Report of IBAP Physics Workshop

Tue 20 to Thu 22 November 2001

Mumbai, India

Leader: Steve Udy

Li Po Chun United World College of Hong Kong

This workshop was the 2nd of two run consecutively, the other being held in Osaka, Japan. The agendas for both
workshops were identical with reference to the content of the 10 sessions. Many discussions in Osaka developed the
groups understanding of certain issues, such as IA Planning exercises. These discussions were continued in Mumbai.
Additionally participants at both workshops contributed valuable materials, ideas and references. These have all been
incorporated in both this and the Osaka reports to maximise their availability to teachers. The presence of a Group 4
Subject Area Manager (David Jones at Osaka and Paul Fairbrother at Mumbai) was highly appreciated as valuable
resources for clarifying various issues. They also presented a session on the Grade Award process.

16 teachers attended this workshop with IB physics experience ranging from 12 to 0 years. A record of participant
details is appended to this report. While more than half of the group of the group had no previous IB physics
experience, a few had taught physics previously. There was clearly a wealth of physics teaching experience within the
group.

Opportunities to share ideas, models and resources were created repeatedly through the workshop, facilitated through a
flexible interpretation of the agenda. Planned activities were often adapted or abbreviated where this seemed useful. I
am particularly grateful for the high level of contribution by participants.

A CDrom (both Mac and PC formats) containing all of my computer-generated physics teaching materials was provided
to each participant. Nearly all files were produced in AppleWorks version 5.0, a cross-platform (Mac and Windows)
application. Many files would be inaccessible without this application.

The following headings cover the main components, not necessarily in the chronological order of the workshop.

Issues
The 1st session began by listing issues that participants wanted to discuss. They were addressed in one way or another
during the course of the workshop.
IA grading
IA criteria
practical programmes and choice of experiments
Planning (a)
group 4 Projects
combined SL/HL
syllabus changes
EE criteria
use of technology in IB physics programme
teaching progress with syllabus
teaching the options
use of graphing calculators
explanation of hypothesis for Planning (a)

Report on IBAP Physics Workshop, Osaka 15 - 17 Nov 2001 page 1 of 6 Steve Udy
 IA Planning criteria
The 1st session began by discussing Internal Assessment Planning criteria. Using a bending spaghetti exercise to focus
attention on this issue the ensuing discussions revealed many of the concerns and frustrations relating to IA experienced
by the participants main ones listed at the end of this report.

Planning (a) ideas

Brainstorming Planning (a) ideas produced the following:
strength of X (hair, a sheet of paper, ...)
terminal velocity of X
wobbliness of jelly
stickiness of Blutack
strength of paper
refractive index of jelly
evaporation from X (a cup of water, ...)
bounciness of a squash ball
bounciness of a basketball ball
size of craters in sand due to a dropped object
(paper) parachutes
rate of cooling of X (cup of coffee, ...)
factors affecting lift
stretchiness of X (wire, rubber band, ...)
loudness of X (ball dropped onto ground, 2 hands clapping, electric fan, ...)
cooling ability of ice cubes

damping in SHM
range of a projectile
coupled pendulums
factors affecting friction
intensity of light from a lamp

There were concerns that a Planning exercise about something readily found in textbooks (on the web, etc) would not
be accepted as valid by IA moderators, and also that references to specific dependent or independent variables would
devalue the exercise, in either case leading to moderation down by IA moderators. Given the extensive choice above I
would not use the last few italicised ideas in order to address this 1st concern, whether or not is valid.

A useful format for a Pl(a) exercise was proposed as Investigate one factor affecting X, e.g. Investigate one factor
affecting the strength of hair. To address the 2nd concern above about reference to specific variables, it may be better
to use everyday terms, avoiding specific measurable variables. Hence strength rather than breaking force of hair,
leaving students to decide how they would interpret and measure strength.

One must be careful to avoid guiding students towards 2 particular variables (e.g. breaking force and hair diameter);
one sign that that this has been successfully avoided is a range of different responses from students.

These discussions were as much a voyage of discovery for me as they seemed to be for everyone else. I intend to
modify my Pl (a) exercises to fit the model described above - i.e. many of the Pl(a) examples that I provided at the
workshop are already obsolete as far as our LPC practical programme is concerned.

Practical work and Internal Assessment

Given that such a large proportion of the participants were new to IB and that effective administration of the practical
programme is crucial to students success, time was devoted to describing and discussing Group 4 practical and IA
requirements, and how to meet them in designing and running an IB physics programme. Group 4 IA requirements were
discussed: 60 h HL, 40 h SL, Group 4 Project, 8 criteria worth maximum 3 each, IA worth 24% of final mark, aspects,
matrices, moderation samples, PSOWs, IBNET grade submission and sample selection, etc. Much of the information is
found in current IB Group 4 IA documents (the latest Physics Subject Guide includes a section on IA) and in the Vade
Mecum. LPC documents for IA record keeping, PSOWs, etc were discussed (copies in Workshop Guide) and copies of
LPC practical programme were available for viewing.

It was strongly recommended that all teachers read 2 sections in the Vade Mecum (the Group 4 section and the Internal
Assessment section) at the beginning of the year and again before submitting IA samples. Also recommended to read

Report on IBAP Physics Workshop, Osaka 15 - 17 Nov 2001 page 2 of 6 Steve Udy
the IB Diploma Coordinator Notes (important for late-breaking news, updates and amendments), published few times
each year - hard copy sent to IB Coordinator and soft copy available on IB OCC.

IA grading practice of sample lab records was undertaken in small groups for discussion.

In Osaka David Jones referred teachers to the IA document Teacher Support Material Experimental Sciences April 99
(with a red cover) as a resource of exemplary IA assessments (this is a thick document with exemplary materials for
each of the sciences). Can be ordered from IB.

A possible approach to constructing a practical programme was presented, addressing the following issues:
effective use of teacher time
reasons for grading practical work (assessment and student feedback)
optimising (minimising?) grading time - only need to grade sufficient labs to provide feedback, allow student
development and give the teacher confidence of assessment
reasons why students fail to reach maximum (level 3) grade - i.e. [1] students ignorant of level 3
requirements OR [2] lack of effort OR [3] lack of ability; therefore want to get students past No 1 as quickly as
possible
constructing dedicated labs designed to teach specific IA criteria skills
use of specific exercises to assess particular criteria - note that it is acceptable to IB to use, for example,
Planning exercises that are not subsequently carried out as practical investigations

Note that if your school uses IBNET, a score sheet will be available following the exam session (probably in September
for the May session) that shows the raw and moderated IA scores for each student.

Extended Essays
IB requirements for the Extended Essay were presented including:
EE must be in a single IB subject (no combined subjects)
must be students original work with acknowledgement of material from others
grading criteria (max 24 for general criteria, max 12 for subject specific criteria)
max word count of 4,000
teacher supervisor
IB submission deadlines

Participants were encouraged to read the IB publication on Extended Essays.

It was recommended that supervisors of physics EEs consider:

timing - late enough so that sufficient theory and IA skills (especially Pl(a) and Pl(b)) already covered) and
early enough so that students can complete EE before end of 1st semester of 2nd year - recommend starting no
later than 4 months before end of 1st year as most science practical EEs are carried out in the school labs
and/or using school equipment (i.e. aim to complete data collection before summer break)
setting a schedule of internal school deadlines
allowing only practical-based EEs (this is generally the most successful of the 4 kinds of Physics EE
permitted)
requiring all students keep a logbook and back-up copies for security of word-processed EEs

The LPCUWC approach with internal deadlines was described and the relevant LPC documents presented. May 2000
and May 2001 Physics EE Reports were posted on display. Several LPC EEs were available for viewing and one
(Strength of fishing line) distributed to all participants.

Note that the EE scores for each of your students is available (before September for the May session), listing the
separate totals for General criteria out of 24 and Physics-specific criteria out of 12.

Group 4 Project
This was briefly discussed in terms of IB requirements and the LPC approach as one example. It was emphasised that
the focus is on process rather than results with the interdisciplinary collaborative nature of the Project being one of its
features. Assessment of students during the Project is not required. Variables such as number of students, flexibility of
school programme, availability of technical support, whether school is residential or not, result in each school having
unique circumstances, which then affect the style of project the school can run.

Report on IBAP Physics Workshop, Osaka 15 - 17 Nov 2001 page 3 of 6 Steve Udy
 Teaching the programme - core and options
The structure and content of the HL and SL syllabuses were summarised (core, AHL, options, etc), along with
suggested time allocations and assessment. The importance of an effective teaching scheme was emphasised with
examples from LPC discussed. It was recommended that the following be given consideration in designing a teaching
scheme:
aim to cover all topics (rather than second guessing the examiner by omitting some topics)
leave time for exam preparation at end of 2nd year
decide teaching order for major topics (e.g. mechanics 1st, then heat, etc), and design practical programme
providing copies of (or access to) the scheme and syllabus to students
include reading references and homework exercises within the scheme - useful for student reference (during
absences, revision, etc) and teacher planning

The following suggestions were offered as possible approaches to teaching IB physics:

strict adherence to a teaching scheme which completes the syllabus before the exams; need to avoid the last
minute dash which often completes the syllabus at the expense of the final topic(s) such as atomic/nuclear or
one of the options
using the last month before the exams (i.e. April for May exams, October for November exams) for mock
exam practice (under live conditions); a students success depends on mastery of material, effective exam
strategies, and the students psychological state (importance of confidence and expectation of success)
transfer responsibility for learning (and therefore completion of the syllabus) to the students; hence students
need access to the syllabus and teachers teaching scheme (e.g. copies provided or available to all students)

Small groups were formed for discussion and sharing of teaching schemes and teaching ideas.

The option topics and curriculum requirements were summarised (time requirements, assessment contributions, etc).
This was followed by small group discussions in the 3 most popular HL options: Astrophysics, Relativity, Optics. The
groups were asked to consider the following in their discussions:
resources
option length
difficulty in terms of both physics and math
whether the option emphasises memory work or conceptual understanding
practicals

Exams
This began with an overview of HL and SL exams (papers 1, 2 and 3, duration, component weighting of final mark,
etc). Copies of May 2001 HL paper 2 and paper 3 scripts and mark schemes were distributed for grading practice in
small groups.

Participants new to IB were recommended to order from IB (through the IB Coordinator) past papers and subject
reports going back to the May 1998 exam session. Materials available for ordering are listed in the IB World magazine.

Web sites
This session was spent in one of the OIS computer rooms with 2 main aims:
The 1st was to ensure all participants left the workshop familiar with the IB Online Curriculum Centre (OCC);
temporary passwords valid for 2 weeks were provided to all participants. The OCC allows teachers to access, for
example,:
discussions - read, initiate or contribute to
the full Physics Subject Guide - this may be read online and also copied and pasted into text or table
documents
the latest Physics Subject Report
an Overview of general Group 4 changes as well as an Overview of Physics changes with the latest curriculum
review (these also included on the CDrom distributed to participants)
the Vade Mecum
the Diploma Programme Coordinator Notes (under News and Information)

The 2nd aim was to allow participants to explore and share favourite web sites - some listed below and another list
appended to this report.

Report on IBAP Physics Workshop, Osaka 15 - 17 Nov 2001 page 4 of 6 Steve Udy
Physics teaching web sites used at Mahindra UWC of India (Magan Savant)

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/atomspectra.html
How light is made from the ordered motion of electrons in atoms and molecules

http://www.ee.iastate.edu/~hsiu/em_movies.html#refle
QuickTime Movies of Electromagnetic Waves

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/kinema/rocket.html
The Physics Classroom

http://demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu/movies.html
Physics Demo room

http://www.lightandmatter.com/area1book1.html
Newtonian Physics

http://www.ba.infn.it/www/didattica.html
Lot of different sites-EXCELLENT

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/newtltoc.html
The Physics Classroom- EVERYTHING in Physics

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/teachersguide.html
Some additional resources as teaching aid and extra reference to students

http://www.wfu.edu/physics/demolabs/demos/avimov/
WFU Physics demo videos

http://www.amasci.com/scied.html#demo
Physics Demos & Science Exhibit Designs

http://members.aol.com/cepeirce/m.html#StarMenu
Multimedia simulations of different topics in Physics

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/
Everything in Physics with good examples & demos (under construction though, still good). Lot of extra resources
quoted.

http://www.thinkquest.org/library/lib/site_sum_outside.html?tname=19537&url=19537/
Soundry-Multimedia is needed.

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos.html
Excellent animations on wave behaviour (sound & light)

Other recommended web sites

http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/physics/index.htm
Jason Dickers Physics site

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html
Hyperphysics Concepts (US$40 for CDrom version)

www.webassign.net
Web Assign - web-based assignments using exercises from 31 different physics textbooks (Giancoli, Serway, Young,
Halliday + Resnick, etc

Report on IBAP Physics Workshop, Osaka 15 - 17 Nov 2001 page 5 of 6 Steve Udy
 Other resources
The following are various resources recommended at some time or other during the workshops.

1 Mimio - a device that attaches to a whiteboard to allow a digital capture of whiteboard writing, saved as HTML.
Around US$500 - 800.
Tel US +1 877 846 3721 email support@virtual-ink.com
UK +44 171 309 0017 support.europe@virtual-ink.com

2 Datadisc Explore 32 for Philip Harris probes is much better than Datadisc Pro.

3 Vernier Graphical Analysis - simple graphing software, interfaces with TI calculators.

Kerry sent me the following:
Outside of the US and Canada Vernier is sold through a company called Ed.USA. Their international
branch can be reached through the information below:
Ed.USA, Siesta Key, 5136 Calle Minorga, Sarasota, Fl 34242, 1-941-349-1000,
fax 1-941-349-2766, www.ed-usa.com, info@ed-usa.com

4 Salters-Horners Advanced Physics course books and worksheets with teachers and technicians notes
(Heinemann)

5 Trump Project for Astrophysics (University of York Science Educ. Group). Publ. Burlington Press, Foxton
Cambridge. ISBN 853428116

6 Videos: Conceptual Physics series - Paul Hewitt

Jearl Walker (author of flying Circus of Physics)

7 Physics for You - Keith Johnson. GCSE text, great for SL.

8 CD Physics - Halliday, Resnick, Walker, Christman (Publ. Wiley and Sons)

Text (but maybe not the full text) of Fundamentals of Physics textbook + study guide + exercises & solutions +
simulations. Only US$20 - try ordering from online suppliers like Barnes and Noble.

9 Graphs and Tracks (http://pcep.physics.ncsu.edu/pas/gandt.html). Software package intended to improve

students interpretation of motion graphs.

Recommendations to IBO
While the experienced teachers seemed satisfied overall with the new syllabus and especially with the progress made in
the last 10 to 15 years (e.g. compare current exams and subject reports with those from the late 1980s), many believed
much more could be done by IB to support teachers in their IA programmes. There were concerns about:
apparently inconsistent moderation of IA scores (from year to year, not within one year group)
identifying specific areas for improvement when IA moderation is large
appropriate practical exercises for various IA criteria - e.g. suggestions for appropriate Pl(a) exercises
difficulty interpreting IA criteria aspects - distinguishing c, p and n for particular aspects

Most participants agreed that the freedom provided to teachers in the IB model for practical work and its assessment
was valuable, and most preferred this model rather than that used in other systems (e.g. practical exams or compulsory
IA labs). They also accepted that IA moderation would inevitably have irregularities and inconsistencies, however it
was felt that IB could go further towards minimising these.

Specific recommendations:
Place exemplar Pl(a) and Pl(b) exercises on the OCC.
In cases of changes in IA scores due to moderation, provide specific feedback to schools describing where and
what kind of improvements should be made (the new moderator feedback form provides useful feedback in
some cases but not for cases of lenient marking, at present IA scores for a school may be moderated down by
several marks at the top end and the teacher might have no idea what has led to this if it is due to leniency, it
is unlikely that this leniency occurs across all criteria).
More exemplar assessed IA material available to teachers to help clarify cpn distinctions.

Report on IBAP Physics Workshop, Osaka 15 - 17 Nov 2001 page 6 of 6 Steve Udy