Strands of Assessment

There are 4 strands each with 5 marks available.

1. Approach and experimental skill

Was the practical work done systematically and carefully, showing skill in handling and using apparatus? Was the work well-planned and done in a careful, methodical way? Was flair or inventiveness shown in doing the job as well as possible? Were sufficient observations and measurements made to deal with the problem?

Level 1	The problem is defined in simple terms, with help needed to get started. The approach has shortcomings or limitations, with little attempt to deal with interfering effects.
Level 3	The definition of the problem is sound but lacking in detail. Methods and approach are adequate and practical work is competent.
Level 5	The problem is clearly analysed in terms of the underlying physics. The methods and approach are well chosen and considerable skill and care is used to obtain results.

2. Progress, independence and use of physical thinking

Is a sound knowledge of physics used to make decisions about the progress of the investigation? Does the student show initiative and make use of advice where appropriate? Are there a good range of experiments, showing progression and development?

Level 1	The work is largely empirical, with the student needing considerable guidance. Experimental work is limited or lacking in demand.
Level 3	Some knowledge of the relevant physics is demonstrated, but not utilised fully in making decisions about the progress of the investigation. Some guidance is needed, or progress is limited by not seeking it when necessary. A relevant set of experiments, or several variables in one experiment, are investigated.
Level 5	Sound knowledge of physics is used to make decisions about the progress of the investigation. Initiative is shown and advice is actively sought and used. A good range of experiments show progression and development. Work is limited only by the time available.

3. Quality and presentation of observations

Does the report explain clearly the physics of the experiment? Were graphs and plots well-chosen and carefully and accurately plotted, with appropriate scales, units, best-fit lines and uncertainty bars, so as to communicate the findings as well as possible? Is the use of English effective for the purpose?

Level 1	Data is limited in quantity or range, and may have shortcomings in presentation; graphical plots may be inappropriate of unclear. The physics of the experiment is poorly explained.
Level 3	A satisfactory range of data is collected and displayed clearly, with possible inconsistencies in headings, units or significant figures; graphical plots are clear and without distracting elements. The report is legible but may have shortcomings in structure, length or quality of English.
Level 5	A good range of data is collected and displayed clearly and correctly; graphical plots are well-chosen to display the data to best effect. The report is concise and well-written and adds value to the investigation with good structuring and clear illustrations and referencing.

4. Conclusions and evaluation

Was physical understanding used to decide on how to analyse data? Was data analysed with care and attention, looking for anomalies or unexpected features, and extracting as much information as possible? Was there a clear claim about the outcome, qualified with statements of uncertainty and possible systematic error? Does the analysis demonstrate a clear and correct understanding of the physics involved?

Level 1	Analysis is limited to direct comparisons or plots of measured data. There is little attempt to explain the outcomes in terms of physical ideas. Discussion of the limitations of the procedures is missing or incorrect.
Level 3	Some valid calculations of derived quantities are attempted, and there is an attempt to explain the outcomes in physical terms with few major errors. The main limitations of the procedures are discussed.
Level 5	The data are analysed in depth to allow the student to propose relationships between variables and discuss the outcomes in terms of relevant physics. Uncertainties in conclusions are discussed in terms of the limitations of the procedures used.