Writing the IB Evaluation: Necessary, but not Sufficient

You must address the following issues. You must do so with sufficient detail and
analysis to demonstrate that you understand the ideas and concepts that IB is looking for.
Merely mentioning each buzzword is not sufficient. You cannot bluff or BS your way through.
If you do not understand the analytic ideas, it will be clear in your writing. IB will not give you
the benefit of the doubt if you are unclear.
Suggestion: draft answers to each numbered question, in complete sentences, before
condensing into paragraphs.
Indicator 1: Conclusion
Conclusion is compared to scientific context. Refer to your research question
and hypothesis: does your conclusion agree with or challenge the relevant scientific
understanding? Discuss your conclusion by referring to the basic theories and previous
research.
Indicator 2: Justification
Justification based on evidence cited. You must discuss the numbers and relevant
qualitative observations from your results. Assume that the reader did not read your data
table.
The hypothesis was that .. Results of the experiments are . Therefore, the
results do / do not support my hypothesis, because
Indicator 3: Strengths and Weaknesses
Systematic and Random Error. Identify at least two sources of error. These can be
execution-related or procedure-related errors. For each error:
1. What is the error?
One source of error in the lab was
.
2. Is it systematic or random?
This is which is .
3. If systematic, define systematic error. If random, define random error.
Your definitions should mention the difference between accuracy and precision.
4. Explain what about the error makes it fit the definition you gave.
5. Explain what effect this error had on your calculations, data, and ability to
evaluate the hypothesis.
Identify THREE limitations in the procedure / methodology. Assume that the
reader has NOT read the procedure and did NOT observe you conducting the experiment.
Discuss how each limitation affects your ability to evaluate the hypothesis. These limitations
may be closely related to the errors you identified above; if so you can combine this
discussion to improve clarity. For each limitation:
Will this count?
a. MUST BE PROCEDURAL - What is the limitation/weakness in the
procedure? Is this something you encountered in every trial, and
which would happen every time the procdure is performed, even by
other students, OR was it merely a result of your execution in this lab?
If it is only execution-related, STOP and find another limitation.
b. MUST BE RELEVANT - Is this limitation relevant to your results?
How?
i. Is the limitation related to a variable that you completely
controlled for?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

ii. Is it related to a variable that will not affect your results at all?
iii. Is it related to steps of the procedure that you cannot
reasonably change?
iv. Is it related to measurements that are not used anywhere in
your calculations?
The limitation resulted in increases or decreases of the measurement of ..
(explain relevance)
The limitation made the experiment less accurate / less precise (i.e., increasing
variation in measurements) because. (explain impact)
This measurement was important to the lab results because . (explain
calculations)
By affecting the measurement of the limitation increased / decreased results
because
The limitation was a small / large / significant source of error because. This
limitation was more / less important than the other identified limitations because
. (explain significance, both absolute and relative)
a. If you can estimate a likely range of variation resulting from the error, do so.
E.g.,
i. Our use of the stopwatch introduced an error based on human
reaction times, which could be as much as +/- .5 seconds
ii. Our use of a bathroom scale instead of a digital balance introduced
measurement uncertainty because the digital balance is much more
accurate, by as much as 45cg
iii. Our use of an unsealed gas collector led to leakage, resulting in the
loss of 5-10% of our experimental mass.
b. If you can evaluate the effect of this variation on your results, do so. E.g.,
i. The small size of the objects in this lab means that a 0.5mm error
translates into a 40% variation in the mass of the object, potentially
resulting in nearly 40% error!

ERROR Percent and Propagation: If your lab involved a calculation of percent error
or uncertainty, you should discuss it for every error, limitation, or proposed
improvement. How did the error or limitation affect uncertainty increase or decrease
in a measurement that changed your calculations, resulting in a greater or lesser
error?
Indicator 4: Further Research
Identify at least three improvements. For each improvement:
Will this count?
a. Is this improvement unrealistic?
Pick again.
b. Is this improvement trivial?
Pick again.
c. Is this improvement superficial?
Pick again.
d. Does this result in basically doing a different lab, or investigating a
different phenomena?
1. Be specific about what you would change. If you are proposing different equipment,
identify the equipment and how it should be used. If you are proposing different
procedures, identify the changes and how to perform them.
a. Find a way to measure ..
look it up you can do research
b. Have more time to do the lab. youre not the school board

c. Use more accurate equipment, like. If we have it in the lab, or its a

reasonable suggestion, fine. If youre not sure, ask the teacher. But if its
not likely to be found in a high school physics lab, try again.
d. Try the lab with more (distances, times, masses, surfaces) more is not
always better. Explain which changes to the variables and why they are
relevant to the hypothesis.