Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 1

Physics WRC
Internal Assessment Examiner’s Comments
Subject: Physics
Language: English
IA File name: IA WRC 2504 Magnetism Temperature.docx
Comments file name (this document): WRC 2504 Magnetism Temperature Comments.docx
Title: “Magnets and Temperature: My Physics IA”
Type of experiment: Hands on
Marks awarded
Criterion Mark awarded Maximum number of
marks available
Research Design 4 6
Data Analysis 5 6
Conclusion 5 6
Evaluation 4 6
Total 18 24
Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 2

Research Design @ 4
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and
practice) used to address the research question.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • The research question is stated without context.

• Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the
research question are stated.
• The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the
detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.

3–4 • The research question is outlined within a broad context.

• Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and
sufficient data to answer the research question are described.
• The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows
for the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.

5–6 • The research question is described within a specific and appropriate

context.
• Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient
data to answer the research question are explained.
• The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the
investigation to be reproduced.

Clarifications
A research question with context should contain reference to the dependent and independent variables or two correlated
variables, include a concise description of the system in which the research question is embedded, and background theory
of direct relevance.
Methodological considerations include:

• the selection of the methods for measuring the dependent and independent variables

• the selection of the databases or model and the sampling of data

• the decisions regarding the scope, quantity and quality of measurements (for example, the range, interval or
frequency of the independent variable, repetition and precision of measurements)

• the identification of control variables and the choice of method of their control

• the recognition of any safety, ethical or environmental issues that needed to be taken into account.
The description of the methodology refers to presenting sufficiently detailed information (such as specific materials used
and precise procedural steps) while avoiding unnecessary or repetitive information, so that the reader may readily
understand how the methodology was implemented and could in principle repeat the investigation.
Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 3

Commentary for Research Design

The first descriptor addresses the research question or topic, the aim of the study, as well as a
specific and appropriate context. The research question is clear and precisely started, and related
theory (very basic theory) is described. The student struggles with the various units and ways of
describing magnetism but there is evidence of research.
The second descriptor addresses methodological considerations associated with collecting
relevant and sufficient data to address the research question. The method is basic but
appropriate. Using one magnet might have been a better controlled variable. The range is
acceptable and repeated measurements are done. Some important procedural issues are not
explained in detail. Safety issues are addressed.
The third descriptor addresses the details needed to reproduce this investigation. Although we
know what is going on some information is not clear or is missing. For example, it is not clear how
the magnet and Gauss meter were held at a fixed distance. How the trials were repeated is not
clear either. Are the three magnets identical?
The Research Design criterion earns a best-fit assessment at a solid 4. More explanation of the
procedures is needed for the next higher mark band. Overall, this is a good example of a
student’s investigation.
Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 4

Data Analysis @ 5
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has recorded,
processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear
nor precise.
• The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the
consideration of uncertainties.
• Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried
out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

3–4 • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or
precise.
• The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of
uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies.
• The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried
out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

5–6 • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both
clear and precise.
• The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate
consideration of uncertainties.
• The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is
carried out appropriately and accurately.

Clarifications
Data refers to quantitative data or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Communication

• Clear communication means that the method of processing can be understood easily.

• Precise communication refers to following conventions correctly, such as those relating to the annotation of graphs
and tables or the use of units, decimal places and significant figures.
Consideration of uncertainties is subject specific and further guidance is given in the TSM.
Major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies are those that will impede the possibility to draw a valid conclusion.
Significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies are those that will allow an answer to the research question to be
given but with some limit to its validity or detail.
Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 5

Commentary for Data Analysis

The first descriptor addresses the communication of the recorded and processed data. The data
table is clear and precise. What is not communicated is how the student determined the
percentage of uncertainty. See comments on the next descriptor.
The second descriptor addresses the appropriate processing of data and the consideration of
uncertainties. Averages are correct. The absolute uncertainty in the data table is the least count
for a single measurement. There is no mention of how the percentage was determined, but a
careful look at the data reveals that the student took one-half the range at each temperature and
used the average to calculate the percentages. Checking several values reveals that this was
done correctly but this is not indicated in the report. This fault does not amount to a significant
omissions or inaccurate processing. Sometimes examiners need to dig into the student’s data and
figure out what they did.
The third descriptor looks at the data analysis as to how it supports the research aim. The
graphs are nicely presented and directly address the research question. The student followed
guidelines on how to establish the minimum and maximum gradients for the best fit linear line and
hence established an uncertainty range for the best fit line.
The Data analysis criterion earns a best-fit assessment in the 5-6 mark band but because of a
few ambiguities or omissions, the examiner must go for level 5 here.
Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 6

Conclusion @ 5
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with regard
to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not
supported by the analysis presented.
• The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

3–4 • A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully
consistent with the analysis presented.
• A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the
accepted scientific context.

5–6 • A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully
consistent with the analysis presented.
• A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific
context.

Clarifications
A conclusion that is fully consistent requires the interpretation of processed data including associated uncertainties.
Scientific context refers to information that could come from published material (paper or online), published values,
personal literature/course notes, textbooks or other outside sources. The citation of published materials must be
sufficiently detailed to allow these sources to be traceable.

Commentary for Conclusion

The first descriptor addresses the conclusion and how well the interpretation and analysis of the
data supports the conclusion. The analysis (and the high-quality data) directly answers the
research question. Expressed with appropriate uncertainties as percentages, paying attention to
the meaning of the gradient and y-intercept, the student has clearly justified a conclusion to their
investigation. However, the linear line with a negative gradient does not yield an “inversely
proportional” function between magnetism and temperature. This is more a fault of vocabulary
than of analysis. The analysis is otherwise sound, and the data is excellent. The linear fit is
justified and the gradient meaningful. The teacher should have caught this mistake of terminology.
The second descriptor addresses the justification for the conclusion within accepted scientific
knowledge. The student’s original context or theory is a partial justification. The quality of
experimental results support this. The student’s research with several university level textbooks
vaguely supports this but more detail is needed. The student appreciates the limit of the
temperature range. This is as much as we can expect at high school level.
The Conclusion criterion earns a best-fit assessment at solid 5 level.
Phy__ia_en_1d upskilling SSS 7

Evaluation @ 4
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the
investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.

Marks Level descriptor

0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

1–2 • The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.

• Improvements to the investigation are stated.

3–4 • The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.

• Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the
identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.

5–6 • The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or
limitations.
• Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified
weaknesses or limitations, are explained.

Clarifications
Generic is general to many methodologies and not specifically relevant to the methodology of the investigation being
evaluated.
Methodological refers to the overall approach to the investigation of the research question as well as procedural steps.
Weaknesses could relate to issues regarding the control of variables, the precision of measurement or the variation in the
data.
Limitations could refer to how the conclusion is limited in scope by the range of the data collected, the confines of the
system or the applicability of assumptions made.

Commentary for Evaluation

The first descriptor addresses the evaluation of the methodology and explains the impact of
methodological and procedural weaknesses and limitations. The student addresses two
procedural issues: temperature and heating. The temperature issue may be relevant, but it is not
established clearly. A thermocouple only measures one place. Still, the student has thoughts
here. The heating issue was more important, and the student explains this. There is no reflection
on the methodology, only the procedural data measurement. This may be in part due to the high-
quality data. We are not requiring a quantitative statement about the impact of a weakness.
The second descriptor addresses the possible improvements to the issues explained in the first
descriptor. Both issues are given a resolution.
The Evaluation criterion earns a best-fit assessment at the solid 4 level.

IA WRC 2504