southowdom.wikispaces.comMarkscheme.docx · Web viewThere is no doubt that the topic, research question and context are nicely identified and explained. Sufficient social and historical,

Investigation 1 The real and the apparent positions of the stars in Orion (Database and spreadsheet)

Examiner comments

Personal engagementx/2

Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

2 6 6 6 4 24

Personal engagement

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. These could include addressing personal interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Mark Descriptor

2 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity.

The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.

There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Moderator’s award

2

Moderator’s comment

The student is enthusiastic and excited about the investigation. He or she uses the internal assessment opportunity to extend his or her understanding of the stars of Orion, nicely combining syllabus content with personal interest. The approach is thorough and well done. There is clearly a personal touch to the work.

Exploration

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work, states a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques appropriate to Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental and ethical considerations.

Mark Descriptor

5–6 The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused research question is clearly described.

The background information provided for the investigation is entirely

appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.

The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.

The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation.*

Moderator’s award

6


There is no doubt that the topic, research question and context are nicely identified and explained. Sufficient social and historical, as well as scientific, background is covered. The method of analysis and presentation are relevant, and the bubble graph is a nice touch, once again emphasizing the student’s involvement. The student did have an afterthought of just looking up the distances of the various stars, which would have taken the wind out of the sails of this investigation. The student mentions that stellar distances were not given in the database but could be found in others. Such detail is not required in the context of this otherwise excellent investigation. The issue of “sufficient data” is not relevant here, and errors and uncertainties were appreciated. The student might have consulted another source for parallax angle and compared this to the data he or she used, but for the purpose of the research this precaution is not essential. There were no safety, ethical or environmental issues relevant to this investigation. Although one might say there is no physics content here, just measurement methods, the investigation is relevant, directly related to astrophysics and commensurate with the syllabus; no more physics content is expected.

Analysis

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.

Mark Descriptor

5–6 The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question.

Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy required to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent with the experimental data.

The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.

The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced.

Moderator’s award

6


The data is clearly processed appropriately and interpreted thoughtfully for a valid conclusion. The impact of uncertainty is not fully addressed, but because the conclusions were somewhat qualitative, the graph of uncertainties counts as an appreciation of the impact (or lack of impact) on the conclusion. The student did make a reasonable attempt at evaluative analysis. The third bullet aspect under markband 5–6 might not, on its own, earn a full 6, but the best-fit method is applied in awarding the mark.

Evaluation

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results with regard to the research question and the accepted scientific context.

Mark Descriptor

5–6 A detailed conclusion is described and justified which is entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented.

A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.

The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Moderator’s award

6


The conclusion is visually presented and summarized in the text. The data supports the conclusion and the research question has been answered. The student realizes, only after most of the work was done, that there are databases with distance values, but the student uses two reliable sources to determine the error of his or her methods. The student is aware that the comparison values have uncertainties, but these are not given in the databases. The expectation of improving the method is somewhat an outlier for this investigation. The “justification” of the conclusion can be found through the report as the student is clearly on top of the content. The sources of error other than raw data are not relevant for this is type of database investigation. That is, the student is making

use of a database, not making measurements him- or herself. It is normal that errors and uncertainties can be large when using the astronomical parallax method. The method is straightforward and relevant. If the student had taken his or her own astronomical data then this criterion would have been easier to apply and assess; given the nature of this database report, and the degree of appreciation demonstrated by the student, the descriptors under evaluation are demonstrated and it is a matter of interpreting a 5 or 6 here.

Communication

This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes.

Mark Descriptor

3–4 The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.

The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.

The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.

The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding.

Moderator’s award

4


The student’s report is clearly written and presented, and there are many illustrations and mathematical calculations to remove any doubt of what the student is talking about. The report flows nicely and is within the page limit. There are a number of personal touches too that help make the work interesting. The structure is clear and divided into manageable sections. The language is mostly concise, perhaps a little too much at times, but the text always remains focused and relevant to the topic. Subject-specific terminology and conventions are appropriate.

Investigation 2 Toy Helicopter

Examiner comments


Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

1 3 5 4 3 16

Personal engagement


Mark Descriptor

1 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is limited with little independent thinking, initiative or creativity.

There is little evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.



Moderator’s award

1


The student is interested in the toy helicopter and has come up with a legitimate research question. The justification for choosing the topic is minimal, however, and there is no expression of curiosity or strong personal interest in the physics of the toy. Concluding comments suggest the student enjoyed playing with the helicopter but just went through the motions of doing the experiment. There was little other involvement. The moderator feels the achievement level is someplace between 0 and 1 and the best-fit model was used to determine the mark.

Exploration

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work, states a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques appropriate to Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.

Mark Descriptor

3–4 The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant but not fully focused research question is described.

The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.

The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance,

reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.

Moderator’s award

3


The student has identified and focused on an appropriate investigation, and one that is interesting. The history of helicopters adds nothing to the scientific context, and there are a number of relevant issues that need exploration here, such as air density, the rotor inflow ratio, and the overall theory of lift. There is much more context that needs to be explained here. The techniques, equipment and methods are all approximate for this investigation. However, a more thoughtful student would have gone deeper into these issues. The student was not aware that the strobe light might be on a multiple sub-frequency for a stable image. Safety issues were appropriately addressed.

Analysis


Mark Descriptor

3–4 The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis




Moderator’s award

5


The student has selected, recorded and processed appropriate data. He or she also appreciated the scope and limitations of the data. The details (problems with vibration and varied air flow) about mass measurement uncertainties are good, but there is no attempt at processing the uncertainty in the frequency, and no attempt to graph uncertainties. However, the standard deviation in the best straight-line data points gives the students a relevant uncertainty in the gradient. There should have been more discussion on the zero-zero origin. There is some consideration, then, of the impact of uncertainty in the analysis.

The moderator feels that the analysis achievement level here is a borderline, between 4 and 5. Some of the descriptors in the 3–4 markband are too harsh

given the student’s report, and yet the first two bullets in the 5–6 markband are not fully achieved. Because the last bullet in the 5–6 markband is achieved, the moderator, using the best-fit method of assessment, decides on a 5 mark for analysis.

Evaluation


Mark Descriptor

3–4 A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented.

A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are described and provide evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.

The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Moderator’s award

4


The purpose of the investigation was to confirm an established equation. The student’s data did this within a limited range, and there was an appreciation of the standard deviation of the best-straight line. The scientific context was weak, and so describing the linear graph does not constitute a justification. We can say that the conclusion, however, is related to theory because that is how the investigation was set up. No further explanation is offered. Some strengths and weakness were covered, and the improvement of using a smooth-running motor was insightful.

Communication


Mark Descriptor





Moderator’s award

3


The report flows reasonably well with just a few disjointed paragraphs. Section headings would have helped, and sometimes the student was not as direct as he or she could have been, such as in the title. The student’s focus was more or less clear and the experimental process was clear and most comments were relevant. Much more could have been explained when it came to the appreciation of uncertainties and the analysis of the graph, but what the student did was satisfactory. Overall, the presentation was clear and weaknesses did not hamper the purpose of the work.

Investigation 3.

Examiner comments


Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

2 6 6 5 4 23

Personal engagement


Mark Descriptor




Moderator’s award


2 The student is focused and clearly interested, even excited, about the investigation. The student found inconsistencies in several textbooks and wanted to clarify these. There is evidence of enthusiasm, passion and independent thinking. This approach shows initiative and curiosity, and this kind of involvement is encouraged in internal assessment work.

Exploration


Mark Descriptor


The background information provided for the investigation is entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation.



Moderator’s award

6


This is an interesting, relevant and engaging investigation. Various sections clearly and concisely state the relevant scientific context, and this dovetails nicely with the physics syllabus. The student researched this well and mentions a number of interesting applications of Wien’s law. The graphs, data selection and method of analysis are all appropriate and what one would expect. Although the use of a simulation for the investigation (compared with a hands-on investigation) was not addressed in depth, the student was keen to use a simulation to establish the proportionality constant. As a hands-on experiment, this is something that is not normally done in high school, so the use of a simulation is most appropriate; moreover, the student appreciated the limitations of using a simulation. In this context, the student was justified in making use of a simulation. There are no significant safety or ethical issues here.

Analysis


Mark Descriptor

3–4 The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.




Moderator’s award

6


There is no doubt that the student has selected, recorded, processed and then interpreted the data in a way that directly addresses the question. The range of data is adequate (indeed, with a simulation the range may or may not be a significant issue). The accuracy of the data was appreciated when the student rejects a simulation with an analogue scale. The student exaggerated the precision of the reciprocal of wavelength but did not use this in the conclusion. The gradient and origin off-set were used as a measure of uncertainty when compared with theory, and this approach is often appropriate when working with simulations. When the student states that the uncertainty is an academic exercise, he or she is in full awareness of the limitation of a simulation. In such cases we would not expect the assumption of the last count as the uncertainty in the raw data. Such detail might move the focus beyond the research question and into traditional lab analysis methods, which are not relevant here. Finally, in this type of investigation there is no call for qualitative data. Despite one bullet point falling in the 3–4 markband, the best-fit method is still applied.

Evaluation


Mark Descriptor

3–4 The student has described some realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.




Moderator’s award

5


The student’s conclusion of the investigation clearly addresses the research question and it appreciates in a qualitative sense the degree of accuracy. However, strengths and weakness are not given the depth that one would like, although there is the expression of the academic nature of the simulation results. Perhaps expecting more is beyond the scope of a simulation exercise. No improvements are mentioned, although the student considered this aspect and a relevant extension was suggested, therefore the bullet item relating to improvement and extension may be an outlier. We can read between the lines a justification for the conclusion in terms of accuracy and theory, so the student has the benefit of doubt here. The student has done well and addressed all the bulleted items.

Communication


Mark Descriptor





Moderator’s award

4


The report is well written, organized and fully documented. It is a little excessive in places, however, but one can feel that the student was enjoying the work. The Wilhelm Wien historical section is not required but adds some interesting

background.

Terminology and scientific conventions are properly followed, and the purpose and outcome are clearly presented. The moderator feels that the 3–4 markband is most appropriate for this interesting and nicely presented investigation and the mark awarded here is based on the idea that a 4 does not mean perfection.

Investigation 4.

Examiner comments


Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

1 4 3 1 4 13

Personal engagement


Mark Descriptor


The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.


Moderator’s award

1


Although the student says he or she is interested in this research project and that he or she is most familiar with our solar system, this alone does not demonstrate genuine interest, independent thinking, creativity or initiative in an investigation that is more like a homework assignment than a research project. There is little evidence, perhaps no evidence, of personal input in the design, implementation or presentation of the investigation. Nonetheless, the student selected appropriate sources of data and relevant (if rather simplistic) solutions to the research. The inappropriate nature of this investigation will affect assessment under the exploration criterion.

Exploration


Mark Descriptor

1–2 The background information provided for the investigation is superficialor of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation.


The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.

The report shows evidence of some awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation*.

Moderator’s award

4


There are really three rather simplistic research questions in this investigation. The teacher should have guided the student to approach one of them in a more serious, in-depth and interesting way. The methodology is mostly mere calculations, much like a homework assignment. Only in the first research question did the student come up with an interesting method; namely, determining the mass of the sun using data from the various planets in our solar system. The context of this investigation is touched upon superficially, basically by describing the quantities in the relevant equations. The student was not aware of assumptions, accuracy and precision in the data, errors and uncertainties. These aspects are important when explaining a method or techniques for analysis. The moderator finds it hard to assess the exploration criterion although with some benefit of doubt, the final mark was awarded.

Analysis


Mark Descriptor

1–2 The report shows evidence of little consideration of the impact of

measurement uncertainty on the analysis.

3–4 The report includes relevant but incomplete quantitative and qualitative raw data that could support a simple or partially valid conclusion to the research question.

Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out that could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing.

The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question can be deduced.

Moderator’s award

3


Although the first research question made use of sufficient data, the other two used only a single value. This limitation does not qualify as sufficient data to support a detailed and valid conclusion. The first calculation was processed in a relevant and appropriate way (taking averages, although a graphical approach would have been preferred); the other two calculations were simply "plug–in-the-numbers" calculations. The lack of any awareness of assumptions, errors, uncertainties, precision, accuracy or even significant figures is a fault under the analysis criterion.

Evaluation


Mark Descriptor

1–2 A conclusion is outlined which is not relevant to the research question or is not supported by the data presented.

Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an accountof the practical or procedural issues faced.

3–4 A conclusion is described which makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Moderator’s award

1


The student correctly goes through the motions of comparing his or her calculated results with the values of the three research queries using (probably) the same authoritative database. The student even expressed the differences as a percentage, but no attempt was made to evaluate the quality of the data in terms of uncertainties or assumptions. The conclusions as such are properly described but only partially justified. There is no attempt at addressing the methodology or

technique of this investigation and improvements or extensions have not been addressed; this was an influencing factor in deciding the final mark.

Communication


Mark Descriptor





Moderator’s award

4


The student’s writing style and report structure clearly communicate the focus, the process and the outcomes of the three investigations. The few vague comments and the few digressions do not hamper the expression of the research investigation. The weakness of this internal assessment does not lie with communications but rather with scientific interest.

Investigation 6.

Examiner comments


Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

2 6 5 5 4 22

Personal engagement


Mark Descriptor




Moderator’s award

2


The student demonstrates a strong interest in a nicely focused and thoughtful project. We can tell that this is a worthwhile investigation for the student and he or she does an excellent job at expressing the details. The creativity and independent thinking come from the extrapolation of the relevant information and its use in the exploration.

Exploration


Mark Descriptor

3–4 The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.




Moderator’s award

6


The student nicely introduces and explains the topic, and then described a well-defined set of research issues: a qualitative demonstration of the greenhouse effect and then four mathematical models that adjust the variables’ parameters to illustrate the resulting effects. Perhaps the student should have considered

only one or two models and taken them into more depth and detail. However, for an internal assessment what the student did is admirable. The methodology, given the limited nature of modelling, is most appropriate and indeed proves interesting. However, many of the other significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the data are not addressed. Given the nature of a demonstration and modelling, it is impossible to address all the relevant factors, but the student is well aware of this.

Analysis


Mark Descriptor



The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.


Moderator’s award

5


First research topic: The analysis of the soda bottle demonstration is appropriate and detailed. The data allows the intended conclusion to be reached. Accuracy and uncertainties are not relevant, so this descriptor is somewhat an outlier here. The mention of a cloud overhead or thermal noise is all there is for an awareness of the impact of uncertainties, but again for this type of research question such a concern is minor. We can say that the greenhouse and the enhanced greenhouse effects have been demonstrated, hence providing a valid and detailed conclusion.

Second research topic: The analysis of the mathematical modelling has also been successful. The descriptors under analysis need to be interpreted in the light of what would be appropriate here. For sure, the selected data based on relevant equations is good, and it is processed and graphed most appropriately. The results are interpreted according to the intended research questions, but the interpretation is basic or rather limited. Perhaps just one model and going into more depth with it would have been more interesting. Accuracy is not an issue here nor is the impact of uncertainties as they provide a comparison to accepted

models.

Evaluation


Mark Descriptor

3–4 Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are described and provide evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion.




Moderator’s award

5


First research topic: The student’s investigation worked well and was repeated with similar results. Subtle variations in the graphed data were addressed and a simple but relevant conclusion was stated. No uncertainty analysis is needed in this type of lab, but the student mentioned sources of error. The moderator appreciated the point in a graph where a cloud came overhead. Interesting extensions were mentioned. Using the best-fit method of assessment for the first topic, the moderator finds nothing to fault.

Second research topic: Here we have a series of mathematical models. The results illustrated the given equation, and the data range and graphs were all appropriate. Some interesting results were obtained and briefly commented upon. The limitation of an equation model was appreciated. Although the student addresses all the descriptors under evaluation for the modelling investigation, more attention to the conclusions would be needed for the top mark. Perhaps the teacher should have guided the student to work with just one model and follow this into more detailed analysis. Overall, the mark here is clearly high, and the moderator decided on level 5.

Communication


Mark Descriptor





Moderator’s award

4


The style and form of the report fully illustrate effective communication of a focused and purposeful rationale. The process and outcomes are clearly presented, and all scientific terms and equations are explained, even the Excel equations.

Investigation 7.

Examminer comments


Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

1 3 4 3 2 13

Personal engagement


Mark Descriptor


The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity.


Moderator’s award

1


There is some evidence of personal interest and curiosity and relevance to the student. The design and method are straightforward and do not demonstrate personal input. The first descriptor is nicely satisfied, but the second is not.

Exploration


Mark Descriptor


The background information provided for the investigation is mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation.

The methodology of the investigation is mainly appropriate to address the research question but has limitations since it takes into consideration only some of the significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the collected data.

Moderator’s award

3


The scientific context is briefly explained. The variety of experiments makes any single research question unfocused and the teacher should have guided the student to make a thorough investigation of the coefficient of restitution as a function of pressure only. This would have allowed for more in-depth analysis. The methodology is basic, and there is some awareness of safety issues.

Analysis


Mark Descriptor

3–4 The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis.

The processed data is interpreted so that a broadly valid but incomplete or limited conclusion to the research question can be deduced.



Moderator’s award

4


The student has indeed selected, recorded and processed appropriate data, including uncertainties and gradients on some of the graphs. The accuracy of the data has been represented with error bars where appropriate. The impact of uncertainties has not been addressed under analysis but could be part of the conclusion. The student does go through the motions of what is expected here, but there is a serious flaw with labelling the data where the student mixes up “grass” and “dirt”.

Evaluation


Mark Descriptor

1–2 Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are outlined but are restricted to an accountof the practical or procedural issues faced.

3–4 A conclusion is described which is relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented.


Moderator’s award

3


The student graphed the appropriate data, described it to a limited degree and also provided some attempt at an explanation of the results. However, there was no mention of relating his or her results to accepted scientific context. According to the student a justification is attempted. Some strengths and weaknesses are realized, and improvements and extensions are hinted at but often the language is vague and not clear.

Communication


Mark Descriptor

1–2 The presentation of the investigation is unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes.

The report is not well structured and is unclear: The necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or disorganized way.

The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information.

There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions*.

Moderator’s award

2


The research issues are not as focused as they should have been. In fact, there are two sets of investigations going on at once. The teacher should have advised the student in the planning stage to focus only on the coefficient of restitution and pressure investigation. A number of sentences are vague, some scientific context and terminology is wrong, and the graphs do not always help the understanding of the data.

Investigation 8.

Examiner comments


Explorationx/6

Analysisx/6

Evaluationx/6

Communicationx/4

Totalx/24

2 6 6 6 4 24

Personal engagement


Mark Descriptor

2 The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with

significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity.



Moderator’s award

2


There are a number of comments that demonstrate the student’s personal involvement, even enthusiasm, with the investigation. How wonderful to see that a mathematical model can be applied to a hands-on physics lab investigation. Teacher and student alike must have enjoyed this work. Independent thinking, initiative and some creativity were also involved in designing the spreadsheet and in the analysis.

Exploration


Mark Descriptor




Moderator’s award

6


The student has clearly established the context of his or her investigation, mentioning examples of exponential change from a number of areas in science and nicely explaining the meaning of exponential change. The research question could not be more focused, and the methods used are totally appropriate to the physics Diploma Programme. In fact, the student did an insightful job at programming the spreadsheet for determining the bouncing heights. Overall the investigation is totally in line with all the highest level descriptors.

Analysis


Mark Descriptor

3–4 The report shows evidence of some consideration of the impact of measurement uncertainty on the analysis




Moderator’s award

6


The student clearly selected, controlled and obtained relevant data, processed it and interpreted the data in relevant and competent ways. Although the log graph had no uncertainty bars, errors and uncertainties were considered in other places, and there is no official checklist of what must or may not be included. A valid conclusion is clearly supported by the analysis here. The research question has been addressed, answered, explained and understood.

Evaluation


Mark Descriptor




The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation.

Moderator’s award

6


The student is aware of assumptions and uncertainties and systematic errors throughout the investigation, and these are all addressed in the concluding comments. No more is expected at this level. Although uncertainty bars could have been added to the log graph, the student explains an alternative approach, and it is justified here. Improvements are appreciated and although there is only the briefest thought about extensions, this does not justify lowering the mark awarded.

Communication


Mark Descriptor





Moderator’s award

4


The overall report flows nicely, has interesting and detailed subtleties in it, and the reader feels that not a word is wasted. Moreover, the calculation techniques are explained, and the graphs illustrate beautifully what the reader is to understand.

Documents

southowdom.wikispaces.comMarkscheme.docx · Web viewThere is no doubt that the topic, research question and context are nicely identified and explained. Sufficient social and historical,