Physics ee

Some candidates used a computer with sophisticated

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: heoretical and experimental sides of the essay. Some candidates used a computer with sophisticated interface equipment, but wrongly considered this technique as an end by itself, not a tool. The reliability of this equipment was often not verified nor its limitations considered. In some cases, the use of comput er simulation was confused with computer da ta collection. Candidates’ performance against each criterion. Criterion A Research question The majority of candidates outlined clearly the specific topic of their essay in an introduction. However some candidates found it difficult to state exactly the question; often the titles themselves were vague and unfocused. As a consequence, these candidates encountered serious difficulties afterward. Collecting data, e.g. the frequencies present in the vibrating string of a music instrument, was not an in dept h investigation “per se”. Some questions were precisely stated but were much too broad in scope. Unfortunately, some essays on catapults often boiled down to little more than a simple projectile problem of measuring the angle that produces the maximum ran ge. Essays on the possibility of time travel were also popular. Much of the physics involved in this was way beyond the scope of IB students and the essays were often little more than poor science fiction. Criterion B Approach to the research question Most candidates scored at least two marks. The approach showed a reasonable degree of skill in the methods of physics. However some candidates tended to recite secondary sources, becoming informants rather than being involved in the development of the essay . In the case of an inappropriate topic, it was very difficult to adopt a well -focused approach. In some weaker essays, candidates tended to compensate by giving unnecessary details of basic ph ysics, e.g. Newton’s Laws of motion, definitions of wavelength, amplitude etc. Criterion C Analysis/interpretation Interpretations were generally good but sometimes limited in scope and originality or personal input. Some candidates were not...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course CHEM 102 taught by Professor Tina during the Spring '11 term at Global.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online