IB Physics GUIDE TO THE INTERNAL ASSESSMENT (IA):

EXPLORATION: 0-6 score

Descriptor 1: Identify Topic and focused research question

EX1.1 Physics topic and objective/subjective connection
Reminder: Clearly identify physics topic, but also see Personal Engagement Descriptor 1 below.
EX1.2 List and describe a focused research question, relevant to the topic. (but also see EX 2.1 below), typically
in the form of “How does IV affect DV?”
Common Mistake: Research question is a statement, but should be a question.

Descriptor 2: Background Information

EX2.1 Background physics knowledge
Reminder: Should be about 1-2 pages in length
EX 2.1.1 Start with the “big picture” physics ideas that are important, and narrow down to explaining how
those ideas are applied directly in YOUR system. (You could describe your research question
here.)
EX 2.1.2 THEN, derive or state the mathematical model that will be applied to your system. Should relate
the DV to the IV. Use physics tools such as motion maps, force webs, free body diagrams,
energy conservation bar charts, etc.
EX 2.1.3 State what you should plot to obtain a linearized graph, and state theoretical expressions for the
slope and/or vertical intercept. (You’ll calculate the values in Analysis…)
EX2.2 All sources are credible and properly cited (any format ok, as long as consistent: MLA, APA, etc.)

Descriptor 3: Methodology
Reminder: Description of your procedure is NOT a numbered list of steps but a broad overview of the logic, as
shown in the following sections
Reminder: Include diagram/picture of setup with IV and DV labeled for clarity.
Reminder: Consider relevance (related to research question?), sufficiency (enough to see a pattern?) and
reliability (robust measurements?) of data collection.

EX3.1 Describe and justify method to measure and change the Independent Variable (IV)
• Justify your range of IV:
o How did you set up the system to get the LARGEST POSSIBLE (i.e. sufficient)
range of IV within the constraints of your classroom?
o What are the limits on maximum IV and minimum IV?
o Why did you go up by a certain increment?

EX3.2 Describe method to precisely measure the Dependent Variable (DV)

• Explain approach to repeating DV measurement: # of trials might not be determined beforehand—
how many trials until data values “settle down” and are reproducible (i.e. robust)?

EX3.3 Identify relevant control variables and method to keep them constant.
Common Mistake: Stating that an object (i.e. “the cart”) is constant. Instead, what relevant aspect
OF the object stays constant (i.e. mass, diameter of wheels, etc.)?
Common Mistake: Leaving out the value of control variables (i.e. height is 2.00 meters)
• Why did you choose the values of the constant variables you did?
• Explain why large or small values of the constants will make it easier or harder to measure your IV
and DV.
• How will this choice affect your slope or y-intercept value? (Is it better to have a larger or smaller
slope?)
EX3.4 Describe assumptions
• Conditions you can’t actively control, but might be relevant (i.e. room temperature, etc.)
• Assumptions about the physics of the situation that allow a match between the experiment and math
model (i.e. is friction included?)
Descriptor 4: Awareness of Safety, Ethics, and Environment Issues
EX4.1 If appropriate to your experiment: statement of significant safety, ethical or environmental issues.
Reminder: If this does not make sense to comment on, please write “Safety, ethical, and environmental
issues are not relevant to my investigation.”

ANALYSIS: 0-6 score

Descriptor 1: Raw Data

AN1.1 Variable name listed in each column header
AN1.2 Measurement uncertainty listed in each column header, for IV and DV
Reminder: measurement uncertainty should have one significant figure unless you are dealing with
something where the second digit is a big deal (example: 1.5 does not have to be rounded to 2)
AN1.3 Units listed in each column header (in parentheses)
AN1.4 Precision (number of decimal places in data) matches measurement uncertainty (in column header).
Example: If your measurement uncertainty is +/- 0.5, every data must be reported to the tenths place!
You wouldn’t write “20”, you’d write “20.0”
Table could follow this form:

IV: Variable (units) DV: Variable (units)

+/- measurement uncertainty +/- measurement uncertainty
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
data data data data

Descriptor 2: Data Processing

AN2.1 Calculated column for average of repeated measurements
AN2.2 Calculated column for statistical uncertainty (= ½ the range of multiple trials)
AN2.3 Column for Error Bars (= larger of the measurement uncertainty and statistical uncertainty for each data
point)
AN2.4 Any additional calculated columns necessary for your IV or DV

AN2.5 List one sample calculation for each calculated column, giving formula and using identified entries from
your data table!)
Reminder: If space is a concern, no need to include average or statistical uncertainty calculations, just
explain how they were done.

Descriptor 3: Impact of Uncertainties

This descriptor includes the two bullets below but also how well you are propagating and manipulating your
uncertainty throughout this section.

Reminder: Propagation Rules:

Addition/Subtraction: add absolute uncertainty
Multiplication/Division: add relative (percent) uncertainty
Power: power times (percent) uncertainty

AN3.1 Explanation (1-2 sentences) of source of uncertainty and how it is quantified

Reminder: Measurement error comes from the larger of the limit of the instrument (1/2 smallest
division) or limit of procedure (need to justify; explain the value that you chose and why!)
AN3.2 Explanation (1-2 sentences in words) for the value of your error bars and why you chose that value
Descriptor 4: Interpretation of Processed Data
If your graph is LINEAR:
AN4.1 Title, axes labels, and units included
AN4.2 Error bars plotted, which match those from error bars column in processed data table
AN4.3 Maximum and minimum curves of best fit included on graph
AN4.4 Maximum and minimum curves of best fit equations listed
Reminder: DV variable (units) = (slope and units of slope) * IV variable (units) + y-intercept and units

Example: T (s) = (2.003 s/m) * d (m) + 0.05s

Where T stands for time and d stands for the distance. (MUST INCLUDE THIS DESCRIPTION)
Reminder: All uncertainties rounded to one significant figure. Then, make the precision of the quantity match.
Example: If your average slope was 2.4926788 +/- 0.0495876 s/m, you’d first round the uncertainty
to +/- 0.05 s/m so it is one significant figure. Then you’d change the precision of the slope to 2.49 to
match the precision of the uncertainty. You’d report 2.49 +/- 0.05 s/m.

AN4.5 Average curve of best fit equation listed

Reminder: DV variable (units) = (slope and units of slope +/- slope uncertainty and units) * IV variable
(units) + (y-intercept and units +/- y-intercept uncertainty and units)

Example: T (s) = (2.492 ± 0.001) s/m * d (m) + (0.04 s ± 0.01)s

Reminder:
Slope of best fit: average of slopemax and slopemin
Slope uncertainty of best fit: ½ range of slopemax and slopemin
Y-intercept of best fit: average of y-interceptmax and y-interceptmin
Y-intercept uncertainty of best fit: ½ range of y-interceptmax and y-interceptmin
If your graph is NOT LINEAR one way to analyze it is by linearization, talk with Mr. McCollum if you need
another way to analyze your data:
AN4.6 Justify why you need to linearize
• Show a linear fit that doesn’t go through all error bars OR or a computer-generated [insert correct
pattern] fit that does go through all error bars.

AN4.7 Explain the process of linearizing

• State what will be plotted on horizontal and vertical axis in order to linearize. (Might refer back to
exploration.)
• Describe the creation of the linearized variables, providing a sample calculation.
• Summarize your linearized data in a new data table, including any relevant columns of original data.
• If you change the vertical axis, propagate uncertainty to create new error bars.
Reminder: Propagation Rules:
Addition/Subtraction: add absolute uncertainty
Multiplication/Division: add relative (percent) uncertainty
Power: power times (percent) uncertainty

Once you have completed AN4.6 and AN4.7, go back and complete steps AN4.1 through AN4.5 using the (now
linear) data.

Characterize Data: (Give facts/calculations here WITHOUT interpretation. That will come in the Evaluation section.)
AN4.8 Calculate % uncertainty on parameters (slope and y-intercept, using uncertainty from half range of
parameter values).
AN4.9 Identify /characterize any outlier data points.
AN4.10 Identify/characterize parts of the graph that don’t fit the expected pattern. (Or ID any sections that really
do, possibly re-fitting parameters to those sections only.)
AN4.11 Calculate theoretical values of any parameters from the mathematical model and your choice of constants.
(i.e. the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 m/s/s.)
AN4.12 Calculate % difference between experimental and theoretical values for any parameters.
 Reminder: If y-intercept is expected to be zero, a % difference is not relevant, instead comment on
whether the experimental range of y-intercept includes the expected value of zero.
EVALUATION: 0-6 score
Note: For evaluation, your goal is to move your writing from “outlined” to “described” to “described and justified”.
Justified means building an argument using the results of your analysis.
Descriptor 1: Conclusion Statement
EV1.1 Answer your research question directly
• State the relationship between IV and DV. (i.e. What pattern was fit between which variables?)
• Common Mistake: Linearized data is described as a linear pattern between the original variables—
be careful to state the ACTUAL mathematical relationship.
• Restate curve of best-fit equation with slope and y-intercept uncertainties

Random error considerations:

EV1.2 Describe and justify level of random error
Reminder:
1. Consider % uncertainty in slope, as determined by spread of max and min lines (above 10% is a lot, below
2% is SMALL)
2. Consider if your graph has outliers or regions where pattern may not fit.
3. Consider both pieces and identify small, medium, or large random error

EV1.3 Relate random error to precision of the data collected

Reminder:
Small random error = high precision (results are reproducible)
Large random error = low precision (results are not reproducible, likely your data collection method was not
robust enough)

EV1.4 Justify why this pattern fits best and/or under what conditions your conclusion applies. Examples are:
• “This conclusion makes sense because…”
• “I am confident this pattern fits the data best because...(the fitted model goes through all error bars, etc.)”
• “The amount of random error shows…(that the data is trustworthy for this part of the graph, etc.)”
• “The pattern does / does not fit in the entire range of my IV as shown by….”

Descriptor 2: Conclusion and Accepted Theory

EV2.1 Discuss the physical meaning of slope and uncertainty in words (including units)
EV2.2 Discuss the physical meaning of the y-intercept and uncertainty in words (including units)

Systematic error considerations:

EV2.3 Describe and justify if there is systematic error in the experiment.
Reminder:
1. Examine slope: Refer to the % difference between experimental and theoretical slope values. Identify if
there is systematic error. (above 10% difference is a lot, below 2% is SMALL)

2. Examine y-intercept: Compare your range of measured y-intercept to the theoretical y-intercept that makes
physical sense. Identify if there is systematic error: is the theoretical y-intercept in your measured range or
higher/lower?

EV2.4 Relate systematic error to accuracy

Reminder:
Small systematic error = high accuracy (slope and y-intercept are as expected)
Large systematic error = low accuracy (slope and y-intercept are unexpected)

EV2.5 Justify how and to what degree your conclusion is / is not consistent with the physics of the theoretical
mathematical model you presented in the Exploration. Examples are:
• “The physics that I laid out in the Exploration is / is not the physics that I see in my data because…”
• “The observed pattern (is/is not) the expected pattern because…”
• “My value of ______ is (higher/lower) than expected, which indicates that…”
 • “One piece of physics that is (strongly supported by / not seen in) the analysis is______, because….”

Descriptor 3: Strengths and Weaknesses, Limitations

EV3.1 Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the investigation (i.e. limitations of data or sources of error)
• If results ARE accurate and/or precise, highlight the aspects of your investigation that you think led to
that outcome.
• If results ARE NOT accurate and/or precise, provide evidence that you have a clear understanding of
issues involved in establishing the conclusion. Possibilities include the following:
o Identify uncontrolled variables (things you you forgot to control, couldn’t measure, or that
you tried to control but in a limited way)
o Identify non-ideal choices in experimental constants/design (what would have made the
pattern more clear?)
o Identify physical assumptions you made that might not be true
Reminder: Try to move beyond “practical or procedural” issues like “it was hard to measure the
height” or “we needed more data” and more toward “methodological issues” like “my range of IV
was not wide enough to distinguish between linear and quadratic” or “my method of measuring
pressure didn’t include atmospheric pressure, which you can see from the following data…”
EV3.2 Make an argument (you could use the outline below) to explain how taking each weakness into account
would bring your measured and theoretical values closer to each other. You may also want to conduct a
mini-experiment (take at least 3 data points) to see how changing this variable would affect your collected
data.

Descriptor 4: Improvements & Extensions

EV4.1 For EACH weakness above, provide a realistic suggestion (a step you would add into your current
procedure or a mini-procedure in and of itself) to improve the precision of the data and/or accuracy of the
investigation.
Common mistake: needing more time or a robot or other lab equipment for super precise data
collection which is not realistically available to you is NOT an acceptable limitation
Common mistake: There should be one improvement listed for EACH uncontrolled variable or
limitation
EV4.2 Extensions – what are other interesting or creative or inspired ways to continue exploring this topic?

Suggested table to build an argument for Evaluation Descriptors 3 & 4:

Uncontrolled Explain how Explain how this Explain how this explains the discrepancy in Improvement to the
Variable or reality is affects your results? your data. procedure / Extension
assumption: bigger/smaller/di (You may need a mini-experiment to show
fferent than you that this change is significant.)
measured/antici
pant
Template: Template: Template: Template: Template:
“In reality, “So, the slope/y- “This adjustment brings the theory and “To combat this issue, I
“I ignored, assumed, ________ intercept would / should experimental values closer to each other would…”
chose poorly or is/should have have been because…”
didn’t anticipate been (bigger/smaller).” “Based on these
(bigger/smaller). “I know the amount of this adjustment is findings/realization, I
when…”
” significant because…” could…”
Example 1: (circular In reality, So theoretical slope This adjustment bring the theoretical and To combat this issue, I
motion lab) hanging mass M (=m*4*π2 / Mg) should experimental values for slope closer because would have used lighter
is bigger. have been smaller, my theoretical prediction was 0.8 s2/m and my string, so it would be
“I ignored the mass of because M is in the measured slope was 0.6 +/- 0.1. The theoretical insignificant compared to
the hanging string.” denominator. slope would be smaller, bringing it closer to the hanging mass.
0.6.

This adjustment is significant because I massed

the string and found it was 5 g, and the hanging
weight was only 50 g, a 10% change.
Example 2: (circular In reality, all of So, the entire linear This adjustment brings the experimental y- To combat this issue, I
motion lab) “I my r values graph will be shifted to intercept of my graph, originally -0.2+/0.1 up would have used a spherical
measured the radius should be slightly the left, making the y- toward the theoretical y-intercept of 0.0. whirling object, so I could
smaller. intercept larger. tell exactly where the center
to the end of the cork,
This adjustment is significant for small radii. I of mass was.
not the center of mass estimate the systematic error on r to be 3 mm,
of the cork.” which is about 10% of my smallest radius value
of 3 cm.

Example 3 (shooting Over time, the On a linear graph of On my graph, I notice that at large values of To combat this issue, I
rubber band lab) rubber band stretch vs distance, stretch, the slope seems to get smaller, which could use a new rubber
would get slope should be k/m, so makes sense if the k is smaller. band each trial, but I would
I assumed the rubber stretchier, so slope of graph would have to assume that all
band would keep the spring constant k get smaller I did a mini experiment where I stretched a rubber bands start with
would get rubber band right out of the bag and took a exactly the same spring
same spring constant smaller. measurement of its length and then pulled it constant, k.
(stretchiness) when I back and forth a bunch of times to increase the
shot it repeatedly. stretchiness and took a measurement of its Based on this realization, I
spring constant. The spring constant changed could replace the rubber
by 10% with 50 stretches, which is significant. band with a spring that
might have the same spring
constant. In a related
experiment, I could
investigate the relationship
between # of times
stretched and resulting k
value.

PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT: 0-2 score

Descriptor 1: Justification for RQ or Topic (Curiosity at the beginning, shown by 1 or more of the following)
PE 1.1 Unique topic or real world situation that motivated your subjective interest in the simpler model you
investigated directly
PE 1.2 Awareness of the objective importance of this topic (i.e. why are others interested in this, too?)
Common mistake: Demonstrates personal connection in a super-cheesy way, i.e. “Since the dawn of time, man has
been interested in Hooke’s law….” No, we haven’t. You’re trying to pad your paper with fluff.

Descriptor 2: Personal Input & Initiative (Creativity in the implementation, shown by 1 or more of the following)
Common mistake: Your work is a very “standard” way to investigate this topic, typically found on the internet.
PE 2.1 In your design:
• an unusual or creative way to collect data
• a unique insight about connecting the physics ideas involved
PE 2.2 In your implementation:
• above and beyond standard/minimal data collection, without going to extremes (i.e. don’t do 17 trials)
• insights into your data collection that came to you AS you were collecting, and problem-solving on the
fly in your experimentation
PE 2.3 In your presentation:
• Clever way to show / present data in charts/graphs / equations
• Creative extensions to your investigation in Evaluation

COMMUNICATION: 0-4 score

Descriptor 1: Structure, Clarity, Coherence
CO 1.1 Paper is broken up into easy to understand headings/sections
CO 1.2 Easy to follow line of thought in writing:
• Use connecting words with care and intention: because, therefore, however.
• Avoid “prove”—we can never PROVE anything in science.
CO 1.3 Grammar/spelling mistakes do not distract from the overall communication
CO 1.4 Coherent description of process AND outcomes
Descriptor 2: Relevance and Conciseness
CO 2.1 No irrelevant material included
CO 2.2 Concise/not redundant writing
CO 2.3 6-12 page limit (no more, no less, includes any appendices)
Common mistake: Using passive voice: “The cart was weighed by me.” Instead, “I weighed the cart.”
Descriptor 3: Terminology and conventions
CO 3.1 Use scientific terminology clearly, avoiding unnecessary jargon.
CO 3.2 Use metric units and appropriate decimal places for precision
CO 3.3 All graphs, tables, images have numbered labels that can be referenced (i.e. Figure 1, 2, 3, etc.)
CO 3.4 Mathematical equations/derivations are clear and easily referenced (consider numbering equations)
CO 3.5 Mathematical descriptions are accurate: linear vs. proportional, etc.