Investigation 5: The relationship between suspension

length and period of disk rotation

Note: The comments in the annotated examples match the labelling on teacher forms.

Examiner comments

Personal engagement Exploration Analysis Evaluation Communication Total

Personal Engagement

This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and
makes it his or her 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
 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
2
or curiosity.
 There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing,
implementation or presentation of the investigation.

Moderator’s comment
Moderator’s
award Attention to detail and precision, and the overall competence in this otherwise
straightforward investigation, earns full marks for personal engagement. The
2 student clearly shows initiative and interest, and to confirm a known equation
for a subject of interest one might say that the student also shows curiosity.

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 the Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses
awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.

Mark Descriptor
 The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully
5–6
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 comment

The topic is nicely identified, and the text is relevant and focused. Because the
Moderator’s theory is well known, the research question could have been rephrased as an
award investigation to confirm the limits of the theory. The background is entirely
appropriate. The methodology could not be improved, but the theory shows a
6 horizontal mass while the method shows a vertical mass. There is an issue of
the centre of mass to consider. The range of data is acceptable given the detail
to each set of measurements. It would be interesting to test extreme lengths. All
the other factors are clearly identified.

* This indicator should only be applied when appropriate to the investigation.

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
 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
5–6 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 comment
Moderator’s
There is sufficient data, but the range could have been larger. The processing
award
and accuracy are most appropriate. There is almost too much detail, but the
analysis is sound. The impact of uncertainties is appreciated and the analysis
6
allows for a consistent conclusion based on the data. However, the major
systematic shift of the nicely linearized line needs some attention in the
 conclusion and evaluation section. One might argue that the gradient
uncertainty should nonetheless be determined, either using the time-squared
error bars. Nonetheless, the student addresses this issue with the sometimes-
dubious correlation coefficient.

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
 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
5–6
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 comment

The student addresses the important issue of systematic shift, but their
Moderator’s
comments are misguided. The issue of air resistance is exaggerated due to the
award
vertical placement of the mass. There are more than enough sufficient details in
the quantitative analysis evaluation to earn a good mark. However, the
5
methodology is not seriously approached. An extended range could count as an
extension of the investigation. Evaluation is someplace on the 4-5 borderlines,
but given the overall competence (a best-fit assessment) a 5 is awarded.

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
 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
3–4 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 comment

Moderator’s The student has produced an interesting report. The presentation is clear, the
award text is nicely structured, and the focus is always on the experiment. The only
criticism is that sometimes there is too much detail, but it is acceptable. The
4 text remains focused and relevant. Terminology and conventions are
appropriate. The few ambiguities do not keep the student from earning top
marks for this criterion.