Physics 90180 (Physics 1.1) version 3. Carry out a practical physics investigation with direction

1
Physics 90180 (Physics 1.1) version 3.Carry
out a practical physics investigation with
direction

• Exemplars of Student Work
• The following exemplars, based on actual student
  work, are intended to exemplify the boundaries
  between Achieved, Merit and Excellence for this
  achievement standard.
• The Achievement Criteria for the standard are
• Achievement Carry out a practical physics
  investigation
• Achievement with Merit Carry out a quality
  practical physics investigation
• Achievement with Excellence Carry out and
  evaluate a quality practical physics
  investigation
• The explanatory notes (EN) of the standard give
  guidance about typical evidence that contributes
  to a particular grade
• For Achievement, a practical physics
  investigation will involve (from EN5)
• a statement of the purpose this may be an aim,
  testable question, prediction, or hypothesis
  based on a scientific idea
• identification of a range for the independent
  variable or sample
• measurement of the dependent variable or the
  collection of data
• collecting, recording and processing data
  relevant to the purpose
• a conclusion based on interpretation of the
  processed data.
• For Merit, a quality physics science
  investigation enables a valid conclusion to be
  reached. This would normally involve (from EN6)
• a statement of the purpose this may be an aim,
  testable question, prediction, or hypothesis
  based on a scientific idea
• a method that describes a valid range for the
  independent variable or sample a description of
  and/or control of other variables the collection
  of data with consideration of factors such as
  sampling, bias, and/or sources of error
• the recording and processing of data to enable a
  trend or pattern (or absence) to be determined
• a valid conclusion based on the processed data in
  relation to the purpose of the investigation.

2
Exemplar 1 Not Achieved This is a clear Not
Achieved. A weak statement of purpose. The plan
does not identify a valid range for the
independent variable, although the data table
shows a valid range has been used. Data (times
for three swings?) have been collected and
recorded. Measurements were repeated three times,
but averages not found. Period times are graphed,
but not listed in the data table. Time units are
not given. Graph axes are not labelled.
Horizontal axis scale is not linear. The
conclusion does not involve any interpretation of
the data, but is merely a restatement of the
data. .
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Exemplar 2 Achieved (low) This is a low
Achieved. Acceptable statement of purpose. The
plan does not identify a valid range for the
independent variable, although the data table
shows a valid range has been used. Control of
other variables (amplitude of swing, pendulum
used) is mentioned. Data has been collected,
recorded and processed to find the period. Period
times calculated correctly. The conclusion is
based on interpretation of the processed data.
However the conclusion is stated in general terms
only. No repetition and averaging of measurements
was done, and data points are not accurately
positioned on the graph.
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Exemplar 3 Achieved (high) This is a high
Achieved. Acceptable statement of purpose.
Independent variable is identified as steepness,
but measured in terms of number of books used to
build ramp. Control of variables is limited to
components (car, ramp etc), rather than physical
quantities such as mass, amplitude, friction,
etc. A conclusion based on an interpretation of
the processed data is given, but for Merit this
must be related to the purpose of the
investigation. The purpose was defined in
relation to steepness or gradient of the ramp,
but the stated conclusion does not explicitly
relate to steepness. Physics ideas in the
discussion are flawed (greater force pushing
it).
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Exemplar 4 Merit (low) This is a low
Merit. Purpose is given as a hypothesis. Method
describes a valid range for the independent
variable. Control of other variables is described
(angle of pendulum at start, mass of pendulum,
air currents). Data is measured and recorded.
Data is processed to find the period and the
average period. A valid conclusion is given in
relation to the purpose (The longer the string
the longer time it takes for it to swing This
proves my hypothesis.) Evaluation / discussion
does not justify the conclusion, but merely
mentions difficulties or things that could be
done differently in future.
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Exemplar 5 Merit (high) This is a high
Merit. The evaluation mentions the reliability of
the method (each gradient was tested three times
then averaged). Validity of the data is
considered (However the results are not
completely reliable as the cars axles were
uneven). Physics ideas are very well discussed
(energy conversion, friction). This does not
gain Excellence as only three values of the
independent variable were used. This could be
sufficient if a clear trend was seen, not evident
in the results. Thus the conclusion cannot be
justified as it is not adequately established in
terms of sufficient reliable data. While a valid
range for the independent variable is normally
expected for a Merit grade (EN6), the overall
standard of the evidence here is at a strong
Merit level.
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Exemplar 6 Excellence This is a solid
Excellence. Purpose is given as a testable
question. A valid range for the independent
variable is given, and control of other variables
is discussed (marble mass, diameter, floor
friction). Data is measured, recorded and
processed by averaging and graphing. A valid
conclusion is given, based on the data in
relation to the purpose (The steeper the slope
is, the greater the distance the marble will
roll). The discussion gives an evaluation which
considers the reliability of the data (Results
were repeatable, except for one outlierThe data
was concordant) validity of the method (We
averaged results to even out any variations We
took enough readings (3) to allow a valid
trend) and physics ideas (energy
transformation).
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)