The Physics Internal Assessment (IA)

The internal assessment (IA) is a compulsory component for both Standard Level (SL) and Higher Level (HL) physics students, contributing 20% to the final course assessment. It consists of a single open-ended task: the scientific investigation. This task allows students to apply their skills and knowledge to pursue personal interests without the time constraints of written examinations.

Time Allocation: Approximately 10 hours of teaching time should be dedicated to the IA. This encompasses explaining requirements, class work time, teacher consultations, and reviewing progress.

Word Count: The final written report must not exceed 3,000 words.

Exclusions from Word Count: Charts, diagrams, data tables, equations, formulas, calculations, citations, references, the bibliography, and headers are not included in the word limit.

Formatting Requirements: A cover page or contents page is not required. The report must begin with the title of the investigation, the student's IB candidate code, the IB candidate codes for all group members (if applicable), and the word count.

The Scientific Investigation

Students must formulate, investigate, and answer a unique research question. The investigation must involve the collection and analysis of quantitative data, supported by qualitative observations where appropriate. Students are permitted to use a wide variety of data-gathering techniques, either in isolation or combined:

• Hands-on practical laboratory work
• Fieldwork
• Spreadsheet analysis and modelling
• Extraction and analysis of data from a database
• Use of a simulation

Teacher Guidance and Authenticity

The IA must be the student's own authentic work, but teachers play a crucial supporting role during the planning and execution phases.

Teacher Responsibilities: Teachers must counsel students on the feasibility of their proposed methodology, ensure appropriate consideration of safety, ethical, and environmental factors, and clarify the assessment criteria.

Drafting and Feedback: Teachers are expected to read and provide oral or written advice on exactly one draft of the work. The teacher must advise on how the work can be improved but is strictly prohibited from editing the draft. The next version submitted must be the final version.

Authenticating Work: Teachers must verify authenticity using methods such as discussing the work's content with the student, scrutinizing the first draft and references, comparing the writing style to known student work, or utilizing plagiarism detection software like Turnitin.

Individual vs. Collaborative Work

Students may organize their own collaborative groups (maximum of three students), but each student must ultimately conduct an individual investigation and produce a unique report.

Requirement for Uniqueness: If collaborating, a student must investigate their individual research question by manipulating a different independent variable, manipulating the same independent variable but measuring a different dependent variable, or selecting different data from a shared database.

Authorship: Group reports are not permitted. All authoring, including the description of the shared methodology, must be written entirely independently by the student.

Class Collaboration: If a class collaborates to build a large database using standardized protocols, individual investigations utilizing this database are treated as database investigations, and the student's methodology must focus on how they filtered and sampled the data.

Assessment Criteria

The IA is internally assessed by the teacher and externally moderated by the IB out of a total of 24 marks. The assessment is broken down into four equal criteria, each worth a maximum of 6 marks (25% weighting). Teachers apply a "best-fit" approach, finding the descriptor that most accurately conveys the student's attainment level.

1. Research Design (6 marks)

This criterion evaluates how effectively the student communicates the methodology used to address the research question.

High Achievement (5-6): The research question is described within a specific, appropriate context containing reference to the variables and relevant background theory. Methodological considerations (selection of methods, sampling, scope, control variables, and safety) are fully explained. The methodology is detailed enough (specific materials, precise steps) to allow the investigation to be reproduced.

2. Data Analysis (6 marks)

This criterion assesses the recording, processing, and presentation of data in ways relevant to the research question.

High Achievement (5-6): The communication of recording and processing is both clear and precise, correctly following conventions for units, decimal places, and significant figures. Uncertainties are appropriately considered. Data processing is accurate and addresses the research question appropriately.

3. Conclusion (6 marks)

This criterion evaluates how well the student answers their research question based on their analysis and the accepted scientific context.

High Achievement (5-6): A conclusion is justified, relevant to the research question, and fully consistent with the processed data and uncertainties. The conclusion is also justified through a relevant comparison to traceable accepted scientific context (published material, textbooks, etc.).

4. Evaluation (6 marks)

This criterion assesses the student's evaluation of their investigation methodology and their suggested improvements.

High Achievement (5-6): The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations regarding variable control, measurement precision, or the confines of the system. The student explains realistic improvements to the investigation that directly address the identified weaknesses or limitations.