SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

PHYSICS (IBAEM/IBAP)
To improve the security of IB examinations, a selection of examination papers now have regional
variants, including physics HL and SL papers 1, 2 and 3. The following report is for physics taken by
candidates in the IB regions of Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia/Pacific.

Overall grade boundaries

Higher level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-16 17-28 29-39 40-50 51-62 63-73 74-100

Standard level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-15 16-27 28-39 40-50 51-61 62-72 73-100

Thanks are extended to those schools and teachers who have commented on particular questions on
the G2 feedback forms. Teachers are strongly encouraged to send in G2 comments on all components
of the external examination, papers 1, 2 and 3, SL and/or HL. These may be sent either by hard copy,
via IBNET or the OCC. These comments provide valuable information to the Grade Award team in
respect of determining grade boundaries.

Internal assessment
Component grade boundaries
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-9 10-15 16-21 22-27 28-31 32-37 38-48

The range and suitability of the work submitted.

It would seem that more Schools than last year are producing imaginative, well-balanced programmes
that give good syllabus coverage both of the Core and the Options and which also expose the
candidates to a wide range of experimental techniques. These schools demonstrate that good
experiments can be designed using simple equipment. However, some schools’ programmes continue
to be dominated by experiments in mechanics at the expense of the other parts of the syllabus.

In some cases very little knowledge was displayed of the various measurement techniques available in
experimental work or of the different analytical techniques available for dealing with data. Some
candidates found graphical analysis difficult and often used incorrect, computer generated graphs.

Fewer schools than in previous years made extensive use of worksheets, but there was still a tendency
to overdo computer sampling at the expense of more traditional methods of obtaining data.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 1 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

In the respect of worksheets, if a worksheet gives all the instructions necessary to assemble the
apparatus for a particular experiment and also tells the candidates what readings of which quantities
they should take, then this experiment cannot be used for the assessment of Planning skills.

Students should also be taught the correct application of error analysis and also how to make a
quantitative evaluation of a particular experiment. For example, a candidate who carries out an
experiment to measure g and comes up with a value 9.73 m s-1 and then writes something to the
effect “ the actual value of g is 9.81 m s-2 so therefore there is an error in my result of x%, so all in all
this has been successful experiment”, clearly has no idea of the correct way to assess errors or how to
make a quantitative evaluation of procedure.

Candidate performance against each criterion.

Planning (a) and Planning (b)

Students often do not perform well with Planning skills. This is often due to the type of
experiments that some teachers submit as evidence of assessment of the Planning criteria.

For assessing Planning, teachers need to give the candidates more open-ended tasks. For
example instead of just giving them instructions to measure that acceleration due to gravity
using a simple pendulum, the candidates can be asked to investigate the factors (or one factor)
that affect the period of a simple pendulum. In such an experiment the candidates have to
identify the factor(s), hypothesise as to the possible outcome, identify the variables to control
and then design a suitable method to carry out the investigation. Experiments that are
designed to measure a specific quantity or that set out to verify a physical law or relationship
do not allow candidates to formulate a research question or hypothesis and in most cases, the
variables are prescribed. For example, experiments such as “To measure the wavelength of
laser light” or “to verify Snell’s law” do not lend themselves to the assessment of planning
skills.

If candidates are given too much information about an experiment in respect of the apparatus,
methods and procedures to use, or if they are directed to a reference that gives an account of
the experiment, that then this experiment cannot be used to assess Planning (b). Students must
choose the apparatus and decide for themselves, the method and procedures to use. This also
means that they must work on their own and as such, means that the Group 4 Project is not
usually suitable for assessing either of the Planning criteria or for that matter, Data Collection.

For the moderator to make an accurate assessment of the teacher marking of the Planning
Criteria, it is essential that a copy of the instructions given to the candidates is enclosed with
the sample material. In fact the moderator will not start to mark any of the sample material
until such a copy is obtained from the school.

Data collection

This is usually well done except in some cases where data is very poorly presented. The data
should, where appropriate, be put into a table and units and uncertainties should be included.
Students should be taught that every measurement that they make involves an uncertainty!
Also, if candidates are given a headed table on a worksheet as part of an experiment, then this
experiment cannot be used to assess data collection. Also, it should be born in mind that
experiments such as plotting magnetic field lines are not suitable for assessing this criterion.
For Physics, the experiment should involve the collection of quantitative raw data.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 2 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Data Processing and Presentation

This was often poor. Students should be taught how to transform their data into a form that
makes for good graphical analysis. The concept of error bars would appear to be alien to
many candidates If candidates are told how to present the data, then they cannot gain a
complete on the second aspect of this criterion. Too often one sees the instruction given to
candidates “plot a graph of … against ….”
Students rely too often, on computer graphing without clearly understanding what they are
doing . They are the under the impression that if the computer gives them an equation for
their graph, the regression and error bars, then this is good data presentation. In respect of
error bars on computer generated graphs, the candidate must make it clear to the moderator,
the basis upon which the error bars have been generated.

When graphical analysis is not involved, candidates still lost marks through poor, and in some
instances, incomprehensible presentation of their data.

Again, experiments used to assess this criterion, should involve quantitative data.

Conclusion and Evaluation

This was often weak. In many cases, the conclusion was omitted and rarely was the problem
of the limitations of a particular technique addressed. Furthermore, candidates rarely
suggested possible improvements to the experiments or identified any possible weakness in
the techniques used. The idea of repeating the readings as an improvement to the experiment,
is often missed.

The recommendations for the teaching of future candidates.

The recommendations are essentially given above. However, to summarise:

• Choose appropriate experiments to assess correctly, the respective criteria

• Include the instructions given to the candidate for each experiment including a summary of
any verbal instructions
• Get candidates to present data neatly, (use a ruler to draw tables) include units and
uncertainties
• Make sure that candidates become familiar with graphical analysis techniques and present any
analyis in a neat and logical manner
• Make sure that candidates always present a definite conclusion, assess limitations of the
techniques used and suggest ways of improving the experiment.
• For the assessment of Pl(a), Pl(b) and DC, candidates should ideally work individually. If the
candidates work in a group, then the individual work of the candidate must be identified in the
work submitted for moderation
• DPP and CE must be individual work
• If two or more teachers are involved in the assessment of IA, then it is imperative that the
work is moderated internally before any samples are sent to the moderator.

Teachers are strongly advised to note the guidance in the online Teacher Support Material phases 1
and 2 available on the Online Curriculum Centre (OCC) when setting and assessing practical work for
the Group 4 Internal Assessment Scheme. Internal Assessment moderators will, in future be taking
this guidance into account in their moderation of IA sample work from schools.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 3 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

This year most 4/PSOW forms were completed correctly by the teachers but some schools are still
sending complete portfolios of all the candidates in the sample and others, one complete portfolio.

Paper 1
Component grade boundaries

Higher level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-10 11-14 15-18 19-22 23-27 28-31 32-40

Standard level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-7 8-10 11-14 15-17 18-20 21-23 24-30

General comments
IB multiple choice physics papers are designed to have, in the main, questions testing conceptual
ideas rather than the ability to carry out calculations. Calculations can be assessed more appropriately
in questions on Papers 2 and 3. Calculators are thus neither needed nor allowed for Paper 1. A
proportion of questions are common to the SL and HL papers, and the additional questions in HL
provide further syllabus coverage.

The May 2004 Papers 1 were generally well received. Nearly all of the teachers who commented on
the Papers felt that they contained questions of an appropriate level. A small number thought that the
SL Paper was a little more difficult. With few exceptions, teachers thought that the Papers gave
satisfactory or good coverage of the syllabus. However, coverage should be judged in conjunction
with Paper 2. All teachers also felt that the presentation of the Papers was either satisfactory or good.
However, a few teachers felt that the wording of a small number of questions in the HL Paper could
have been improved.

Statistical analysis
The overall performance of candidates and the performance on individual questions are illustrated in
the statistical analysis of responses. These data are given in the grids below.

The numbers in the columns A-D and Blank are the numbers of candidates choosing the labelled
option or leaving the answer blank. The question key (correct option) is indicated by an asterisk (*).
The difficulty index (perhaps better called facility index) is the percentage of candidates that gave the
correct response (the key). A high index thus indicates an easy question. The discrimination index is a
measure of how well the question discriminated between the candidates of different abilities. A higher
discrimination index indicates that a greater proportion of the more able candidates correctly
identified the key compared with the weaker candidates.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 4 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

SL paper 1 item analysis

Question A B C D Blank Difficulty Discrimination

Index Index
1 114 441 1169* 176 5 61 .28
2 253 651* 557 437 7 34 .25
3 452 363 836* 250 4 44 .42
4 990* 204 302 406 3 52 .45
5 133 1674* 34 63 1 88 .27
6 77 199 428 1201* 63 .56
7 204 1207 222 267* 5 14 .23
8 117 238 218 1330* 2 70 .43
9 198 464 305 935* 3 49 .29
10 160 1648* 25 70 2 87 .20
11 357 311 1100* 124 13 58 .54
12 621* 796 254 228 6 33 .18
13 1066* 246 442 144 7 56 .48
14 54 24 169 1653* 5 87 .21
15 86 138 1309* 371 1 69 .30
16 536* 221 113 1034 1 28 .22
17 1510* 84 175 135 1 79 .28
18 21 193 20 1670* 1 88 .25
19 1022* 333 308 236 6 54 .49
20 509 128 1173* 93 2 62 .48
21 183 1492* 149 78 3 78 .28
22 1618* 156 65 64 2 85 .33
23 60 1387* 30 425 3 73 .21
24 738 101 176 885* 5 46 .38
25 786* 356 452 287 24 41 .29
26 119 249 237 1293* 7 68 .49
27 557 787* 361 182 18 41 .44
28 242 341 1095* 201 26 57 .53
29 1177* 334 174 210 10 62 .57
30 410 249 1178* 52 16 62 .45

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 5 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

HL paper 1 item analysis

Question A B C D Blank Difficulty Discrimination

Index Index
1 122 480 1500* 185 5 65 .20
2 257 186 1700* 140 9 74 .45
3 307 214 1693* 75 3 74 .34
4 1037* 1061 187 7 45 .43
5 302 480 1295* 203 12 57 .41
6 49 2149* 39 52 3 94 .13
7 38 98 283 1870* 3 82 .35
8 145 545 239 1352* 11 59 .35
9 112 2094* 13 69 4 91 .14
10 1097* 789 227 167 12 48 .32
11 395 134 1661* 100 2 72 .33
12 750* 847 636 55 4 33 .41
13 374 1251* 376 282 9 55 .57
14 670 1078* 337 198 9 47 .35
15 63 141 1796* 291 1 78 .25
16 873* 269 121 1023 6 38 .34
17 1935* 67 139 147 4 84 .11
18 88 617 37 1550* 68 .35
19 1721* 115 401 52 3 75 .38
20 302 258 1635* 93 4 71 .33
21 5 169 8 2110* 92 .13
22 154 1973* 107 58 86 .20
23 1587* 202 370 125 8 69 .35
24 245 38 1717* 289 3 75 .39
25 212 158 1424* 489 9 62 .44
26 37 1866* 14 373 2 81 .19
27 1117 134 148 891* 2 39 .29
28 411 1360* 351 159 11 59 .54
29 236 1138* 638 272 8 50 .44
30 1172* 428 356 306 30 51 .37
31 272 195 81 1731* 13 76 .41
32 34 113 1380* 751 14 60 .48
33 1091* 1128 56 14 3 48 .39
34 1024* 360 258 631 19 45 .51
35 644 1142* 280 221 5 50 .40
36 241 407 1186 440* 18 19 .25
37 343 1082* 296 559 12 47 .40
38 215 391 1446* 209 31 63 .52
39 248 362 1215* 457 10 53 .51
40 810* 283 977 214 8 35 .22

In Q4 above, A and D were both marked correct with 1037 correct answers.

Comments on the analysis

Difficulty. For both HL and SL the difficulty index varies from below 20% (relatively ‘difficult’
questions) to greater than 80% (relatively ‘easy’ questions).

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 6 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Discrimination. All questions had a positive value for the discrimination index. Ideally, the index
should be greater than about 0.2. This was achieved in the majority of questions. However, a low
discrimination index may not result from an unreliable question. It could indicate a common
misconception amongst candidates.

‘Blank’ response. In both papers, the number of blank responses increases for the last few items. This
may indicate that candidates did not have sufficient time to complete their responses. However this
does not provide an explanation for ‘blanks’ early in the Papers. Candidates should be reminded that
there is no penalty for an incorrect response. Therefore, if the correct response is not known, then an
educated guess should be made.

Comments on selected questions

Candidate performance on the individual questions is provided in the statistical tables above, along
with the values of the indices. For most questions, this alone will provide sufficient feedback
information when looking at a specific question. Thus comments will only be given on selected
questions, i.e. those that illustrate a particular issue or where a problem can be identified. Thanks are
extended to those schools and teachers who have commented on particular questions.

Standard level and common questions

Standard level question 3

The expression “zero offset error” was used with the intention of helping the candidate with
the wording. High discrimination index with a lot of guessing at both levels.

Higher level question 5, standard level question 3

The expression “zero offset error” was used with the intention of helping the candidate with
the wording. High discrimination index with a lot of guessing at both levels.

Higher level question 7, standard level question 6

High discrimination index at both levels. Possibly a lack of familiarity with acceleration vs
time graphs explains the lower percentage of success for SL candidates.

Higher level question 8, standard level question 9

A significant number of candidates (25%) chose answer B instead of the correct answer D.
Possibly these candidates considered (incorrectly) that conservation of momentum implies
automatically conservation of energy.

Higher level question 9, standard level question 10

In the French version, the word “vitesse” is used. Since “impulsion” is a vector, it is implicit
that the intent here is “vecteur vitesse”, not the scalar “vitesse”. In the English version the
word “velocity” refers to a vector.

Higher level question 10, standard level question 12

The question refers to a classic set-up. High discrimination index for HL candidates and high
difficulty index for SL candidates. In both cases, the most “popular” choice of the wrong
answer B indicates that many could calculate the net force but forgot to apply it to both

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 7 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

masses (m or M). In the French version, the use of the expression “l’accélération
gravitationnelle” was unfortunate, but in this context, it would not adversely affect the result.

Standard level question 13

Almost 1 candidate out of 4 chose answer C, not realising that this answer, unit wise, is not
possible.

Higher level and standard level question 16

The popularity of answer D as a choice indicates that many candidates misread the expression
“real gases”

Standard level question 20

1 candidate out of 4 chose answer A apparently having not given attention to the fact that the
Doppler effect is not about loudness of sound.

Standard level question 24

Almost 40% of the candidates chose A rather than D. This fact suggests that the connection of
the unit coulomb with the operational definition of the ampère was not made.

Standard level question 25

A lot of guessing by the candidates who considered this question somewhat challenging. The
design of the Paper is such that each and all of the questions will not carry the same level of
difficulty and discrimination.

Higher level question 28, standard level question 27

High discrimination index at both levels. A significant number of candidates did not realise
that the magnetic force is not a function of the mass of the charged particle.

Higher level

Higher level question 4

A general answer was looked for but the specific angle between the two vectors F (120°) on
the sketch made it possible for the answers A and D to be plausible. Both answers were
accepted. The large number of choices for answer B indicates that nearly 50% of candidates
did not take into account the vector nature of F and W.

Higher level question 13

High discrimination index with a lot of guessing, considering the broad choice of answers
chosen.

Higher level question 19

It is implicit that the question is about the work done in one cycle. In hindsight, it would have
been better to include this detail. The choices of answers by the candidates did not indicate
that this was actually a problem.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 8 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Higher level question 33

Nearly half of the candidates blindly applied the definition of magnetic flux linkage without
giving proper attention to the role of q in yielding the component of B perpendicular to the
area S.

Examiner comment
In general, conceptual questions of the type used in these multiple choice papers demand good
understanding of basic definitions, concepts and principles, often more so than quantitative formula-
based problems. They require insight into situations and the ability to apply quality reasoning to
understand how various factors affect a system. These skills, an important component of ‘thinking
like a scientist’, sometimes tend to be neglected in teaching and in textbooks. Thus it is not surprising
that some candidates struggled with the conceptual nature of the questions. At Higher Level, 11
questions carried a “facility index” below 50%. Five of these questions involved a definition and two
were related to free body diagrams and the application of Newton’s laws of motion. At Standard
Level, 9 questions carried a “facility index” below 50%. Four of these questions involved a definition.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that many candidates scored high marks and demonstrated good
preparation for the examination.

The relative distribution of the choices of the candidates among the proposed answers A to D can
reveal key conceptual difficulties encountered by the candidates. Such information could be highly
useful in the teaching of particular concepts or definitions. Also the difficulty and discrimination
indices could be useful to a teacher designing multiple choice tests.

Paper 2
Component grade boundaries

Higher level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-12 13-24 25-35 36-46 47-58 59-69 70-95

Standard level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25-30 31-36 37-50

General comments
Judging from the very few critical comments on the teacher feedback forms, the examination would
seem to have been well received by schools. It should be noted that fewer than 50% of schools
completed these forms.

Feedback from schools can be summarized as follows:

• About 85% found the papers to be of a similar standard to last year, 5% a little easier, 13% a
little more difficult and 7% much more difficult.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 9 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

• About 95% found the level of difficulty appropriate and about 5% too difficult.
• About 56% found the syllabus coverage good, 40% satisfactory and 4% poor.
• About 60% found the clarity of wording satisfactory, and 20% found it good.
• About 80% found the presentation good, and 20% found it satisfactory.

The examination would seem to have offered suitable challenges to strong candidates and also
appropriate accessibility to weaker candidates.

In general, candidates appeared to allocate their time appropriately and there was no evidence that
candidates were disadvantaged by lack of time. However, some candidates, as in previous years, did
not pay heed to the space available for answering a particular sub-question or to the marks available
and hence gave needlessly lengthy answers. Furthermore, many wasted time and space by
paraphrasing the question, rather than answering it.

As last year the general impression was that fewer candidates made significant digit errors and/or unit
errors for which marks were deducted.

The majority of candidates showed the steps in calculations and so were able to take advantage of
“error carried forward” (ECF) marks. However, some candidates still, as in previous years, continue
not to show their working and so lose partial marks when the answer that they write down is incorrect.
There was a general feeling that candidates were taking more care with diagrams than in past years.

The areas of the programme that proved difficult for the candidates
Higher level and standard level

As in previous years, the interpretation of graphical data and explanations of physical phenomena are
beyond some candidates. In this examination, the following topics proved difficult for many
candidates:

• Definition of resistance
• Recognition of the nature of centripetal force and associated problems
• Use of Huygen’s principle
• Definition of binding energy and use of the binding energy curve.

Higher level only

In the Higher Level examination the following topics proved difficult for many candidates:

• Induced emf’s
• Electrostatic potential of a charged sphere
• Static equilibrium and moments
• Entropy and the 2nd law
• Atomic energy levels

Standard level only

In the Standard level examination the topics of vector addition and problems associated with electric
fields proved difficult for many candidates.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 10 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Higher level and standard level

Generally there was good knowledge of formulae and their application to the solving of numerical
problems. In general, many candidates seemed to be well prepared in respect of the following topics:

• Graph plotting
• Momentum conservation
• Basic wave properties
• Nuclear equations

The strengths and weaknesses of candidates in the treatment of individual

questions
Section A

Higher level question 1: Data analysis

Many candidates gained full credit for the graph plotting. However, a significant number of
candidates did not know how to draw the line with the maximum permissible gradient and
also, often chose points too close together to find a realistic value of the gradient. As with SL
candidates, few candidates gave the correct unit for capacitance and many had difficulty in
using the gradient to find the permittivity of free space. Nevertheless, there were some
excellent answers to the question as a whole.

Standard level question 1: Data analysis

Many candidates gained full credit for the graph plotting and the drawing of the best fit line.
However, a significant number of candidates chose points too close together to find a realistic
value for the gradient.

Few candidates gave the correct unit for capacitance and many had difficulty in using the
gradient to find the permittivity of free space. Nevertheless, there were some excellent
answers to the question as a whole.

Higher and standard level question 2: Colliding trucks

This was often well answered. Some candidates did not define momentum but instead
attempted to give a qualitative description. A significant number of candidates talked about
“lost” rather than “transformed” energy.

Higher and standard level question 3: The filament lamp

The most common error was for candidates to draw a linear characteristic or to draw a
characteristic consistent with V on the x-axis. Many candidates thought that the resistance
was obtained by finding the slope of the graph. This is true, of course, for ohmic conductors,
and so they could obtain an ECF mark here. However, candidates should be discouraged from
this approach. Explanations as to whether the behaviour was ohmic were often missing.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 11 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Higher level question 4: Induced emf

This question, designed to illustrate the conversion of mechanical power into electrical power,
proved difficult for a lot of candidates. Many were unable to correctly show the directions of
FE and FM or show that the mechanical power was equal to the electrical power dissipated in
the rod.

Section B

Higher and standard level question 1 part 1: Circular motion

It is interesting to note that the question concerned with explaining acceleration at constant
speed has been set, in one form or another, several times before and that over the years the
quality of the answers has improved significantly. In this exam, it was therefore pleasing to
note that many candidates gave clear and accurate explanations of this phenomenon.
However, the same cannot be said about the understanding of the nature of centripetal force.
When asked to identify the two forces acting on the marble, the most common answer was
“weight and centripetal force”. This meant that there was little chance of these candidates
successfully determining the reaction force acting on the marble.

The calculation of the value of the speed was done well by many candidates. It was
appreciated that, due to rotational energy, the speed would be closer to 2.0 ms-1 and that
perhaps it might have been better, in terms of the physics, to have had a small metal block
sliding without friction down the ramp.

Higher level part 2: Charged sphere

Definitions of electric potential were often incomplete and although many candidates drew
correct equipotentials they were unable to explain why they showed that the field was
decreasing. Generally the variation of potential with distance from the centre of the sphere
was not known and many struggled with the calculation.

Standard level part 2: Charged sphere

The only parts of this question that were answered with any confidence by the majority of
candidates were the sketching of the field pattern and the calculation of the field strength.
Some candidates appreciated that the electron would follow a field line and some appreciated
why the acceleration of the electron would decrease as it moved away from the sphere but
few could use the speed of the electron to calculate the potential difference.

Question 2

Higher level part 1: Static equilibrium

Diagrams of the forces were often well done and although knowledge of cotangent is not a
mathematical requirement, many candidates were familiar with it or assumed it from their
correct taking of moments.

Although there were some excellent answers to the ladder problem, many candidates failed
because clearly they had very poor knowledge of the conditions for static equilibrium.
Although many candidates knew instinctively that the height should be increased, few could
give a coherent argument.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 12 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Standard level part 1: The solenoid

The field pattern of the solenoid was often well drawn but few recognised that a bar magnet
would produce a similar pattern. Many merely stated “magnet”, perhaps expecting the
examiner to realise that they meant “bar magnet”.

The vector addition of the fields defeated most candidates.

Higher and standard level part 2: Refraction

Most candidates were able to correctly draw the position of the wavefront and identify the
relevant distances. However, there was widespread difficulty with the proof, with many
candidates leaving this blank. A common incorrect approach, not using the diagram, was to
c
use Snell’s law and the equation n = .
v

The calculations were often done well.

Question 3

Higher and standard level part 1: Nuclear binding energy

Definitions of nuclear binding energy were often poor and could not really be classed as
definitions e.g. “nuclear binding energy is the energy that binds the nucleus together”.

In the French version of the paper, nucleon number was translated as atomic number. This
was taken into account and did not seem to have affected the candidates, with many ignoring
the mistranslation. According to the Subject Guide, it is expected that candidates should be
able to draw and annotate the nuclear binding energy curve. In this respect, they should have
knowledge of the values of the three main binding energies associated with the curve, in fact,
the three values asked for in the question. A degree of latitude was allowed and a significant
number of candidates gave values within this range. Those who gave values outside this range
often gained ECF marks when drawing the associated graph. Use of the graph to explain the
release of energy in the fusion of deuterium was seldom convincing.

Higher level part 2: Wave interference

The principle of superposition was often stated in terms of the sum of amplitudes instead of
displacements. Also, not many candidates appreciated that narrow slits ensure overlapping
wavefronts. Apart from this, the remainder of the question was often done well.

Standard level part 2: Melting ice.

The main problem when answering this question was in explaining the constant temperature
during a phase change. The breaking of molecular bonds was often introduced but it was rare
to see a discussion in terms of constant kinetic energy and increasing potential energy of the
molecules.

The calculations were done well by those candidates who appreciated the difference between
power and energy!

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 13 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Higher level question 4

Part 1: Melting ice.

The main problem when answering this question was in explaining the constant temperature
during a phase change. The breaking of molecular bonds was often introduced but it was rare
to see a discussion in terms of constant kinetic energy and increasing potential energy of the
molecules.

The calculations were done well by those candidates who appreciated the difference between
power and energy!

There were many confused accounts as to why the change in entropy associated with the
freezing of ice is consistent with the 2nd law, even by those candidates who correctly stated
the law in terms of entropy change.

Part 2: The atom

Generally, knowledge of alpha particle scattering was good. However, many candidates had
difficulty with the idea of atomic energy levels and their relation to line spectra. Either they
failed to mention the emission of a photon in a transition and/or omitted the relation E = hf in
their accounts.

Recommendations and guidance that teachers should provide for future

candidates
Candidates should:

• be given precise and unambiguous definitions of physical quantities.

• always be encouraged to read carefully all the questions in Section B before making any
choice.
• gain experience in answering examination questions early on in the course. When a particular
topic is completed, then relevant questions (or parts of questions) from past examination
papers should be used to reinforce the understanding of the topic.
• be encouraged to always show their working in the answers to numerical questions.
• use a ruler to draw straight lines on diagrams or on linear graphs
• use pencil for diagrams and sketches
• not write in pencil.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 14 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Paper 3
Component grade boundaries

Higher level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-7 8-14 15-19 20-25 26-32 33-38 39-60

Standard level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-4 5-9 10-12 13-16 17-21 22-25 26-40

The areas of the programmed that proved difficult for the candidates
As is usually the case, there were some wide differences in performance between Options by
individual candidates. There were many instances where it appeared as if only one Option had been
studied in any detail.

Although Option H was popular, average marks tended to be below average. Difficulties are
frequently associated with poor ray diagrams.

Options F and G do rely on a good understanding of the basic concepts. Many candidates appeared to
have a very superficial knowledge and were, consequently, handicapped when attempting questions
that required application.

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
SL only: Option A was very popular. In particular, question A2 (dynamics) was answered well.

The strengths and weaknesses of candidates in the treatment of individual

questions
Standard Level Only

Option A: Mechanics

This was, by far, the most popular Option.

Question 1

Approximately two thirds of the candidates scored well in this question, being able to give
satisfactory explanations for their conclusions. However, some thought that, in (a), the
centripetal force is equal and opposite to the gravitational force. Others considered constant
speed to imply no acceleration.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 15 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Question 2

(a) In (i), there were many correct answers. The most common error was a misinterpretation of
the graph. In part (ii), there were many answers that were not based on a simple substitution
into a relevant equation of motion.
(b) A number of candidates used g = 10 ms-2, despite having calculated an alternative value in (a).
In general, there were few problems encountered in this part of the question.
(c) Sketches showed that there were some candidates who had a good appreciation of the effects
of air resistance. However, there were many unrealistic attempts. A common error was to
show that the horizontal velocity would be greater than the situation where there was no air
resistance.

Question 3

(a) Most candidates had some idea of what was required. However, it was common to find that
there was no reference to escape from the planet’s surface or that the escape speed is the
minimum speed. In (ii), a frequent error was to use the diameter, rather than the radius.
(b) Statements of the law frequently lacked a full explanation of the symbols. For example, R was
said to be a radius but it was not clear as to whether reference was being made to the body or
T2
to its orbit. In part (ii), many answers for the ratio of 3 were given to two significant
R
figures only. Having determined two ratios, answers often did not include a conclusion.

Option B: Atomic and nuclear physics extension

Question 1

(a) Answers were very varied, revealing a lack of clear knowledge. In particular, there was`
difficulty in appreciating the consequence of a constant applied voltage. This may have
resulted from a failure to consider carefully any change in the energy and in the rate of arrival
of photons. In (i), increased intensity was thought to give an increased current, despite no
increase in the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelectrons. In (ii), constant intensity was
thought to give constant current.
(b) It should be remembered that, when stating the energy equation for the photoelectric effect,
the kinetic energy is the maximum kinetic energy of the photoelectron. In part (ii), there were
many clear concise calculations.

Question 2

(a) Not well understood. Those who did associate amplitude with probability frequently forgot
the ‘square’.
(b) Surprisingly, many candidates could not answer this section correctly.

Question 3

(a) It was expected that this section would be widely known. In fact, there were very few
satisfactory statements. Most candidates did not appear to have any understanding of this
aspect of the work.
(b) The answer here seemed to be based on guesswork.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 16 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

(c) Again, there were very few correct responses. It appeared as if candidates were unaware of
the fact that the decay constant is defined as the probability of decay per unit time of a
nucleus.
(d) There were some good answers here. However, numerous candidates realised that the time
would be between three and four half-lives and then assumed a linear relationship. This
approach should be discouraged.

Option C: Energy extension

Question 1

(a) There was a certain degree of guesswork involved, as indicated by the suggested reasons.
Fallacious reasoning leads to no credit being given.
(b) Well answered.
(c) There were very few correct responses. It appeared as if candidates were familiar with
calculating work done where the area is a simple shape such as a rectangle. However, the
concept of ‘counting squares’ proved to be too difficult.
(d) Responses frequently lacked full statements. Having established that DQ is zero, they then
said that the work done is seen as a rise in temperature. Rather, it should be stated that the
work done leads to an increase in internal energy. Then, the relation between change in
internal energy and rise in temperature should be stated.

Question 2

(a) In general, this section was answered well.

(b) There were some good responses, but candidates should be aware that vague global
statements are not awarded any credit. For example ‘there is a danger of an accident’ could
apply to any power station.
Question 3

(a) Most candidates could distinguish between the two. However, some did not read the question
and did not refer to energy transformations.
(b) There were some very good answers and the question discriminated well between weaker and
stronger candidates. The weakest candidates did not appear to understand the nature of the
graph.

Higher and standard level

Option D: Biomedical physics

Question 1

(a) As is usual in questions on scaling, some candidates gave clear concise answers whilst others
appeared not to understand basic concepts.
(b) Very few answers emphasised that the rate of production of thermal energy in the larger
person would be greater leading to the conclusion that the of loss per unit area must be
greater. Many candidates falsely based their arguments on the same rate of production of
thermal energy.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 17 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Question 2

(a) Again, in this question, there were some good answers but also some very poor attempts. The
impression gained was that some candidates were poorly prepared to answer questions on this
topic.

Question 3

(a) Some answers did not make it clear that soft tissues differ very little in their absorption of X-
rays and that the ‘barium meal’ is a much better absorber, thus providing contrast on the X-
ray plate.
(b) Well answered.
(c) The use of a non-uniform field is essential to the successful operation of NMR in that it
allows for the localisation of the region being examined. It appeared as if many candidates
thought that there is only a large uniform magnetic field.

Higher level only question 4

(a) Most candidates gave the correct response in (i). However, in (ii), answers were
disappointing. Although it was realised by most that ionisation is involved, they were not
clear that it is the density of ionisation per unit length of track (or per unit volume) that is of
importance.
(b) Most candidates referred to either density of ionisation or to a possible repair mechanism.
Few referred to both.
(c) There were some good answers that were explained clearly. Some weaker candidates were
unable to link the two half-lives.

Option E: The history and development of physics

Question 1

(a) Approximately 50% of candidates gave a correct response.

(b) Very few candidates realised that the arcs resulted from a rotation of the Earth on its axis.
(c) There were some good answers. Some measured the swept angle, whilst others used the arc
and the radius. Very few attempted to obtain an average angle. Disappointingly, many weaker
candidates did not appear to understand the concept being tested. The question was a good
discriminator between candidates of different abilities.

Question 2

(a) With few exceptions, candidates had some basic understanding of caloric. However, that
understanding did not extend to the ‘self repellent’ nature of caloric or to the different
absorption abilities of various materials. Consequently, many answers in (ii) and (iii) were
trivial.
(b) Generally, candidates were satisfied with making a brief statement, despite the allocation of
three marks. It should be realised that the basic information, together with an argument based
on that information, is required for full credit. A brief statement would have been indicated by
one mark and the action verb would have been different.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 18 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Question 3

(a) This section proved to be a good discriminator in that weaker candidates appeared not to
understand what was involved. The model assumes electrons orbit at very high speeds, thus
giving the impression of a solid atom. A common answer was that the atoms are ‘self-
repellent’.
(b) In (i), very few realised that it is the charged nature of particles that enables easier detection.
Some candidates confused the discovery of the neutron with alpha-particle scattering. Many
failed to explain that the emitted ‘rays’ caused protons to be ejected from hydrocarbons.

Higher level only question 4

(a) Most candidates scored two of the three marks, having omitted any mention of quantisation.
(b) Parts (i) and (ii) were usually completed with little difficulty. However, part (iii) caused
p2
problems, with many failing to realise that kinetic energy is given by the expression .
2m
(c) In many scripts, this section was not attempted. Very few answers included an acceptable
statement of the Uncertainty Principle.

Option F: Astrophysics

Question 1

(a) Most candidates could give at least one relevant fact.

(b) Four marks were available but few candidates made the necessary number of points to gain
full credit. In many scripts, a constellation was merely said to be a group of stars.

Question 2

(a) There were many good complete answers. Some candidates lost marks because they merely
made reference to ‘open’, ‘flat’ and ‘closed’, without explaining what these terms imply.
(b) There were many very satisfactory answers for these calculations. Where ridiculous answers
were obtained, these were accepted without comment by the candidates.

Question 3

(a) Most candidates scored at least two marks in this section. However, many did fail to give
sufficient detail. For example, instead of stating ‘brightness changes’, they should have
commented that there is rapid brightening and gradual dimming. Furthermore, it should have
been stated that the star is brighter as it expands.
(b) Most definitions were quite adequate. However, there was a minority that not only failed to
recall the definitions but also had little idea of the concept. In (ii), there were some clearly
explained correct calculations. The most common error was in the manipulation of the
equation after substitution of a value for M. A small number did not understand the symbol
‘lg’ as being the internationally recognised symbol for ‘logarithm to the base 10’. In general,
these candidates were not disadvantaged in that they were either unable to obtain a correct
value of M or substituted incorrectly into the given equation.

Higher level only question 4

(a) Although this should have been recall, there were few correct responses. Indeed, the regions
marked frequently indicated that the candidates had little appreciation of the situation.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 19 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

(b) Very few candidates appreciated that light takes time to travel from the galaxy to Earth. Most
attempted to attribute some special property to carbon to make it hotter than its environment.

Higher level only question 5

(a) With few exceptions, part (i) was completed successfully. In (ii), the Sun was frequently
marked on the Main Sequence at too high a temperature. In (iii), the start and end points were
usually correct but the path between the two was very varied.
(b) Many answers included a description of stellar evolution. Most realised that the star would be
expanding but few pointed out that there would be more power but over a much larger area.

Option G: Special and general relativity

Question 1

(a) In most scripts, a satisfactory definition was given.

(b) The most common error was a failure to include a factor of 2.
(c) The performance of candidates in this derivation was disappointing. Although this is a
‘standard’ proof, many did not appreciate what was expected, despite the structuring provided
on the question paper.

Question 2

Generally well done, although explanation was frequently less than adequate.

Question 3

(a) Although most realised that the rest mass involved something at rest, opinion was divided as
to whether it is the frame of reference that is at rest or the object within the frame.
(b) Most commented either on the speed approaching the speed of light or on the effect on mass.
Few linked these two aspects.
(c) There were many correct answers that were adequately explained. However, a significant
minority calculated the total relativistic mass, rather than the mass increase.

Higher level only question 4

(a) In part (i), many were unable to give adequate descriptions. This is one situation where a
thorough knowledge of basic aspects would be advantageous. In (ii), some defined a surface,
rather than a radius. Part (iii) presented far fewer problems. Most recognised the significance
of the difference in distances, but few made a sensible statement. Many just thought that the
science fiction would be fact.
(b) Most realised that gravitational lensing is involved. Those who drew a diagram generally
scored higher marks. Candidates should be encouraged to draw sketch diagrams, wherever
appropriate.

Option H: Optics

Question 1

(a) Many stated that light consists of different colours but far fewer realised that a spectrum is a
distribution of the constituents, based on colour or frequency.
(b) Diagrams were, in general, acceptable. The most common error was to show dispersion only
at the second face of the prism.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 20 © IBO 2004

 SUBJECT REPORTS – MAY 2004

Question 2

(a) Very few showed the block in the correct position. Many drew the position such that the
refraction at point P was quite impossible.
(b) There were few correct responses. Mostly, an angle of 49˚ was calculated and this was then
assumed to be the critical angle.
(c) Arguments were frequently marred by poor non-scientific language. For example, the term
‘refracted more’ was used rather than ‘a greater value of refractive index’. Candidates should
be encouraged to use scientific language.

Question 3

(a) The majority of diagrams were very poor. Many did not even continue the rays that had been
drawn on the diagram. Very few showed parallel rays emerging from the eyepiece in the
correct direction. There were, however, a number of very good diagrams, indicating where the
final image would be observed.
(b) Definitions were poor. Of those who did give a ratio of two angles, many failed to mention
that the angles are subtended at the eye. In part (ii), a satisfactory derivation was rarely seen.
f
Many thought that the magnification is e , rather than the inverse.
fo
(c) Most referred to the brightness of the image. A minority mentioned resolution.

Higher level only question 4

(a) Many gave a simple response such as ‘interference’. Very few realised the significance as
regards the degree of ‘flatness’ of the plates.
(b) A majority made a reference to the phase change but fewer also discussed the zero
geometrical path difference.
(c) There were some good answers for this calculation. However, there were many who quite
clearly had no appreciation of the situation.
(d) Many did not recognise that this is an example of thin film interference but rather, attempted
to apply laws of refraction. Of those who discussed interference, many thought that colours
would be present due to constructive interference rather than absent due to destructive
interference.

Recommendations and guidance that teachers should provide for future

candidates
• An inspection of the weighting of assessment objectives, as printed in the Guide would
indicate that there will always be an element of ‘recall’ in the Papers. Not only do candidates
lose comparatively easy marks by not having a thorough knowledge of the factual material
but also, they handicap themselves as regards suggestions and discussions related to
unfamiliar circumstances.
• When preparing an answer, candidates should look at the number of marks allocated and, to a
lesser extent, the space provided on the question paper.
• When drawing diagrams, particularly in Optics, they must be of a sufficiently high quality to
show the salient features.
• Where an explanation or a deduction is required, then an unsubstantiated statement of the
conclusion, or a conclusion based on a fallacious argument, is not given credit.
• When stating a law, symbols need to be explained.

Group 4 Physics – IBEA/IBAP 21 © IBO 2004