (b)

As with part (a), there were a number of students answering this question that did
not make a distinction between the situation for the whole circuit and the situation
for the individual resistors. A number of incorrect responses started with a correct
suggestion that the total resistance of the circuit increased, but then followed it by
applying the equation P = V2/R to the whole circuit to determine that the power was
reduced. However, if further calculations had been required for this question,
students would have discovered that the power or resistor A decreased, but that
the power of resistors B and C increased. Therefore no credit could be given to
students who were implying that as the power of the whole circuit decreased, that
the power of A would also decrease.
Although the question clearly stated that no further calculations were required,
some candidates decided to calculate the new power values anyway, which gained
no credit unless they were clearly linked to there being a lower p.d. or lower
current through resistor A.

Q18 (c)

Similar questions to this have been set previously on both this paper and its
predecessor WPH02. Students continue to find it quite a challenging question to
tackle, as the wording needs to be precise. It was pleasing to see so many students
using correct terminology relating the the exact particles involved, although there
was still a common lack of linking to other correct terminology e.g. not linking the
idea of more collisions between electrons and atoms to the rate of this occurring.
Although there was a fair spread of students scoring each of marking points 1, 2
and 3, very few achieved marking point 4.
Paper summary

The students taking this paper generally demonstrated a good understanding of

the mathematical demands of the specification, with some of the longer, multiple
step, calculations (such as Q18a) scoring very well indeed.
Some of the written answers were good, although this tended to be better when
the questions were not as strongly applied. Question 16 expected students to
apply taught Physics principles to a different scenario with a different wave type,
which proved difficult for some. It is hoped that students continue to undertake as
much past paper work as possible to enable them to be more familiar with some
of the different applications of the theory. It is worth reminding centres and
students that much of the content for WPH12 is identical to that on the previous
paper WPH02, so these can generally be used for practice.
Answers to Question 17 demonstrated that it is important for students to have
undertaken the core practical tasks, so that they have a good understanding of
how results taken in experiments can be used to construct graphs that will enable
constants such as the mass per unit length to be determined.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom