IA assessment criteria
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like4,977 views
This document outlines the assessment criteria for an IA (Internal Assessment) in 5 categories: Personal engagement, Exploration, Analysis, Evaluation, and Communication. Each category contains multiple descriptors that are scored from 0 to various higher numbers, depending on the demonstration of skills, understanding, and completion of tasks involved in a scientific investigation/research project. The descriptors provide details on how to score elements such as defining a clear research question, collecting and processing data, drawing valid conclusions, and structured communication of the project's focus, methods and outcomes.
IA assessment criteria
- 2. Criteria • Personal engagement (2) • Exploration (6) • Analysis (6) • Evaluation (6) • Communication (4)
- 4. My version
- 5. Personal Engagement Descriptor 0 1 2 Evidence of personal engagement with exploration Standard not reached limited with little independent thinking, initiative or insight clear with significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity Expresses some interest in the topic. Researches background information.
- 6. Personal Engagement Descriptor 0 1 2 The justification given for choosing the research question and/or the topic under investigation Standard not reached does not demonstrate personal significance, interest or curiosity demonstrates personal significance, interest or curiosity Writes about why the investigation was worthwhile. Goes beyond the simple experiment.
- 7. Personal Engagement Descriptor 0 1 2 Evidence of personal input and initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation. Standard not reached Little A lot Adapts apparatus in a novel way or designs own experimental method/ use of simulation.
- 8. Exploration Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 The topic of the investigation is identified and research question Standard not reached some relevance is stated but it is not focused relevant but not fully focused relevant and fully focused Clear research question stated in the introduction.
- 9. Exploration Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 The background information provided for the investigation is Standard not reached superficial or of limited relevance and does not aid the understanding of the context of the investigation mainly appropriate and relevant and aids the understanding of the context of the investigation entirely appropriate and relevant and enhances the understanding of the context of the investigation Theory explained correctly
- 10. Exploration Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Appropriateness of the methodology of the investigation Standard not reached Limited Mainly Highly Experimental method/ use of simulation explained and appropriate.
- 11. Exploration Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Consideration of factors that may influence the relevance reliability and sufficiency of collected data Standard not reached few factors considered some factors considered nearly all factors considered Considers the variables that must be kept constant. Variables measured accurately. Good choice of apparatus.
- 12. Exploration Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Evidence of awareness of the significant safety, ethical or environmental issues that are relevant to the methodology of the investigation*. Standard not reached limited some full Not normally relevant in physics but could be mentioned.
- 13. Analysis Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Raw data is Standard not reached insufficient to support a valid conclusion relevant but incomplete. Could support a simple or partially valid conclusion sufficient. Could support a detailed and valid conclusion Tables must be well set out with units and headers. Must be a good range of data.
- 14. Analysis Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Data processing Standard not reached basic, inaccurate or too insufficient to lead to a valid conclusion appropriate and sufficient. Could lead to a broadly valid conclusion but there are significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the processing appropriate and sufficient with sufficient accuracy so as to enable a conclusion to the research question to be drawn that is fully consistent with the data Data must be processed in some way either by drawing a graph or calculation. Often valid to linearise data but curves might also be plotted. Graph should have relevant best fit line or curve
- 15. Analysis Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Impact of uncertainties Standard not reached little consideration some consideration full and appropriate consideration Raw data must have uncertainties. Uncertainties are propagated and error bars used. Uncertainty in gradients quoted. Also take into account evaluation.
- 16. Analysis Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Interpretation of processed data Standard not reached incorrect or insufficient leading to an invalid or very incomplete conclusion broadly valid leading to limited conclusion. correct leading to a valid and detailed conclusion. Relevant calculations performed and graphs drawn.
- 17. Evaluation Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Conclusion Standard not reached outlined but may not be relevant to the research question or may not be supported by the data presented described, relevant to the research question and supported by the data presented described in detail and justified, entirely relevant to the research question and fully supported by the data presented Conclusion is related to research question and a valid interpretation of the results. Important that any comments are supported by the evidence in the processed data.
- 18. Evaluation Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Conclusion Standard not reached erroneous or superficially compared to the accepted scientific context some relevant comparison to accepted scientific context Justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context Here it is important that the student understands the underlying theory and can say why their results may not be as expected.
- 19. Evaluation Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Strengths and weaknesses of the investigation, such as limitations of the data and sources of error, are Standard not reached outlined but are restricted to an account of the practical or procedural issues faced described and provide evidence of some awareness of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion discussed and provide evidence of a clear understanding of the methodological issues* involved in establishing the conclusion The strengths and weaknesses should be apparent from the results of the experiment rather than speculation.
- 20. Evaluation Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 Realistic and relevant suggestions for the improvement and extension of the investigation. Standard not reached very few outlined some described are discussed Improvements should address weaknesses already mentioned.
- 21. Communication Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 Presentation of the investigation Standard not reached unclear, making it difficult to understand the focus, process and outcomes. clear, any errors do not hamper understanding of the focus, process and outcomes Not understandable – 0 Very unclear but makes some sense – 1 Unclear but understandable -2 Does not have to be perfect for 3-4. Good use of diagrams could improve score.
- 22. Communication Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 Structure Standard not reached not well structured and is unclear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is missing or is presented in an incoherent or disorganized way well-structured and clear: the necessary information on focus, process and outcomes is present and presented in a coherent way Whole investigation should have one focus, subsidiary experiments must be done for a reason. Simple structure could be: Intro → Theory → Method → Results → Conclusion and evaluation → Discussion. Maybe includes more than one method but should have the same aim.
- 23. Communication Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 Relevance Standard not reached The understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation is obscured by the presence of inappropriate or irrelevant information relevant and concise thereby facilitating a ready understanding of the focus, process and outcomes of the investigation Only relevant and necessary information is included. No unnecessary padding or waffling.
- 24. Communication Descriptor 0 1-2 3-4 Terminology Standard not reached There are many errors in the use of subject specific terminology and conventions* The use of subject specific terminology and conventions is appropriate and correct. Any errors do not hamper understanding Also includes use of correct units in tables and graphs. Difficult to judge difference between 0, 1 and 2. Complete nonsense - 0 Lots of errors – 1 Some errors – 2