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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Internal Assessment criteria-SL and HL: Criterion Maximum Number of Marks Available Weighting (%)

    Uploaded by

    shilmisahin
    The document outlines the internal assessment criteria for the Group 4 Project in the IB Diploma Programme Physics courses. It is assessed based on four criteria: Research Design, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Evaluation. Each criterion is worth 6 marks for a total of 24 marks. The document provides detailed level descriptors and clarifications for evaluators to use to determine the appropriate mark in each criterion based on the quality of the student's work.

    Copyright:

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

    Internal Assessment criteria-SL and HL: Criterion Maximum Number of Marks Available Weighting (%)

    Uploaded by

    shilmisahin
    15 views5 pages
    The document outlines the internal assessment criteria for the Group 4 Project in the IB Diploma Programme Physics courses. It is assessed based on four criteria: Research Design, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Evaluation. Each criterion is worth 6 marks for a total of 24 marks. The document provides detailed level descriptors and clarifications for evaluators to use to determine the appropriate mark in each criterion based on the quality of the student's work.

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document outlines the internal assessment criteria for the Group 4 Project in the IB Diploma Programme Physics courses. It is assessed based on four criteria: Research Design, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Evaluation. Each criterion is worth 6 marks for a total of 24 marks. The document provides detailed level descriptors and clarifications for evaluators to use to determine the appropriate mark in each criterion based on the quality of the student's work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    15 views5 pages

    Internal Assessment criteria-SL and HL: Criterion Maximum Number of Marks Available Weighting (%)

    Uploaded by

    shilmisahin
    The document outlines the internal assessment criteria for the Group 4 Project in the IB Diploma Programme Physics courses. It is assessed based on four criteria: Research Design, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Evaluation. Each criterion is worth 6 marks for a total of 24 marks. The document provides detailed level descriptors and clarifications for evaluators to use to determine the appropriate mark in each criterion based on the quality of the student's work.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    Internal assessment criteria—SL and HL

    Internal assessment criteria—SL and HL


    Criterion Maximum number of marks Weighting (%)
    available

    Research design 6 25

    Data analysis 6 25

    Conclusion 6 25

    Evaluation 6 25

    Total 24 100

    Physics guide 1
    Internal assessment criteria—SL and HL

    Research design
    This criterion assesses the extent to which the student effectively communicates the methodology (purpose
    and practice) used to address the research question.

    Marks Level descriptor

    0 The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

    1–2 • The research question is stated without context.


    • Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the
    research question are stated.
    • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the
    detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.

    3–4 • The research question is outlined within a broad context.


    • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and
    sufficient data to answer the research question are described.
    • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for
    the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.

    5–6 • The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context.
    • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and
    sufficient data to answer the research question are explained.
    • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for
    the investigation to be reproduced.

    Clarifications for research design

    A research question with context should contain reference to the dependent and independent variables
    or two correlated variables, include a concise description of the system in which the research question is
    embedded, and include background theory of direct relevance.
    Methodological considerations include:
    • the selection of the methods for measuring the dependent and independent variables
    • the selection of the databases or model and the sampling of data
    • the decisions regarding the scope, quantity and quality of measurements (e.g. the range, interval
    or frequency of the independent variable, repetition and precision of measurements)
    • the identification of control variables and the choice of method of their control
    • the recognition of any safety, ethical or environmental issues that needed to be taken into account.
    The description of the methodology refers to presenting sufficiently detailed information (such
    as specific materials used and precise procedural steps) while avoiding unnecessary or repetitive
    information, so that the reader may readily understand how the methodology was implemented and
    could in principle repeat the investigation.

    2 Physics guide
    Internal assessment criteria—SL and HL

    Data analysis
    This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has
    recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question.

    Marks Level descriptor


    0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
    1–2 • The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor
    precise.
    • The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration
    of uncertainties.
    • Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried
    out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
    3–4 • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or
    precise.
    • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of
    uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies.
    • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out
    but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
    5–6 • The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and
    precise.
    • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate
    consideration of uncertainties.
    • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out
    appropriately and accurately.

    Clarifications for data analysis


    Data refers to quantitative data or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative data.
    Communication
    • Clear communication means that the method of processing can be understood easily.
    • Precise communication refers to following conventions correctly, such as those relating to the
    annotation of graphs and tables or the use of units, decimal places and significant figures.
    Consideration of uncertainties is subject specific and further guidance is given in the Physics teacher
    support material.
    Major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies impede the possibility of drawing a valid conclusion that
    addresses the research question.
    Significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies allow the possibility of drawing a conclusion that
    addresses the research question but with some limit to its validity or detail.

    Physics guide 3
    Internal assessment criteria—SL and HL

    Conclusion
    This criterion assesses the extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with
    regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.

    Marks Level descriptor

    0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

    1–2 • A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not
    supported by the analysis presented.
    • The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

    3–4 • A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully
    consistent with the analysis presented.
    • A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted
    scientific context.

    5–6 • A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully
    consistent with the analysis presented.
    • A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific
    context.

    Clarifications for conclusion

    A conclusion that is fully consistent requires the interpretation of processed data including associated
    uncertainties.
    Scientific context refers to information that could come from published material (paper or online),
    published values, course notes, textbooks or other outside sources. The citation of published materials
    must be sufficiently detailed to allow these sources to be traceable.

    4 Physics guide
    Internal assessment criteria—SL and HL

    Evaluation
    This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the
    investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.

    Marks Level descriptor

    0 The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

    1–2 • The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations.


    • Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

    3–4 • The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations.


    • Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified
    weaknesses or limitations, are described.

    5–6 • The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or
    limitations.
    • Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified
    weaknesses or limitations, are explained.

    Clarifications for evaluation


    Generic is general to many methodologies and not specifically relevant to the methodology of the
    investigation being evaluated.
    Methodological refers to the overall approach to the investigation of the research question as well as
    procedural steps.
    Weaknesses could relate to issues regarding the control of variables, the precision of measurement or the
    variation in the data.

    Physics guide 5

    You might also like