Advanced Higher Physics Project 2016 Commentary

Candidate 1 – Surface Tension of Water

Marks Marks
Category Sub-category Commentary
Available Awarded
The candidate’s aim ‘prove the surface tension of
Aim and
Abstract 1 0 water to be true’ is unclear. The three methods to be
findings
used are named, but there are no findings included.
The candidate has quoted the relevant relationships
and defined most, but not all symbols correctly. The
Underlying label ‘g=gravity’ indicates a lack of quality.
Introduction 4 1
physics* There are attempts to justify the relationships used,
but there is little deviation from the information in the
source referenced.
The candidate has included photographs, which are
uncluttered, but with so much background that the
Description of relevant details are difficult to see. In addition, the
2 1
apparatus photos are not labelled.
Overall the description of apparatus is not sufficient
for ease of replication.
The description of procedures has been written in the
appropriate voice and tense. The candidate has not
made clear some details, like the range of capillary
Description of
2 2 radius in the first procedure and number of repeats in
Procedures procedures
the second and third procedures.
Overall, while not perfect, the description of
procedures would support replication.
The candidate has attempted three procedures, fairly
straightforward to set up. They lack any great
Complexity /
sophistication, but are original to the candidate. The
level of demand 3 2
range of variables and the number of repeats is also
of procedures*
limited and may fall short of the nominal 10-15 hours
lab time.
The candidate’s data is relevant to the aim of the
Data 1 1 project and, with the repeated measurements,
sufficient to draw a conclusion.
In all three procedures, the opportunity for the
graphical analysis, which might be expected of an
Advanced Higher candidate attempting this project
topic, has been missed.
In addition, no value for surface tension is quoted for
each temperature for the second procedure. There is
Analysis* 4 1 a unit missing from some tables, which may be
caused by a font issue. In the second and third
Results procedures, the candidate has not obtained a single
final value for the surface tension of water.
The analysis does, however, include a number of
calculations with few slips, and was judged to fall just
below the 2 mark threshold.
There is an awareness of uncertainty, but the sources
of uncertainty for each measurement are not
explained. There are combinations of uncertainties in
Uncertainties* 3 1
measurements to find an uncertainty in a value for
surface tension for each procedure, but the candidate
has not calculated an absolute uncertainty in the

1 of 4
 Advanced Higher Physics Project 2016 Commentary

values obtained for surface tension.

Most candidates are awarded this mark, but in this
case, the stated conclusion - that γ=72nNm-1 at 25˚C
Conclusion 1 0
is not supported by data because the candidate did
not measure the surface tension of water at 25˚C.
Evaluation of The candidate’s discussion comprises a paragraph of
3 1
procedures* Conclusion and a paragraph on Evaluation, which
Discussion covers some reflection on results, limitations of
Discussion and
apparatus and sources of uncertainty, including the
critical 3 0
method from ‘the Tyler experimental book’. This was
evaluation*
judged not to be a quality evaluation.
Quality of The candidate’s report was not felt to be evidence of
1 0
project* a good project, well worked through.
The report has an informative title, a contents page
and page numbers. The structure, though not ideal,
Structure 1 1
can be followed, and the word count was judged
Presentation within the maximum limit.
The candidate has references to at least three
References 1 1
sources, cited in the text.
TOTAL 30 12
* Indicates sub-categories in which quality can be rewarded.

2 of 4
 Advanced Higher Physics Project 2016 Commentary

Candidate 2 – Investigation of Planck’s Constant

Marks Marks
Category Sub-category Commentary
Available Awarded
The candidate’s abstract immediately follows the
Aim and
Abstract 1 1 contents page and contains a clear statement of the
findings
aim and findings of the project.
The candidate has included background physics on
atomic spectra, which is both interesting and well
Underlying written. The descriptions are mostly qualitative,
Introduction 4 2
physics* concentrate on background physics rather than the
physics behind the procedures, and are borderline
Higher / Advanced Higher level.
Figures 5 and 6 are both a small unlabeled photo of
a spectrometer. There is no indication of a coloured
Description of
2 1 filter in front of grating. Figure 7 is a small circuit
apparatus
diagram, lacking the level of detail necessary for
straightforward replication.
The description of procedures has been written in the
appropriate tense.
Description of The descriptions are adequate for replication.
2 1
Procedures procedures However, the description given would require more
information regarding the photodiode circuit to
support replication.
The candidate has completed three procedures, but
Complexity /
the overlap of apparatus from procedures 1 and 2,
level of
3 2 even with repeats would probably mean less than the
demand of
10-15 hours lab time. The level of demand was
procedures*
judged just sufficient to be awarded 2 marks.
The candidate’s data is relevant to the aim of the
Data 1 1 project and, with the repeated measurements,
sufficient to draw a conclusion.
The candidate has omitted some units from tables
and has not taken advantage of the opportunity of
graphical analysis, with resulting invalid averaging.
The candidate has used the appropriate graphical
Analysis* 4 1
treatment for the third procedure, but the graph is
small, with incorrect labeling on the x-axis and
excessively large data points, making the checking of
Results
plotting difficult.
The candidate has shown an awareness of
uncertainties in measurement, their combination and
has shown some sample calculations.
The sample calculations, however, are brief and
Uncertainties* 3 2
insufficient in number which makes some values
difficult to check.
The quality of the analysis of uncertainties was
judged to be just sufficient to be awarded 2 marks.
The candidate has included a conclusion for each
Conclusion 1 1
procedure.
The candidate’s evaluation of procedures consists of
Discussion Evaluation of a brief paragraph at the end of each procedure.
3 1
procedures* These cover difficulties encountered, with similarities
between the evaluations of the first and second

3 of 4
 Advanced Higher Physics Project 2016 Commentary

procedures. The rather large uncertainty in the

gradient of the best fit line in the third procedure is
not addressed.
The overall discussion concentrates mainly on the
Discussion and issue with the red filter, rather than a wide ranging
critical 3 1 discussion of the project as a whole. The candidate
evaluation* has also commented briefly on the significance of
findings and further work.
Quality of The candidate’s report was not felt to be evidence of
1 0
project* a good project, well worked through.
The report has an informative title, a contents page
and page numbers. The structure, despite out-of-
Structure 1 1
place sample u/c calculations, can be followed, and
Presentation the word count was judged within the maximum limit.
The candidate has references to at least three
References 1 1
sources, cited in the text.
TOTAL 30 16
* Indicates sub-categories in which quality can be rewarded.

4 of 4