Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Examiners' Report: Principal Examiner Feedback January 2017

    Uploaded by

    Richard Davidson12
    wph03

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Examiners' Report: Principal Examiner Feedback January 2017

    Uploaded by

    Richard Davidson12
    65 views7 pages
    wph03

    Original Title

    WPH03_01_pef_20170301

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    wph03

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    65 views7 pages

    Examiners' Report: Principal Examiner Feedback January 2017

    Uploaded by

    Richard Davidson12
    wph03

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 7

    Examiners’ Report

    Principal Examiner Feedback

    January 2017

    Pearson Edexcel International


    Advanced Subsidiary Level
    In Physics (WPH03) Paper 01
    Exploring Physics
    Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

    Edexcel and BTEC qualifications are awarded by Pearson, the UK’s largest awarding
    body. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational,
    occupational and specific programmes for employers. For further information visit our
    qualifications websites at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk. Alternatively, you can
    get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page at
    www.edexcel.com/contactus.

    Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

    Pearson aspires to be the world’s leading learning company. Our aim is to help
    everyone progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of
    learning, for all kinds of people, wherever they are in the world. We’ve been involved
    in education for over 150 years, and by working across 70 countries, in 100
    languages, we have built an international reputation for our commitment to high
    standards and raising achievement through innovation in education. Find out more
    about how we can help you and your students at: www.pearson.com/uk

    January 2017
    Publications Code WPH03_01_1701_ER*
    All the material in this publication is copyright
    © Pearson Education Ltd 2017
    This paper is designed to test candidates’ knowledge and understanding of
    practical skills. Although the majority of candidates showed good knowledge
    and understanding, there were some weaknesses in understanding some
    experiments. It is important in the context of practical work that appropriate
    numbers of significant figures are used in answers. Some answers lost marks
    because scientific terms were not used correctly or because examiners had
    difficulty in understanding imprecise and confused explanations. As ever, it is
    important that candidates read the beginning of the questions carefully in
    order to identify the context.

    The mean mark on the paper was 20.3; this was 3.2 marks lower than the
    mean on the WPH01 paper in January 2016 and the standard deviation was
    also lower.

    This report should be read together with the published paper and mark
    scheme available on the Edexcel website.

    Section A – Multiple Choice

    Questions 1-5

    An explanation of the distractors is now included in the mark scheme.


    Although questions 1 – 4 had high percentages of correct responses, it was
    clear from responses to question 5 that some candidates were not familiar
    with the unit for the Young Modulus.
    Percentage of
    Subject candidates who
    answered correctly
    1 SI system 89
    2 Mean, anomalous values 82
    and significant figures
    3 Young Modulus 97
    experiment:
    required quantities
    4 measuring instruments 92
    5 unit 71
    Section B

    Question 6

    Q06(a)
    There were some confused responses, however most students gained marks
    for suggesting balancing the bat after suspending it or placing it on a knife-
    edge. Fewer went on to suggest marking the centre of gravity or repeating
    the experiment. A significant minority treated the bat as an irregular
    lamina.

    Q06(b)
    Few students gave clear responses to this part of the question. Some
    students mentioned the zero sum of moments or the positioning of the
    centre of gravity beneath the point of suspension, however few went on to
    explain that this happens when equilibrium is achieved. Where assumptions
    were mentioned, they were often about external conditions (e.g. air
    currents) rather than the symmetry of the bat.

    Question 7

    A significant number of candidates did not appreciate that oscilloscopes can


    be used to measure short time intervals. This was particularly disappointing
    as there are now good programs for PC based soundcard oscilloscopes freely
    available on the internet.

    Q07(a)
    Those students who realised that distance and time were the key
    measurements usually scored well here. Those who planned to use v = fλ
    did not do well. Only a minority gave fair descriptions of using the double
    beam oscilloscope to measure the time difference.

    Q07(b)
    Most students correctly suggested a metre rule or tape measure for the
    distance, but many thought that the time difference could be measured
    successfully with a stopwatch. Students should have recognised that the
    time difference involved was too short to measure with a stopwatch.

    Q07(c)
    Where distance and time were stated as the quantities to be measured,
    they were usually also properly identified as independent and dependent
    variables.

    Q07(d)
    Even when they had planned an unsuccessful experimental method,
    students were generally able to give good reasons for repeating their
    readings.

    Q07(e)
    Many students gave good responses, often also recommending an
    appropriate graphical method.
    Q07(f)
    Few students realised that the main source of uncertainty was in the
    measurement of a very short time period. Hardly any students suggested
    using as large a distance a possible or considered how the geometry of the
    setup might affect the results.

    Q07(g)
    Many students correctly identified the low risk in this experiment. Some
    looked more deeply for possible hazards. Whilst ear protection against
    damage from loud sound was accepted as a sensible precaution, protecting
    the feet against the unlikely possibility of a falling oscilloscope or wearing
    rubber gloves to handle electrical components were not accepted.

    Question 8
    Questions requiring candidates to plot a graph using only a few pieces of
    information are generally well done and demonstrate the understanding of
    the topic as a whole. However candidates should be aware that they are
    expected to use multiples or sub-multiples of only 1, 2 or 5 for scales. A copy
    of an acceptable graph is given in the mark scheme.

    Q08(a)
    Most candidates were able to give two valid criticisms. Some points were
    made in a vague way and could not be credited. Criticism of inconsistent
    precision should be clarified as to which particular readings are at fault – in
    this case the potential difference values. A few students mistakenly asserted
    that there was inconsistency in the results themselves rather than in their
    precision.
    Repeating and averaging essentially cover the same idea and are not given
    separate marking points. Some students made a very sensible comment
    about the need for further readings between 0.5 V and 1.0 V in order to
    clarify the shape of the curve.

    Q08(b)
    Most students drew a good graph, accurately plotted with well-labelled and
    correctly oriented axes. A few chose unacceptable scales – 15 small squares
    to 0.5 V, for instance. There were some well-drawn curves, but a sizeable
    minority of the students did not realise that the component was non-ohmic
    and therefore attempted to force a straight line through their points.

    Q08(c)(i)
    Most calculations were done well. A few were let down by an inappropriate
    choice of significant figures for the final result. A small number of students
    mistakenly drew a tangent to find the gradient of their graph.

    Q08(c)(ii)
    This part of the question yielded generally good responses. Most students
    realised that the high resistance is the reason for the small current. A few
    also identified the component as a diode during their explanation.
    Summary

    This paper provided candidates with a wide range of contexts from which
    their knowledge and understanding of the physics contained within this
    specification could be tested.

    The following are useful ideas for candidates:


    Familiarity with the SI system and the plotting and use of non-linear graphs
    are useful knowledge and skills.
    Answers may be written using bullet points and assertions should be
    supported with reasons.
    In the planning questions it is useful to consider whether a reader could
    carry out the experiment successfully from the instructions given in the
    answer.
    Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
    with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom

    You might also like