This criterion assesses the relevance of the conclusion to the research question, to the analysis presented and to the accepted scientific context.
2 strands, maximum 6 points
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.
a valid explanation of trends in the results or correlations of the results
a conclusion that addresses the research question in the proposed context
evidence that sense has been made of the data and/or results, leading to a conclusion that is realistic
references to a hypothesis (if one has been stated)
a discussion of the impact of uncertainties
a discussion of the reliability of the data (which may indicate an appreciation of the strengths of the data)
whether the data supports any hypothesis that has been proposed.
You must discuss whether the data address the research question or not. A conclusion that is fully consistent requires the interpretation of processed data including associated uncertainties.
The data collected and processed may not demonstrate clear patterns or trends. The data may also be inconclusive. For some investigations, the data may partially support a conclusion, but not necessarily lead to a strong one.
You muust ensure you do not introduce bias in the interpretation to form conclusions that are not supported by their data.
The conclusion should include an explanation of the trend line using mathematical terms correctly, such as “linear” (positive or negative gradients), “directly proportional”, “inversely proportional”, “exponential” (negative or positive). Where relevant, terms such as “optima”, “maxima” (plateau) and “intercepts” should be used.
Measures of variation, such as the range or the standard deviation, can indicate the reliability of the results.
A valid conclusion needs to express not only the resulting value but also an experimentally acceptable range of values. A student should, for example, conclude that the specific heat capacity of aluminium is (932 ± 15) J kg−1 K−1. In this way the result is justified as being accurate enough to agree with the accepted value of 921.095 J kg−1 K−1. Stating the percentage difference and percentage uncertainty is also good practice.
The student should comment on the presence of random and systematic errors as shown in any graphs, and on their effect on any conclusions. The direction of any systematic error should be stated.
a relevant scientific context, with references from the literature that help explain the investigation’s outcomes
reliable scientific sources, referenced with sufficient detail to be traced (e.g. retrieval dates for online sources)
comparison with general models and a proposed explanation in the context of physics.
Comparison to the scientific context
Scientific context refers to information that could come from published material (paper or online), published values, course notes, textbooks or other outside sources. The citation of published materials must be sufficiently detailed to allow these sources to be traceable
The relevant scientific context helps explain the investigation’s outcomes. You must use reliable scientific sources, referenced with sufficient detail to be traced (e.g. retrieval dates for online sources)
Quantitative comparison to an accepted value is expected if there is one.
There may be no accepted value for comparison. In this case, you must determine if the result is reasonable and physically plausible. You may use simulations and qualitative comparisons.
Reviewing assumptions
In setting up the context, assumptions are made in determining the equation or model used.
Review the assumptions you have made in the context.
eg:
practical—the path of a projectile motion remains in a common plane
mathematical—the simple pendulum theory assumes a parabolic path, but in fact the motion follows a circular path
physical—air is treated as an ideal gas.