Guide to writing up your practical work.

When you write the report for your graded investigation you will follow the
standard format for a scientific paper. But for the moment follow this guide. It
will teach you everything you need to know.
Defining and Selecting Variables
State the research question clearly under the heading Research question. It
will probably be phrased in the form how is y dependant on x.
Write a paragraph introducing the topic before you state the research
question. Explain some theory which suggests what the mathematical
relationship between y and x might be. Use this in your hypothesis. Your
experiment can test this theory.
Identify and list the independent variable (this is the one you are changing, x)
and dependent variable (the one that changes, y).
Identify and list the controlled variables. These are all the other quantities that
you could change but that are being kept constant.
You will not be graded on writing a hypothesis but it is good practice to say
what you expect to happen.
On the next page and through the rest of this guide is an example report
showing you what to do.

Controlling the Variables

List the apparatus used
Draw a labelled diagram of the apparatus, a photo is also a good idea
Describe how you are going to change and measure the independent
variable.
Describe how you are going to measure the dependent variable.
Describe what you did to make sure the controlled variables remained
constant.
Convince the examiner that you have given careful thought to controlling and
measuring the variables. How will you minimise systematic and random error
how will you maximise precision and accuracy. Could someone else who
you have never met follow your method? Describe which instruments you
used e.g. vernier callipers and explain why. Be specific e.g. a 50mm beaker
not just a beaker.

Developing a method for the collection of data

State the range of values of the independent variable that you are going to
use. Probably 8 different values over a wide range.
State how many times you are going to repeat the measurements of the
dependant variable. Probably 5 times.

Recording Raw Data

Draw a table (using Excel see my guide to using Excel) with a column for
each measurement. This will generally mean one column for the independent
variable and 5 for the repeated measurements of the dependent. There
should be one row for each time you change the independent variable.
If your data is coming from the gradient of a data logger graph or other
graphic computer display include an example of this graph in you report.
The number of decimal places should be the same for all values in a column.
Each column must have a heading and the units of the quantity.
You must include the estimated uncertainties in all headers even if you are
going to calculate the uncertainty from the spread of data e.g. (max-min)/2.
Uncertainties should be rounded of to 1 significant figure 0.2 not 0.17.
The number of decimal places in the data should not exceed the limit of the
uncertainty.e.g. if uncertainty is 0.2 the measurement should only be quoted
to 1 decimal place.
Comment on how you arrived at any uncertainty value in the table.
Comment on any observations you made that might be relevant later; there
might not be anything here.
You must record ALL raw data.

Processing Raw Data

The data should be processed in some way, for example averaging, squaring
or finding the sine. Processed data should (probably) be displayed in a table
separate to the raw data table.
The table must have headers that include units and uncertainties
Calculate uncertainties in the repeated measurements by finding the 1/2(max
value min value) in the spread of data.
Calculate the uncertainties in processed data by calculating the (max value
min value)/2 or by propagating errors.
The number of decimal places in each column must be consistent with each
other and the uncertainty.
Any calculation must be explained. You need only provide an example for
each type of calculation. You dont need to explain how the mean was
calculated.

Presenting Processed Data

Processed data should be presented in a graph. This graph should be
linearised if possible. The graph should be drawn using Graphical Analysis. If
not possible to linearise the function then a curve can be plotted, however this
makes the analysis more difficult so the following points are for straight lines
only.
The graph must have heading, axis labels and units.
Independent variable is normally on the x axis although it is sometimes more
convenient to plot a graph the other way.
Graph must include error bars. If the error bars are too small to be drawn then
state this explicitly.
A best fit line should be plotted automatically. (It should go through all the
error bars horizontal and vertical?)
The equation of the line must be displayed (y=mx+c).
Manually fit the steepest and least steep lines that fit the error bars. Or you
may be able to do this with excel.
Quote the gradient and calculate the uncertainty in it from the steepest and
least steep lines. Give the unit of the gradient

Conclusion
State whether your graph supports the theory. e.g. Is the relationship between
the quantities linear within the uncertainty of the experiment? This is only true
if the line touches all error bars, dont say it is if it isnt.
Are there any points on the graph that appear to be due to mistake (outliers),
maybe its best to remove these and plot the line again?
Does the gradient will give you some value (e.g. g)? Calculate this value
from the gradient.
Calculate the uncertainty in this value from the steepest and least steep lines.
Dont forget units.
Compare your result with an accepted value, say where this value is from and
quote uncertainty if known. DO NOT calculate the uncertainty in your result by
comparing it with the accepted value.

Evaluation
You don't have to do everything in this list as it may not all be relevant
This is where you say if the conclusion is reasonable or not, you must have
evidence for anything you write here, this can be from your results (the graph)
or the observations you made during the experiment. You shouldnt say
friction was a problem without evidence. It might help to do a small
experiment to show that something was a problem.
Comments do not have to be negative but you should say what the limitations
were.
Comment on whether your graph shows a trend; is it clearly a curve even
though the line passes through the error bars? Are the errors reasonable, are
they obviously too big or too small.
Comment on whether the intercept tells you anything, if it is supposed to be
(0,0) and isnt it might suggest a systematic error.
Comment on whether you manage to keep the controlled variables
constant?
Comment on the equipment used and the method in which you used it.
Comment on the range of values and the number of repetitions.
Comment on time management.
Be specific and comment on the direction of any systematic error.
Acceptable Example: Because the simple calorimeter we used was made
from a tin can, some heat was lost to the surroundingsmetals conduct heat
well. Therefore, the value we obtained for the heat gained by the water in the
calorimeter was lower than it should have been.
Unacceptable Examples: The test tubes werent clean., Human error,
Miscalculations.

Improving the Investigation

List ways of improving the investigation (I.e. reducing the uncertainties).
Anything you write here must be related to something you mentioned in the
evaluation. This in turn should be linked to the results. Think like a detective,
look for evidence.
If possible do a calculation or a small experiment to show how the
improvement might improve the accuracy of the result.
If you had a more reading (wider range or more repetitions) would it improve
your result?
Is there any modification to the apparatus that would make the results better?
If you made any modification to the original method then mention it here, you
will then get credit for suggesting improvements.
Improvements must be realistic, keeping in mind the type of equipment
normally found in high school or college general physics labs. Suggestions
should focus on specific pieces of equipment or techniques you used. Vague
comments such as We should have worked more carefully or we needed to
do more trials are not acceptable.

When you write the report for your graded investigation you will follow
the standard format for a scientific paper.
What is the structure of a scientific paper?
All scientific papers have the same general format. They are divided into
distinct sections and each section contains a specific type of information. The
number and the headings of sections may vary among journals, but for the
most part a basic structure is maintained. Typically, scientific papers are
comprised of the following parts:

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
Literature cited

Because scientific papers are organized in this way, a reader knows what to
expect from each part of the paper, and they can quickly locate a specific type
of information.
TITLE. The title will help the reader to determine if an article is interesting or
relevant to them.
Well-written titles give a reasonably complete description of the study that was
conducted and perhaps a brief indication of the results obtained.
ABSTRACT. Abstracts provide you with a complete, but very succinct
summary of the paper.
An abstract contains brief statements of the purpose, methods, results, and
conclusions of a study. It should be about 200 300 words.
INTRODUCTION. You will find background information and a statement of
the author's hypothesis in the introduction.
An introduction usually describes the theoretical background, indicates why
the work is important, states a specific research question, and poses a
specific hypothesis to be tested.
METHODS. The methods section will help you determine exactly how the
authors performed the experiment.
RESULTS. The results section contains the data collected during
experimention.

DISCUSSION. The discussion section will explain the authors interpret their
data and how they connect it to other work.
The discussion section is also a place where authors can suggest areas of
improvement for future research.
WORKS CITED. This section provides the sources cited throughout the
paper.
These are the criteria on which you internal assessment report will be graded.
Personal engagement (2 marks)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration
and makes it their own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes
and skills. These could include addressing personal interests or showing evidence of
independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation or
presentation of the investigation.
IB descriptors:
The evidence of personal engagement with the exploration is clear with
significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity.
The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under
investigation demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity.
There is evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing,
implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Exploration (6 marks)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context
for the work, states a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and
techniques appropriate to the Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this
criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.
IB descriptors:
The topic of the investigation is identified and a relevant and fully focused
research question is clearly described.
The background information provided for the investigation is entirely
appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the
investigation.
The methodology of the investigation is highly appropriate to address the
research question because it takes into consideration all, or nearly all, of the

significant factors that may influence the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of
the collected data.
(The report shows evidence of full awareness of the significant safety, ethical or
environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation
this criterion is only applied when appropriate)
Analysis (6 marks)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report provides evidence that
the student has selected, recorded, processed and interpreted the data in ways that are
relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.
IB descriptors:
The report includes sufficient relevant quantitative and qualitative raw data that
could support a detailed and valid conclusion to the research question.
Appropriate and sufficient data processing is carried out with the accuracy
required to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully
consistent with the experimental data.
The report shows evidence of full and appropriate consideration of the impact of
measurement uncertainty on the analysis.
The processed data is correctly interpreted so that a completely valid and
detailed conclusion to the research question can be deduced.
Evaluation (6 marks)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the students report provides evidence of
evaluation of the investigation and the results with regard to the research question and
the accepted scientific context.
IB descriptors:
A conclusion is described and justified which is relevant to the research question
and supported by the data presented.
A conclusion is correctly described and justified through relevant comparison to
the accepted scientific context.
Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and
sources of error, are discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of
the methodological issues involved in establishing the conclusion.
The student has discussed realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement
and extension of the investigation.

Communication (4 marks)
This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way
that supports effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes.
IB descriptors:
The presentation of the investigation is clear. Any errors do not hamper
understanding of the focus, process and outcomes.
The report is well structured and clear: the necessary information on focus,
process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way.
The report is relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of
the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation.
The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and
correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding