Physics - annotated exemplars level 3

AS90774
(Physics 3.1) Carry out a practical physics
investigation with guidance, that leads to a
mathematical relationship (version 2)
Level 3, 5 credits.

The following extracts from student work are intended to exemplify the boundaries
between Achievement, Merit and Excellence for this achievement standard. While a
particular grade would not be awarded on the basis of a single aspect of a student's
work, these exemplars are designed to show features typical of work that level.

The explanatory notes (EN) of the standard give guidance about typical evidence that
contributes to a particular grade.

For Achievement, evidence will typically include (EN4):

 data relevant to the aim based on the manipulation of the independent variable
and the consideration of other variable(s) that could affect the results
 uncertainties in raw data appropriate to the measurement
 a linear graph, including an error line, based on the data and relevant to the
aim
 a conclusion that links to the aim and is drawn from information calculated
from the linear graph.

For Merit, evidence will typically include (EN5):

 accurate data relevant to the aim based on the manipulation of the independent
variable over a reasonable range and number of values
 a description of the control of other variable(s) that could significantly affect
the results
 the use of techniques to improve the accuracy of measurements
 appropriate uncertainties in raw and plotted data
 a linear graph with error bars and appropriate error line, based on sufficient
data, relevant to the aim
 a conclusion that is relevant to the aim, based on the data, and is drawn from
information calculated from the linear graph, including a processed
uncertainty
 a discussion that evaluates the quality of the results.

For Excellence, evidence will typically include, in addition (EN6):

 uncertainties appropriately calculated in all processed data

 information from the linear graph is correctly rounded
  a discussion that shows critical thinking, evaluates and explains the validity of
the results, and considers relevant physics theory.

Conclusion

 Achievement: a conclusion that links to the aim and is drawn from information
calculated from the linear graph.
 Merit: a conclusion that is relevant to the aim, based on the data, and is drawn
from information calculated from the linear graph, including a processed
uncertainty
 Excellence: information from the linear graph is correctly rounded

Exemplar Moderator Commentary

Student # 1 - Grade: Not Achieved
My results clearly show that the The aim is to give a mathematical relationship.
greater the mass the longer the This is too general as it does not refer to the
period of oscillation non-linear nature of the relationship.
Student # 2 - Grade: Not Achieved / Achieved
The relationship is y = m x2 If the student shows no indication that they
know what y, m and x refer to, this is not
adequate. However if elsewhere they have
identified y, x, and have calculated a value for
m, this would be acceptable.
Student # 3 - Grade: Achieved
m = 24 L2 + 12 The relationship given is correct, but without
uncertainties.
Student # 4 - Grade: Merit
m = 24 (± 3.95) L2 + 12.33 (± 5.8) The relationship given by the equation is correct
but uncertainties are not rounded appropriately,
which is required for Excellence.
Student # 5 - Grade: Excellence
m = 24 (± 4) L2 + 12 (± 6) Uncertainties are rounded appropriately.

Linear graph and error line

 Achievement: a linear graph, including an error line, based on the data and
relevant to the aim
 Merit/Excellence: a linear graph with error bars and appropriate error line,
based on sufficient data, relevant to the aim

Student Response Moderator

Commentary
 Student # 6 - Grade: Not Achieved
Student 6 graph (JPG, 514KB) Students must
have applied
the appropriate
transformation
to their raw
data, to give a
linear graph.
This graph of
the raw data
has a straight
line drawn (i.e.
a linear
relationship
implied), but it
does not show
the expected
transformation
(T2) so cannot
be accepted.
Student # 7 - Grade: Achieved
Student 7 graph (JPG, 515KB) For Achieved,
an attempted
error line is
needed, but
error bars are
not.

Student # 8 - Grade: Merit / Excellence

Student 8 graph (JPG, 460KB) Error bars and
error line show
the effect data
uncertainty has
on the
gradient. There
is no
distinction
 between Merit
and Excellence
in the graph,
so the final
grade would
depend on
other aspects
of the report.

Discussion
 Merit: a discussion that evaluates the quality of the results.
 Excellence: a discussion that shows critical thinking, evaluates and explains
the validity of the results, and considers relevant physics theory.

Student Response Moderator Commentary

Student # 9
Grade: Achieved
The period of oscillation is a T α √ LB For Merit, students should have a
relationship, as the graph drawn with the discussion that evaluates the
transformation is a straight line. quality of the results. This
discussion does not evaluate the
The range over which the lengths were measured quality of the results beyond
was relatively small which provided only a small general comment on experimental
range of results. A large range could be used in limitations.
further experiments.

The angle from which the pendulum was

released was also inexact, as this had to be
estimated. In future experiments a protractor
could be used to measure this more accurately.

The lengths were hard to measure as the metre

ruler was accurate to 1 mm but the string could
bend. Also the centre of mass had to be
estimated. This could be found accurately, and
then used. Air resistance would have an effect on
the system, causing it to have a different period.
The original equipment changed L, but this
would also affect the period, so the method was
modified to only change LB. There was human
error in the timing, as the distances had to be
judged by sight.
Student # 10
Grade: Merit
I improved my accuracy in many ways. I timed Discussion evaluates the quality of
the period for each mass three times and took the the results, giving reasons why
average, and the range helped me make a they are reliable.
reasonable uncertainty. By repeating and taking
averages I reduced the human timing error. I also
times 10 oscillations and divided it by 10 as it
would have been hard to time one oscillation,
especially with the smaller masses where the
period is quite small. If I had timed a single
oscillation my uncertainty would be
unreasonably high.

I controlled variables by making sure they were

all the same for each test. I made sure that I
pulled the end of the cantilever down 2 cm for
each one, so the distance of the oscillations is the
same. I also kept the length of the cantilever the
same for each test and made sure that when I
added masses, they were stacked on top of each
other so the weight force acted on the same part
of the cantilever for all tests.
Student # 11
Grade: Merit
The relationship between the distance apart of This comparison of theory and
the ropes (D) and the period of oscillation (T) is: experiment assesses the validity of
the results (shows how they fit with
T = (0.74 ± 0.04)/D + (0.0 ± 0.3) expected values), and also
considers relevant physics theory.
When I substitute values of g = 9.81, r = 1.01, L However this is not enough for
= 0.4 into the theory equation I get: Excellence.

T = (0.75)/D

This fits with my experimental relationship as

the value 0.75 is near the middle of my gradient
range 0.74 ± 0.04, and the intercept (0) is also in
the middle of my intercept range (0 ± 0.3).
Student # 12
Grade: Excellence
This experiment was designed to model a person Critical thinking shown in the
jumping on a trampoline, but there are some comparison of model and real-life
flaws: The ruler is not the same shape as a situation (ruler c.f. trampoline).
trampoline, and it is not known whether the ruler
will deflect in the same way as a trampoline as it A factor is identified, and its effect
is loaded. However, without a real trampoline, is described (changing force
this cannot be tested. applied as person bounces, causing
non-SHM motion).
On a trampoline the mass (person) bounces on
top of the mat, inputting their own energy to the
motion. Also the force they exert will change,
increasing as they land, and maybe disappearing
if they leave the surface. In my experiment the
mass was hung passively below the ruler, a so it
applied a constant force to the ruler. This would
cause the ruler to oscillate with damped SHM,
unlike the trampoline, which would not do SHM
on account of the irregular force being applied
by the person jumping.

Below are further examples of individual discussion statements. In most which

exemplify Excellence level "critical thinking", the student identifies some factor
which could affect the results and explains the effect which that factor might have
had. The overall grade attained would, of course, depend on many other aspects of the
report.

Student Response Moderator Commentary

Student # 13
It was extremely hard to get all of the string A possible factor, but no
lengths exactly the same. explanation of its effect on the
results: Not Excellence
Student # 14
To determine the accuracy of my results and their Evaluating the quality of the
validity I decided to use my mathematical results: Merit level, so far.
relationship to interpolate a temperature value for
an arbitrary current, and then compare this to a
theoretical value?
Student # 15
The experimental gradient is steeper than the Explanation too vague to be of
theory predicted. This could be because the theory use: Not Excellence.
doesn't take into account friction in the real-life
scenario.
Student # 16
The bridge wouldn't be uniform along its length A possible factor, but no specific
like a ruler. That would obscure the results. effect suggested: Not Excellence.
Student # 17
In the real life situation there were people standing Identifies the factor of people
on the swing-bridge. This would affect the standing on the bridge, and
position of the centre of mass, moving it towards describes it in terms of relevant
the end where the people were. physics (COM), but does not
specify its effect on the results:
Not Excellence
Student # 18
I noticed that the wood was made up of several Possible factors described in some
layers. This means its stiffness factor may have detail, though their actual effect
varied depending on the degree to which the wood on the results obtained is not
was bent. As it bent, the upper layers would be stated: A weak Excellence.
stretched more, so could become stiffer. Similarly
the lower layers would be compressed, changing
their stiffness.
Student # 19
With my graph there is an intercept at T = -0.2 s, Attempts to give a reason for the
implying that the period is negative, which cannot negative intercept. A weak
happen. A possible reason for this is the way I Excellence at best. (It is unlikely,
timed the pendulum. I judged the end of the 10 where the time for ten swings has
oscillations by eye, but if I anticipated the end been measured, that the period
point too early, my times would be too short, and would be out by 0.2 s.)
the periods would be shorter than they should be,
causing the negative intercept.
Student # 20
The formula would not apply in real life as the Identifies an aspect of physics,
suspensions would be steel cables, not cotton that heavier cables mean greater
thread. Because the steel cable has more mass, it inertia, and how this might affect
would have greater rotational inertia about the the period: Excellence.
axis. This would make the bridge more reluctant
to move, making its period longer.
Student # 21
The horizontal length of the ruler varied when it Explains why the applied mass
sagged. This sagging meant that the mass was will affect the period differently
significantly closer to the bench than if the ruler from expectation: Excellence.
remained horizontal. At larger masses (greater
sags), the effective length would therefore be
smaller, so the period would be smaller than
expected.
Student # 22
The mass of the rod itself was not taken into Explains why the rod's mass will
account. This resulted in the intercept being far affect the gradient of the graph:
from zero. When the square root of the mass was Excellence.
found the effect of the non-zero mass of the rod
would be more significant for smaller masses.
Student # 23
According to the formula the period for no mass Uses physics theory to evaluate
should be zero. If my line passed through that student's results, and account for
point (0, 0), the gradient would be steeper, so the differences between actual and
stiffness factor would be lower and closer to the expected results: Excellence.
theoretical value.
Student # 24
For one of the masses (0.075 kg) the times were Evaluates and explains the
all the same so there was no range of data to validity of the results: Excellence.
estimate uncertainty from. There must be some
uncertainty, given human reaction time, so a
nominal uncertainty of 0.05 s was assigned to it.
Student # 25
The range of masses used is nowhere near the Evaluates and explains the
mass of the object it is designed to model. Even validity of the results: Excellence.
though my data fits the graph well, I cannot be
sure that the trend would continue like this for the
much larger real-life mass, so the conclusion
might not apply in reality.
Student # 26
As the mass swung back and forth it also spun. A factor identified, and its effect
The spinning caused the string to untwist, described: Excellence.
increasing the length of L. The increased length
would cause the time period to be greater,
increasing the value of the intercept.