IB Physics Internal Assessment Guidelines

General information

The method of assessment used for internal assessment is criterion-related. That is to say, the method of
assessment judges each student in relation to identified assessment criteria and not in relation to the work of
other students.

The internal assessment component in all group 4 courses is assessed according to sets of assessment criteria
and achievement level descriptors. The internal assessment criteria are for the use of teachers.

• For each assessment criterion, there are a number of descriptors that each describes a specific level of
achievement.
• The descriptors concentrate on positive achievement, although for the lower levels failure to achieve
may be included in the description.

Using the internal assessment criteria

Teachers should judge the internal assessment exercise against the descriptors for each criterion. The same
internal assessment criteria are used for both SL and HL.

• The aim is to find, for each criterion, the descriptor that conveys most adequately the achievement level
attained by the student. The process, therefore, is one of approximation. In the light of any one criterion,
a student’s work may contain features denoted by a high achievement level descriptor combined with
features appropriate to a lower one. A professional judgment should be made in identifying the
descriptor that approximates most closely to the work.
• Having scrutinized the work to be assessed, the descriptors for each criterion should be read, starting
with level 0, until one is reached that describes an achievement level that the work being assessed does
not match as well as the previous level. The work is, therefore, best described by the preceding
achievement level descriptor and this level should be recorded. Only whole numbers should be used, not
partial points such as fractions or decimals.
• The highest descriptors do not imply faultless performance and moderators and teachers should not
hesitate to use the extremes, including zero, if they are appropriate descriptions of the work being
assessed.
• Descriptors should not be considered as marks or percentages, although the descriptor levels are
ultimately added together to obtain a total. It should not be assumed that there are other arithmetical
relationships; for example, a level 2 performance is not necessarily twice as good as a level 1
performance.
• A student who attains a particular achievement level in relation to one criterion will not necessarily
attain similar achievement levels in relation to the others. It should not be assumed that the overall
assessment of the students will produce any particular distribution of scores.
• The assessment criteria should be available to students at all times.
Criteria and aspects

There are five assessment criteria that are used to assess the work of both SL and HL students.

• Design—D
• Data collection and processing—DCP
• Conclusion and evaluation—CE
• Manipulative skills—MS
• Personal skills—PS

The first three criteria—design (D), data collection and processing (DCP) and conclusion and evaluation
(CE)—are each assessed twice.

Manipulative skills (MS) is assessed summatively over the whole course and the assessment should be based on
a wide range of manipulative skills.

Personal skills (PS) is assessed once only and this will be during the group 4 project.

Each of the assessment criteria can be separated into three aspects as shown in the following sections.
Descriptions are provided to indicate what is expected in order to meet the requirements of a given aspect
completely (c) and partially (p). A description is also given for circumstances in which the requirements are not
satisfied, not at all (n).

A “complete” is awarded 2 marks, a “partial” 1 mark and a “not at all” 0 marks.

The maximum mark for each criterion is 6 (representing three “completes”).

D × 2 = 12
DCP × 2 = 12
CE × 2 = 12
MS × 1 = 6
PS × 1 = 6

This makes a total mark out of 48.

The marks for each of the criteria are added together to determine the final mark out of 48 for the IA
component. This is then scaled at IBCA to give a total out of 24%.
Design (D)
Aspect 1
Levels/marks Defining the problem and selecting
variables
Formulates a focused problem/research
Complete/2 question and identifies the relevant
variables.
Formulates a problem/research
Partial/1 question that is incomplete or
identifies only some relevant variables.
Does not identify a problem/research
Not at all/0 question and does not identify any
relevant variables.
Aspect 2 Aspect 3
Developing a method for
Controlling variables
collection of data
Designs a method for the Develops a method that
effective control of the allows for the collection of
variables. sufficient relevant data.
Designs a method that Develops a method that
makes some attempt to allows for the collection of
control the variables. insufficient relevant data.
Designs a method that Develops a method that does
does not control the not allow for any relevant
variables. data to be collected.

Data collection and processing (DCP)

Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3
Levels/marks
Recording raw data Processing raw data Presenting processed data
Records appropriate quantitative Presents processed data
and associated qualitative raw data, Processes the quantitative appropriately and, where
Complete/2
including units and uncertainties raw data correctly. relevant, includes errors and
where relevant. uncertainties.
Records appropriate quantitative
Processes quantitative raw Presents processed data
and associated qualitative raw data,
Partial/1 data, but with some appropriately, but with some
but with some mistakes or
mistakes and/or omissions. mistakes and/or omissions.
omissions.
No processing of
Does not record any appropriate quantitative raw data is Presents processed data
Not at all/0 quantitative raw data or raw data is carried out or major inappropriately or
incomprehensible. mistakes are made in incomprehensibly.
processing.

Conclusion and evaluation (CE)

Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3
Levels/marks
Concluding Evaluating procedure(s) Improving the investigation
States a conclusion, with Suggests realistic
justification, based on a Evaluates weaknesses and improvements in respect of
Complete/2
reasonable interpretation of the limitations. identified weaknesses and
data. limitations.
States a conclusion based on a Identifies some weaknesses
Suggests only superficial
Partial/1 reasonable interpretation of the and limitations, but the
improvements.
data. evaluation is weak or missing.
States no conclusion or the
conclusion is based on an Identifies irrelevant Suggests unrealistic
Not at all/0
unreasonable interpretation of weaknesses and limitations. improvements.
the data.
Manipulative skills (assessed summatively)

Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3

Levels/marks
Following instructions* Carrying out techniques Working safely
Follows instructions accurately, adapting Competent and methodical in the
Pays attention to
Complete/2 to new circumstances (seeking assistance use of a range of techniques and
safety issues.
when required). equipment.
Usually competent and methodical Usually pays
Follows instructions but requires
Partial/1 in the use of a range of techniques attention to safety
assistance.
and equipment. issues.
Rarely competent and methodical Rarely pays
Rarely follows instructions or requires
Not at all/0 in the use of a range of techniques attention to safety
constant supervision.
and equipment. issues.

*Instructions may be in a variety of forms: oral, written worksheets, diagrams, photographs, videos, flow charts,
audio tapes, models, computer programs, and so on, and need not originate from the teacher.

Personal skills (for group 4 project assessment only)

Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3

Levels/marks Self-motivation and
Working within a team Self-reflection
perseverance
Approaches the project Collaborates and Shows a thorough awareness of their
with self-motivation and communicates in a group own strengths and weaknesses and
Complete/2
follows it through to situation and integrates the gives thoughtful consideration to
completion. views of others. their learning experience.
Shows limited awareness of their
Completes the project but Exchanges some views but
own strengths and weaknesses and
Partial/1 sometimes lacks self- requires guidance to
gives some consideration to their
motivation. collaborate with others.
learning experience.
Shows no awareness of their own
Makes little or no attempt to
Lacks perseverance and strengths and weaknesses and gives
Not at all/0 collaborate in a group
motivation. no consideration to their learning
situation.
experience.
Errors and uncertainties in physics internal assessment
The treatment of errors and uncertainties is directly relevant in the internal assessment of:

• data collection and processing, aspects 1, 2 and 3 (recording raw data, processing raw data, and
presenting processed data)
• conclusion and evaluation, aspects 1 and 2 (concluding, and evaluating procedure(s))—a reasonable
interpretation, with justification, may include the appreciation of errors and uncertainties, and evaluation
of procedures may, if relevant, include the appreciation of errors and uncertainties.

The core physics syllabus covers errors and uncertainties in the following section of the Physics guide (2007):

• Measurement and uncertainties (topic 1.2).

Both standard and higher level students are to be assessed by the same syllabus content and the same
assessment criteria.

Expectations at standard level and higher level

All physics students are expected to deal with uncertainties throughout their investigations. Students can make
statements about the minimum uncertainty in raw data based on the least significant figure in a measurement.
They can calculate the uncertainty using the range of data in a repeated measurement, and they can make
statements about the manufacturer's claim of accuracy. Students can estimate uncertainties in compound
measurements, and can make educated guesses about uncertainties in the method of measurement. If
uncertainties are small enough to be ignored, the student should note this fact.

Students may express uncertainties as absolute, fractional, or percentages. They should be able to propagate
uncertainties through a calculation—addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, as well as squaring
and trigonometric functions.

All students are expected to construct, where relevant, uncertainty bars on graphs. In many cases, only one of
the two axes will require such uncertainty bars. In other cases, uncertainties for both quantities may be too small
to construct uncertainty bars. A brief comment by the student on why the uncertainty bars are not included is
then expected. If there is a large amount of data, the student need only draw uncertainty bars for the smallest
value datum point, the largest value datum point, and several data points between these extremes. Uncertainty
bars can be expressed as absolute values or percentages.

Arbitrary or made-up uncertainty bars will not earn the student credit. Students should be able to use the
uncertainty bars to discuss, qualitatively, whether or not the plot is linear, and whether or not the two plotted
quantities are in direct proportion. In respect of the latter, they should also be able to recognize if a systematic
error is present.

Using the uncertainty bars in a graph, students should be able to find the minimum and maximum slopes, and
then use these to express the overall uncertainty range in an experiment.

Qualitative and quantitative comments about errors and uncertainties may be relevant in the data collection and
processing criterion, aspect 1. Qualitative comments might include parallax problems in reading a scale,
reaction time in starting and stopping a timer, random fluctuation in the read-out, or difficulties in knowing just
when a moving ball passes a given point. Students should do their best to quantify these observations. For
example, one student measured a voltage from an unstable power supply, and wrote the following qualitative
and quantitative comments:
The voltage varied slightly over time; it went up and down by several hundredths of a volt. Therefore, the
values recorded have an uncertainty greater than the least significant digit of each measurement. The
uncertainty was estimated to be more like ±0.04 V.

Interpreting the relevant assessment criteria

Data collection and processing: Aspect 1 (recording raw data)

Table 1: DCP aspect 1 = “complete”

For a complete, students need to present raw data in a clear and comprehensible way, including the name of the
quantities, the symbols and units, and an estimated raw uncertainty for each raw data quantity (table 1).
Uncertainties are always relevant in raw data, even if they are small enough to ignore.

Table 1

Voltage Current

V/V I / mA

ΔV ≈ 0 V ΔI = ±0.3 mA
1.00 0.9
2.00 2.1
3.00 2.8
4.00 4.1
5.00 5.0
6.00 5.9
7.00 7.1
8.00 8.0
9.00 8.9
10.0 9.9
Table 2: DCP aspect 1 = “partial”

For a partial, students need to present raw data in an appropriate manner, but there may be some mistakes or
omissions. In the example in table 2, awarded a partial, the student again records raw data appropriately in a
table, but the symbols are not given, there are no estimated uncertainties and the raw data is recorded with an
inconsistent number of significant figures.

Table 2

Voltage / V Current / mA
1 0.9
2 2.1
3 2.8
4 4.1
5 5
6 5.9
7 7.1
8 8
9 8.9
10 9.9

Table 3: DCP aspect 1 = “not at all”

A student may earn a not at all if they forget to record any raw data or if the presentation and details are
incomprehensible or if essential information is missing such as units (table 3).

Table 3

Raw Data: Voltage and Current

1 @ 0.9, 2 @ 2.1, 3 @ 2.8, 4 @ 4.1, 5 @ 5, 6 @ 5.9, 7 @ 7.1, 8 @ 8, 9 @ 8.9,10 @ 9.9

Data collection and processing: Aspect 2 (processing raw data)

Data processing is usually understood as combining and manipulating raw data to determine the value of a
physical quantity. Often raw data is multiplied or divided, added or subtracted from other values or constants.
When this is done, errors and uncertainties should be propagated. However, there are cases where the raw data
is appropriate for graphing and for establishing a conclusion. For example, in an Ohm’s law experiment,
voltages and currents may be recorded and graphed. In such cases processing will be understood as transferring
the data to an appropriate graph, constructing a best-fit line and determining the slope. Students will not be
penalized under aspect 2 if their investigation is of this type. The processing of uncertainty consists in correctly
constructing the relevant uncertainty bars on the graph and correctly calculating the slope of the graph.

When students process data by product or quotient, sum or difference, or some other mathematical function,
such as averaging, then how well the student processes the raw data determines assessment under aspect 2.
Tablee 4: DCP aspeect 2 = “compllete”

In thhe example inn table 4, thee student finnds the averaage of three trial
t measureements of thhe time it takes for a ball
to rooll down a 1.00 m inclineed plane. She clearly andd correctly calculates
c thee average tim
me and the uncertainty
u
thus earning a coomplete.

Tablle 4

D
Distance Time Aveerage time

s/m t/s tave / s

Δs≈
≈ ±0.00 m Δt = ±0.01
1s Δtave = ±0.06 s
6.28

1.00 6.39 6.33

6.31

tave ± Δtave = (6.333 ± 0.06) s

Exam
mple 1: DCP aspect
a 2 = “com
mplete”

In thhis next exam

mple, the student calculaates the squarre of the aveerage time foor three trial runs as show
wn above
and also
a determiines the unceertainty. Agaain, the studeent earns a complete.
c

Exam
mple 1

The average time and uncerttainty is:

tave ± Δtave = (6.333 ± 0.06) s

The uncertainty in average tiime as a perccentage:

The average time squared is:

= (6.33 s)2 ≈ 40.1 s2

The uncertainty in time squaared is:

Δ % = 2 × 1%
% ≈ 2%

The average time squared an

nd its uncertaainty is thus:

±Δ% = 40.1 s2 ± 2%
% = (40.1 ± 0.8) s2

The datum and its uncertaintty are now correctly proccessed as ann uncertaintyy bar on a graaph (see aspect 3) of
time squared agaainst distance (figure 1).

Figuure 1

Tablee 5: DCP aspeect 2 = “partia

al”

In thhe next exam

mple the studdent again finnds the averaage of three trial measurements of thhe time it takkes for a balll
to rooll down a 1.00 m inclineed plane but expresses thhe average with
w too manny significannt figures (tabble 5) and
doess not appreciiate the propagation of unncertainty. This
T earns a partial.

Tablle 5

T
Time Av
verage timee
Disttance
t/s tave / s
s/m
Δt = ±0.01 s Δtave
a = ±0.01 s

6
6.28

1.00 6
6.39 6.3266

6
6.31

The average time and its unccertainty is:

tave ± Δtave = (6.33266 ± 0.01)) s

Nextt the studentt calculates th

he square off the averagee time. The average timee squared is::

= (6.3266 s)2 = 40.02586

6 s2 ≈ 40.03 s2

Thenn the studentt simply carrries forward the raw dataa uncertaintyy, which is inncorrect:

±Δ 01) s2
% = (40.03 ± 0.0

The error bar is insignificantt on the grapph (figure 2),, but this is a mistake duue to incorrecct data proceessing.

Figuure 2

Tablee 6: DCP aspeect 2 = “not at all”

Finaally, earning a not at all, a student coould either faail to show any processinng of data orr processes it
incorrrectly, as shhown in table 6.

Tablle 6

Distance Time Average tim

me

s/m t/s tave / s

6.28

1.00 6.39 6.32666

6.31

Nextt the studentt calculates (but incorrecctly records) the square of the averagge time.
The average time squared is:

= (6.32666 s)2 = 38.9439

9s

Therre is a majorr error in the square of thhe average tim

me. No unceertainties aree appreciatedd here and thhe data is
transsferred to thee graph as a data point.

Dataa collection and processsing: Aspecct 3 (presentting processsed data)

Figurre 3: DCP asp

pect 3 = “comp
plete”

A stuudent constrructs a graphh of current against

a voltaage in an Ohm m’s law expperiment (figgure 3). He uses
u the slopee
of thhe graph andd the uncertaiinties in the current to esstablish the resistance
r annd its uncertaainty. The innformation
has been
b correctlly processed
d and presentted. This exaample earns a complete.

Figuure 3

The computer geenerates the best-fit line with a gradiient m = 1.0 mA V–1.

The resistance iss then calculated with thiis value:

The minimum annd maximum m experimenntal values off resistance are calculateed based on the uncertainnty bars for
curreent using thee first and last data pointts:
The resistance unncertainty iss then:

The overall resisstance and its uncertaintyy are thus:

R ± ΔR
Δ = (1.0 ± 0.1) kΩ.

Figurre 4: DCP asp

pect 3 = “partiial”

The same data iss used but th his time the student
s earnss only a parttial. He has correctly connstructed thee graph and
incluuded error baars (figure 4). He has faiiled to determ
mine maxim mum and minnimum slopees using the uncertainties
u s
in thhe current. As
A a result he has not been able to dettermine the range
r in the resistance values and heence the
unceertainty in thhe calculated
d value of ressistance.

Figuure 4

The resistance iss .

Figurre 5: DCP asp

pect 3 = “not at
a all”
Nextt, the student draws an in
nappropriatee graph with major errors (figure 5), thus earningg a not at alll.

Figuure 5

Resistance = .

Conclusion and
d evaluation
n: Aspects 1 and 2 (conccluding and
d evaluating procedure((s))

Errors and uncerrtainties are often relevannt in aspectss 1 and 2 of the

t conclusioon and evaluuation criteriion because
studeents are expeected to reacch a reasonabble and justiified interpreetation of thee data, and too appreciate the quality
of thhe procedure (producing a measure of o precision anda accuracyy).

After constructinng the graph

h of current against
a voltage (see figurre 3 in data collection
c annd processingg, aspect 3,
abovve), the studeent makes a reasonable and
a justifiedd interpretatioon of the datta when theyy state the foollowing.

The best straightt line clearlyy lies well wiithin the range of the unccertainty barrs and passes nearly throough the
origiin, thus estabblishing a lin
near and proportional rellationship. Using
U the graadient of the graph the reesistance is

R = 1.0 kΩ. Usinng the minim

mum and maaximum graddients I am confident thaat the resistannce is
R ± ΔR
Δ = (1.0 ± 0.1) kΩ. Forr the given range
r of volttage and currrent, the relaationship is constant
c andd obeys
Ohmm’s law.

This conclusion would earn a complete for aspect 1 of conclusioon and evaluuation. The student
s may refer to a
theorry or hypothhesis in the conclusion,
c b such refeerence is not required to earn a compplete.
but

For a partial in the

t conclusion and evaluuation, aspecct 1, consideer the currentt against volltage graph as a shown in
figurre 4 in data collection
c an
nd processingg, aspect 3, which
w earned a “partial””. Although thet graph shhows
unceertainty bars,, they are no
ot used to esttablish a connclusion. Onlly the gradieent of the graaph is used, and no
comm ment is giveen about the quality of thhe data. The student wrotte the followwing:
The graph is a straight line through the origin so for this given resistor we find the resistance as 1000 ohms.
This is a good result.

If there is no justification of the limits of the data, then the conclusion earns a partial. A reasonable
interpretation is really an incomplete interpretation.

The student whose graph is shown above in figure 5 under data collection and processing, aspect 3, which
earned a “not at all”, has no appreciation of errors or uncertainties and does not construct a best straight line.
Moreover, the student incorrectly calculates the resistance as 1 ohm. The following conclusion and evaluation,
aspect 1, earns a not at all.

The graph is good; it gives me a resistance of exactly 1 ohm. The experiment was a success.

When attempting to measure an already known and accepted value of a physical quantity, such as the charge of
an electron or the wavelength of a laser light, students need to appreciate whether or not the accepted value lies
within the experimental value range.

Perhaps a student conducts the Young’s double-slit experiment and determines that the laser light wavelength is
610 nm. With experimental uncertainty, the student decides that λexp ± Δλexp= (6.1 ± 0.2) × 102 nm. The
manufacturer’s literature that came with the laser gives a wavelength of λ= 632.8 nm. The student might write
the following:

The accepted value is 6.328 × 102 nm while my experimental value is (6.1 ± 0.2) × 102 nm. The accepted value
lies just outside the experimental range, which is from 5.9 × 102 nm to 6.3 × 102 nm. My estimation of errors
and uncertainties needs to be re-examined. Nonetheless, my results are close to the accepted value, about 4%
too low.

In addition to the above comment, students may also comment on errors in the assumptions of any theory being
tested, and errors in the method and equipment being used. For example:

• Perhaps a graph of voltage against current does not form a linear and proportional line. It may be that the
load resistance is changing as the current changes, so an ohmic relationship does not hold.
• Measuring the magnetic field alongside a current-carrying wire may confirm the inverse relationship,
but for the smallest distances and the largest distances the data does not line up. The induction coil has a
finite size, and the centre of it is assumed to be zero. This may not be the case. At large distances, the
radius is similar in magnitude to the length of the wire, and the inverse law for the magnetic field
assumed an infinite wire length.
• When using the sonic detector, the software was not calibrated with the speed of sound first, and so the
measured distances were inaccurate. This error was due to an unexamined assumption, but it was
appreciated when the experimental results were evaluated.
• The experiment was done to determine the efficiency of an electric motor. As the investigation was
carried out, the battery may have lost power. This would have affected the results.

Overall, students can critically appreciate limitations in their experimental results due to assumptions in the
theory, in the experimental techniques, and in the equipment used. Qualitative comments, based on a careful
reading of graphed results, will guide the student's criticism.