The improvements I mentioned was that there should be a way to measure it in radians instead of degrees and that I only took till 90° and if measured beyond 90° the whole measurements can change which means extrapolation is not good for this and that further investigation is needed. Like my IA talks more about the analysis part like the shape of the graph, why is it that way, why does the x affect y in this particular way etc. So it's not like the quality is bad but the criteria is a bit biased towards physical experiments tbh and I had a lockdown till November 2021 so I didn't really have many options.
Hi Achyuth, simulation is a viable option but honestly I never did that with my students, as they would also encounter the same situation like you. From what I heard, if your simualtion does not really have other errors (which simply you couldn't spot out, instead of it doesn't exist), those criteria will not apply to you. The marker should refer to other descriptors when judging your mark in that aspect. Meanwhile, my recommendation is, if possible, have another simulation studying on the same RQ, then it can enrich your report in different aspects.
@@LouisWongPhysics Do you think I could use the same simulation to include friction and measure the time period using the stop watch instead of the period timer and then compare it to the data that I took when there was no friction so that I can analyse the difference in the data and the graphs?
Hello. Actually I did my IA using a simulation online and there was an option to completely remove friction and I chose that. So there's basically no inherent error. The only uncertainty comes from me converting degrees to radians and because of the change in precision. Otherwise I can't find any error. Do you think my IA's score will reduce because of this? Like if no error exists, I can't find it but that doesn't mean the IA is weaker or does it? The marking scheme talks a lot about error.
The improvements I mentioned was that there should be a way to measure it in radians instead of degrees and that I only took till 90° and if measured beyond 90° the whole measurements can change which means extrapolation is not good for this and that further investigation is needed. Like my IA talks more about the analysis part like the shape of the graph, why is it that way, why does the x affect y in this particular way etc. So it's not like the quality is bad but the criteria is a bit biased towards physical experiments tbh and I had a lockdown till November 2021 so I didn't really have many options.
Hi Achyuth, simulation is a viable option but honestly I never did that with my students, as they would also encounter the same situation like you. From what I heard, if your simualtion does not really have other errors (which simply you couldn't spot out, instead of it doesn't exist), those criteria will not apply to you. The marker should refer to other descriptors when judging your mark in that aspect.
Meanwhile, my recommendation is, if possible, have another simulation studying on the same RQ, then it can enrich your report in different aspects.
@@LouisWongPhysics Do you think I could use the same simulation to include friction and measure the time period using the stop watch instead of the period timer and then compare it to the data that I took when there was no friction so that I can analyse the difference in the data and the graphs?
Hello. Actually I did my IA using a simulation online and there was an option to completely remove friction and I chose that. So there's basically no inherent error. The only uncertainty comes from me converting degrees to radians and because of the change in precision. Otherwise I can't find any error. Do you think my IA's score will reduce because of this? Like if no error exists, I can't find it but that doesn't mean the IA is weaker or does it? The marking scheme talks a lot about error.
Some more IA examples on the internet
internalassessments.wordpress.com/hl-physics-2/
www.sineadsukerta.com/ib-content