Back To Physics

IA Playbook

Physics IA Criteria Guide

Design a controlled investigation, treat uncertainty seriously, and turn results into a defensible physical explanation.

This guide keeps the Physics IA anchored to a focused question, a reproducible method, clean data processing, and a conclusion that matches both the evidence and accepted physics context.

Criteria Breakdown

Did You Know? The easiest score jumps usually come from explicitly naming what the criterion rewards and supporting it with direct evidence.

Criterion A: Research Design (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student effectively communicates the methodology (purpose and practice) used to address the research question.

Top-Band Move

• The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.

Common Penalty

• The research question is stated without context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.

Criterion B: Data Analysis (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student's report provides evidence that the student has recorded, processed and presented the data in ways that are relevant to the research question.

Top-Band Move

• The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.

Common Penalty

• The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. • The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. • Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student successfully answers their research question with regard to their analysis and the accepted scientific context.

Top-Band Move

• A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. • A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Common Penalty

• A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. • The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

Examiner Focus

The extent to which the student's report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation methodology and has suggested improvements.

Top-Band Move

• The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.

Common Penalty

• The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

Markbands

Criteria point markbands to benchmark where your current draft sits and what a stronger band demands.

Criterion A: Research Design (6 marks)

Points 0

The report does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• The research question is stated without context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting data relevant to the research question are stated. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data lacks the detail to allow for the investigation to be reproduced.

Points 3-4

• The research question is outlined within a broad context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are described. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced with few ambiguities or omissions.

Points 5-6

• The research question is described within a specific and appropriate context. • Methodological considerations associated with collecting relevant and sufficient data to answer the research question are explained. • The description of the methodology for collecting or selecting data allows for the investigation to be reproduced.

Criterion B: Data Analysis (6 marks)

Points 0

The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• The recording and processing of the data is communicated but is neither clear nor precise. • The recording and processing of data shows limited evidence of the consideration of uncertainties. • Some processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with major omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

Points 3-4

• The communication of the recording and processing of the data is either clear or precise. • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of a consideration of uncertainties but with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out but with some significant omissions, inaccuracies or inconsistencies.

Points 5-6

• The communication of the recording and processing of the data is both clear and precise. • The recording and processing of data shows evidence of an appropriate consideration of uncertainties. • The processing of data relevant to addressing the research question is carried out appropriately and accurately.

Criterion C: Conclusion (6 marks)

Points 0

The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• A conclusion is stated that is relevant to the research question but is not supported by the analysis presented. • The conclusion makes superficial comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Points 3-4

• A conclusion is described that is relevant to the research question but is not fully consistent with the analysis presented. • A conclusion is described that makes some relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Points 5-6

• A conclusion is justified that is relevant to the research question and fully consistent with the analysis presented. • A conclusion is justified through relevant comparison to the accepted scientific context.

Criterion D: Evaluation (6 marks)

Points 0

The report does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

• The report states generic methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation are stated.

Points 3-4

• The report describes specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are described.

Points 5-6

• The report explains the relative impact of specific methodological weaknesses or limitations. • Realistic improvements to the investigation, that are relevant to the identified weaknesses or limitations, are explained.

Build Sequence

Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.

Step 1

Frame a measurable relationship

Choose one physical quantity or law that can be explored with a narrow, testable question.

Step 2

Control the experiment

List variables, apparatus, and measurement strategy so the method is reproducible and the data is meaningful.

Step 3

Analyze with precision

Show graphs, calculations, and uncertainty handling clearly so the physics argument is visible in the processing.

Step 4

Evaluate the model and method

Compare the result to accepted physics and explain which limitations mattered most and why.

Submission Checklist

  • Question is narrow and physically testable.
  • Method can be replicated without guesswork.
  • Data processing includes units, uncertainty, and clear presentation.
  • Conclusion and evaluation are tied directly to the results.

Quick Wins

  • Sketch the setup and label measurements before drafting the report.
  • Track uncertainty in the raw data table instead of adding it later.
  • End each analysis section with a direct statement of what the graph or calculation shows.

Did You Know?

Turn Physics Results Into A Stronger IA

Marksy grades your Physics IA against the rubric, points out weak analysis or evaluation, and helps you improve before submission. Marksy is built to grade faster with criterion-level precision, so you can improve before final submission.

1. Upload your IA draft PDF to Marksy.
2. Get criterion-by-criterion feedback fast.
3. Revise and resubmit with focused improvements.
Marksy grading results view

Instant Grading Results

See where your score is now, not just where it could be.

Marksy criteria-wise feedback highlights

Criterion-Level Feedback

Marksy explains feedback by rubric criterion, so revision is targeted.

Marksy actionable todo feedback list

Action List To Improve

Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.

Marksy AI detection and highlight review

Confidence And Integrity Signals

Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.

Grade My Physics IASee PricingWhat Is Marksy?
OverviewCriteriaMarkbandsBuildDid You Know?More Guides
Grade My Physics IA