DP2020 IAs

IA Workshop

300 ideas for IB Physics

Physics IBO guide

Think IB ideas

SPHS Devil Physics resources

Some random link

As seen in: https://www.thinkib.net/physics/page/17437/not-a-checklist

Personal Engagement

Clear evidence of personal engagement, justification of topic and evidence of personal input in design, implementation or presentation:

  • Statement of reason why the topic is interesting.
  • Context of the research given.
  • Interesting use of apparatus.
  • Novel method.
  • Adaption of equipment to suit requirements.
  • comparison of different methods.
  • Use of simulations to compare results.


Focused research question, relevant background information with highly appropriate method all factors influencing reliability considered with full awareness for safety ethical and environmental issues.

  • Research question clearly stated in introduction.
  • If applicable variables identified.
  • Theoretical background explained.
  • Equations derived not just stated.
  • Method is described fully showing attention to detail and consideration of controlled variables.'
  • Appropriate method (if it worked it was probably appropriate).
  • Adaption of method to reduce errors.
  • Use of different methods to reinforce conclusion.
  • Use of simulations to support theoretical background.
  • Mention of factors that can not be controlled.
  • Mention of safety issues (not trivialised).


Raw data is displayed in a table and processed correctly. Uncertainties are justified and processed. Results are correctly interpreted and the impact of uncertainties is fully understood.

  • Relevant raw data collected.
  • Raw data is displayed in a clear table.
  • Raw data table has correct units and uncertainties in headers.
  • There is enough raw data to support conclusion (at least 5 values of independent variable for a linear relationship more for non linear).
  • Measurement of dependent variable has been repeated (about 5 times) and mean value calculated.
  • Uncertainties calculated from (max -min)/2 or percentages.
  • Some processing of data (at least finding mean).
  • Results used to show the impact of uncertainties (e.g. intercept, spread of data or size of error bars).
  • Data used to find relationship or value.
  • Uncertainty in gradient found where appropriate.


A detailed and fully relevant conclusion justified with reference to accepted theory. Strengths and weaknesses are discussed, limitations of method understood and improvements discussed.

  • Any calculated values are expressed correctly and compared to accepted.
  • Any claims made are justified and backed up with evidence from the results.
  • Shows an understanding of how the results support the theory and where it deviates from it.
  • Understands how uncertainties affect the results (with evidence).
  • Tries to adapt the method to reduce uncertainties or test their impact.
  • Highlights weaknesses in the method (with evidence).
  • Discusses how to address weaknesses (weaknesses addressed should be those mentioned).
  • Discusses what the next step would be given more time.


Clearly presented, well structured, coherent, focused, relevant with correct use of terminology and few errors.

  • Can a it be read in one go without having to re-read sections in order to understand it.
  • Correct use of physical terms.
  • Organised into short sections with relevant sub titles.
  • Not more than 12 pages.
  • Doesn't contain irrelevant information.
  • Correct units used throughout.
  • Derivations and equations correctly performed and well laid out.
Date posted: