May 2018 subject reports

Physics timezone 1

Overall grade boundaries

Higher level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-13 14-23 24-34 35-45 46-56 57-67 68-100

Standard level
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-12 13-22 23-33 34-43 44-55 56-65 66-100

Internal assessment

Component grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-3 4-6 7-10 11-13 14-16 17-19 20-24

The range and suitability of the work submitted

The range of work submitted was from the basic (e.g. confirming Hooke’s law for a rubber band,
measuring electrical resistance of putty) to the sophisticated (e.g. measuring the earth’s
magnetic field, real and theoretical gravity turning points for a water rocket). Some topics, such
as the Gauss gun, projectile motion, temperature and viscosity, and resonance of a musical
string, were performed many times. Results varied from very poor work to outstanding work.
Although the chosen topic is important, how the student approaches the topic and what they do
with it is most important for a successful investigation. Most of the investigations were traditional
hands on: mechanics, waves, electricity, and fluids were the most popular topics. There were
a few database labs, but these followed predictable research questions or copied TSM
samples. There were a few computer simulations, some of these also copied existing TSM
samples. Some investigations that were not successful were those that included multiple
independent variables, investigations that padded their report with two or three separate but
topic related investigations, and investigations where the physics background was simply made
up by the student when there was established textbook theory. The most successful
investigations had well-defined research questions, clearly identified variables and an

Page 1
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

appropriate means to measure and relate the variables, and an appropriate and known
scientific background. Most importantly, the successful investigations were scientifically
interesting and relevant to the IB curriculum and showed genuine student involvement.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Personal Engagement Strengths

When a student report demonstrates independent thinking, initiative or creativity, or when there
is some personal significance, interest and curiosity relating to the research question, or when
there is personal input in the design or implementation or presentation of the investigation, then
and only then has the student addressed the criterion of personal engagement. PE is assessed
holistically, not in a section or paragraph with the heading Personal Engagement. It was
encouraging to see that some students had modified a traditional investigation or designed their
own investigation, thus demonstrating independent and creative thinking. Performing an
investigation with a standard method and standard analysis but in a thoughtful and competent
way often earned one mark for PE. Only the most insightful and thoughtful investigations
demonstrated the qualities expressed by the top PE descriptors. Here, students would
demonstrate a thorough and detailed analysis, a deep understanding of the issues, and a
dedication to quality scientific work.

Personal Engagement Weaknesses

Students would often over-emphasize ‘personal significance’ by writing what seemed to be

artificial comments about their interests. Moreover, their background interest would not be
related to a specific research question. For example, the love of music is not related to an
investigation into the speed of sound. Why then full a page of personal history playing a musical
instrument? Teachers need to encourage students to demonstrate their curiosity and insight in
the investigation itself, in the nature of the research question, in the details of methodology and
analysis, and in other contributions made by the student to their individual investigation.
Teachers often over marked PE thinking that an interest in the general topic was enough to
earn full marks. Personal engagement in an exploration should demonstrate student input and
initiative in the design, implementation or presentation of the investigation, where there is
significant independent thinking, initiative or creativity in the work. Because PE is assessed in
a holistic way, students must not add a sub-title section “Personal Engagement.”

Exploration Strengths

There were a number of interesting and challenging investigations. These always included a
single and well-defined independent variable and a quantifiable dependent variable.
Appropriate investigations made use of known scientific concepts and relevant equations, and
they would establish a relationship or function between two variables or determine an important
scientific constant. Issues of safety, ethical and environmental concerns were mentioned when
appropriate. Some successful investigations included variable mass and the Atwood machine,
metronome synchronization, wind speed and lift force on a flat roof, the Earth’s magnetic field,
temperature and resistance using a Wheatstone bridge, a filament light bulb as a black body
radiator. There were some interesting database investigations, including mass-life relationship

Page 2
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

for stars. Mathematical modelling investigations included a study of rocket launch fuel efficiency
and the gravity turning point. Computer simulation investigations included discharge of a
capacitor, intensity of reflected light and incident angle, and double-axial symmetry balance
analysis. There were also several successful investigations on the nature of large amplitude
pendulums where theory and experiment were compared. The key in all of these examples was
that the student understood the physics of their investigation and established some relevant
and interesting conclusions from data analysis.

Exploration Weaknesses

Assessment of the Exploration criterion was occasionally over-marked by teachers. It is this

aspect of an IA that is most important for the possibility of a student’s success. Too many times
students would select multiple independent variables, perhaps thinking this would enrich the
investigation when it fact it inhibited it. Often the known context of a research question was not
addressed but would have been helpful to the student to focus and clarify their work. Academic
research is expected. Made up physics-like explanations do more harm than good. Historical
background is not relevant. Two pages on the history of the guitar when investigating how
tension affects the frequency of a guitar string is irrelevant information. Students need to explain
their methodology and assumptions as well as the scope and limit of their investigation, but
they do not need to give pedantic step-by-step instructions. There were numerous
investigations about viscosity and temperature, projectile motion without any depth of
understanding, formation of craters, and the most popular of all, refractive index of water with
salt or sugar solution. A number of students were fascinated by the Gauss gun and attempted
mediocre investigations. Please make sure students understand the topic they want to study.
There were some meaningless investigations too: relating the distance covered by a wheel in
one rotation as a function of the wheel diameter; investigating how the time to run up a flight of
stairs relates to the power exerted; or how mass affects the moment of inertia. In these cases,
the independent variable is also the assumed dependent variable.

Analysis Strengths

Analysis includes the traditional scientific skills that assess data collection, data processing,
appreciation of errors and uncertainties, the scope and limit of the data, graphing and
methodological issues. Most students demonstrated a sound mastery of analysis. The majority
of students demonstrated the ability to obtain and record data, including raw uncertainties. In
most cases, data tables were clear and consistent with scientific notation. Processing was often
detailed, with sample calculations of complex computations. Samples of simple calculations are
not required. Graphs were nicely presented often with error bars. Most student graphs were
computer generated, and in most cases known theory directed the appropriate graph
representations. Occasionally students used more advanced methods of error analysis, and
this was successful.

Analysis Weaknesses

Some data tables were confused and hard to understand. Column headings should include the
quantity, units and uncertainty with units. Some graphs lacked appropriate detail, and others
were too small to appreciate or had too much information entered on a single graph. The terms
‘proportional’ and ‘linear’ were not always understood correctly. The construction of minimum

Page 3
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

and maximum gradients, when the gradient was meaningful, was often done in an unrealistic
and extreme way. Students need to appreciate what their data does and does not reveal. A
number of times a student graphed relevant data where the data scatter suggested a curve and
yet the student forced a linear fit. The linear fit was then used to establish a bogus conclusion.
Often a forced linear fit would imply a meaningless or impossible physical result when one axis
quantity was zero. In most cases, graphs should have zero-zero origins. There were occasional
inconsistent expressions of significant figures. What is the physical meaning of an uncertainty
of 27.853%? The general rules should apply: (1) No calculation can improve precision. The
result of addition and/or subtraction should be rounded off so that it has the same number of
decimal places (to the right of the decimal point) as the quantity in the calculation having the
least number of decimal places. That is to say, a sum or difference is not more precise than the
least precise number. (2) Significant figures in the result of multiplication and/or division should
be rounded off so that it has as many significant figures as the least precise quantity used in
the calculation. A product or quotient has no more significant digits than the number with the
least number of significant digits. Teachers need to ask students to understand what they are
saying. Occasionally students would fill pages with formal or purely mathematical error analysis
without reference to the physical meaning of their data. The focus needs to be on physics.

Evaluation Strengths

The evaluation criterion remains one of the most demanding. Teachers often over-mark this
criterion. Students should describe in detail and justify a conclusion for their investigation based
on the original research question and their data analysis. Focus is the key here. Appreciation
of the quality and range of data should be included. The propagation of uncertainties is relevant.
When there is a known scientific context or accepted value, then students need to compare
their result with the accepted value. When there is no such value then a reasonable
interpretation of the accepted scientific context should be given. For example, a student claimed
that the refractive index of water at 85°C was 5.2. The student never thought this might be
wrong, as their data was thought to show this. Another difficult component of the evaluation
criterion is an appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology involved in the
investigation. The more successful student reports showed an appreciation for any
assumptions of their methodology. Finally, students need to suggest realistic and relevant
improvements as well as possible extensions of their investigation. These need to be specific
and based on an evaluation and appreciation of the weaknesses or limits. Significant
improvements can be understood as an extension.

Evaluation Weaknesses

Often students stated they ‘proved’ their hypothesis about their research question without re-
stating it in the context of their data and methodology. An appreciation of the scope and limit,
the methodology and any theoretical assumptions should be addressed when evaluating a
conclusion. Too often students made general and qualitative comments only: “I am pleased
with my results; I proved my hypothesis.” Often students would construct a meaningless
polynomial equation to fit their data and then assert a conclusion described by the equation,
without giving any physical meaning to the results. If the student had extended the graph they
would have seen the senseless meaning of such an equation. Students need to appreciate the
physical meaning of the quantities under investigation, and so they need to interpret the data
correctly. The graph of one student investigating mass and period of a SHM oscillator claimed

Page 4
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

that with zero mass the system would oscillate with a period of 4 seconds. There is more to a
graph than a simple equation. Finally, evaluations were often superficial, blaming human error
or friction, or systematic error when the best-fit line was an inappropriate and meaningless line
fit. Suggesting a more precise rule would result in more accurate measurements seems
artificial.

Communications Strengths

The Communications criterion more often than not successfully earned marks in the 3-4 mark-
band. Communications, like Personal Engagement, is assessed holistically. This means that
the overall clarity, flow and focus of the report are assessed. The best reports made it clear in
the first paragraph what the specific investigation was about, how it was conducted and what
results were found. The best reports stayed focused on the research question and related
physics and did not ramble on with generalities about the student’s interest, historical
background or unnecessary pedantic details. The best reports had descriptive titles, like “How
temperature affects the refractive index of water” and not titles like “Bending light” or “Bouncing
balls.” The majority of reports used correct and relevant scientific notation, equations and units.
MS Word has a built-in equation editor, and students are expected to present equations
properly. The majority of reports were within the 12-page expectation. It has becomes clear
that ten pages is a perfectly reasonable length for a focused and concise IA report.
Occasionally, however, an extended report flowed well and wasted no space, and as such, for
example, a 16-page report was not penalized under Communications. Reasonable margins,
spacing, appropriate scales of graphs and data tables, all help the communications criterion. It
is best to avoid 8-point font and single-spaced text. Most students consistently and
appropriately provide references to their work (in a variety of consistent and acceptable ways).
Any picture image copied from a source must be referenced, not just a listing in the bibliography.
Academic research is expected. Research questions and hypotheses need to be supported by
relevant scientific information, relevant to the investigation and not just historical background.

Communications Weaknesses

A number of students omitted any sort of investigation title. Titles should be descriptive. For
example, “Using a conical pendulum to determine gravity” is appropriate but a title like “Gravity”
or “Physics Investigation” is not appropriate. A cover sheet or title page is not necessary. A
table of contents may give the reader an overview but is not necessary either. Several pages
of the history of physics or standard textbook theory not directly related to the research task
wastes space and demonstrate a lack of focus. Although the moderator needs to know how the
student performed the investigation, they do not need simplistic and obvious comments like:
“Set up the equipment, turn on the computer…..” Often students include photographs when a
clear sketch would have been better. Colour photographs of a metre rule, or a stopwatch, or
electrical wires do not help the understanding of the work and is a waste of space; superfluous
text distracts the reader from the flow and logic of the investigation. A good individual
investigation does not need to resemble a cookbook approach. Too often images taken from
books or the Internet were not referenced. Communications does not penalize for lack of
references but rather when this occurs it becomes a serious IB issue of academic honesty and
possible plagiarism. Simply listing a number of texts or websites at the end of the report without
using them is not referencing. Some students padded their investigations with artificial research
references that were never used.

Page 5
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

Recommendations for the teaching of future candidates

• It is important that teachers provide guidance during the entire IA investigation process,
and not only when they read a draft.
• Students need to acknowledge and appreciate the physics that is already known about
their research question. Too often students made up common sense physics or failed
to appreciate well-known theories.
• Teachers should encourage students to include a descriptive title to their report and to
make sure the research question is identified and explained within the first paragraph.
A title page or a table of contents is not necessary when a report is concise and
focused.
• All images (pictures, diagrams) and any ideas that are copied must be referenced. A
bibliography at the end should only include sources that were actually used and
properly referenced within the text.
• Research questions are most appropriate for assessment when they address a function
or relationship between two variables, or where they experimentally measure an
important constant in nature. Research questions should be both challenging and
scientifically interesting. The purpose of the investigation can be expressed as a
research task, and not necessarily in a form of a question.
• Students should not assume that data scatter graphs must be forced into a best-fit
linear line. In many cases the physics meaning of doing this goes against known theory
and common sense. For example, one student forced a linear line fit on a Newton
cooling curve graph. If, however, a proper function is found then such quantities can be
graphed in a linear graph. Computer fitted polynomials can fit any data scatter, and
students need physical reasons for selecting a complicated best-fit line.
• It is important that students have a sound knowledge of the assessment criteria.
Teachers can discuss extensions to class investigations or ideas relating to topics
studied throughout the school year, so when students are expected to come up with
their own research topic, their minds are full of exciting possibilities.
• Make sure students use physics terms correctly. The change in temperature is not
temperature, velocity is not average speed, distance is not displacement.
• Students should not copy existing IAs as published by the IB as teacher support
material or follow detailed worksheets as published by commercial IB support
companies or purchase so called teacher marked IA reports.

Further comments
• Teachers application of the assessment criteria is mostly in line with IB standards, but
occasionally, when teachers’ over-mark or under-mark the student’s script, then the
examination team needs to moderate the student’s total. When this happens, the
schools receive feedback. If the teacher’s assessment is within tolerance, however,
then there is no feedback to the school.
• When teachers upload a student’s IA and enter criteria marks there is additional space
for entering comments about their assessment of the student’s work. Teachers should
take advantage of this aspect and share with the examiner their reasons or evidence
for the awarded marks. Alternatively, teachers can add comments throughout the report
or, preferably, at the end of the report. It is best not to simply copy the official five pages
of IA criteria and checkmark the assessed levels.

Page 6
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

• Teachers should realize that issues of uncertainty and error analysis appear under the
Exploration, Analysis and the Evaluation criteria. However, each time the issues are
addressed from a different perspective. In Exploration, students should take into
consideration significant factors that may influence the quality of work. Under Analysis,
students need to appreciate the impact of uncertainties, and this is a quantitative
appreciation. Under Evaluation, students should discuss the limitations of the data, as
well as the sources of errors and uncertainties.
• Under the criterion of Evaluation, procedural and methodological issues are
distinguished. Procedural issues (mark band 1-2) are a fixed set of steps, not a
generalization. They are a subset of methodological issues. For example, taking more
data, or extending the range of data, are both procedural issues. In mark bands 3-4
and 5-6, methodological issues are mentioned, and these issues address the
assumptions in the method, and may include suggestions on new ways to measure the
quantities or alternative approaches to the research question.
• For the May 2018 exam session, Standard Level IA totals earned on average between
a high grade 4 to low grade 5, while Higher Level IA totals earned on average from a
low grade 5 to a high grade 5.

Paper one

Component grade boundaries

HL
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-10 11-12 13-15 16-19 20-22 23-26 27-40

SL
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-16 17-18 19-30

General comments
A proportion of questions are common to the SL and HL papers, with the additional questions
in HL providing further syllabus coverage.

A higher percentage of G2s were submitted this year compared to last year, however the
response rate is still well below 50%. For SL, there were 91 responses from 558 centres and
for HL there were 44 responses from 361 centres. While this return rate may indicate a general
level of satisfaction with the papers, we strongly encourage teachers to take the time to provide
us with thoughts about the papers and the individual questions. The G2 comments are always
carefully considered and they do inform the grade award process and future writing.

Page 7
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

The HL (SL in brackets) paper was regarded as being of appropriate difficulty by about 75%
(70%) of the respondents with 25% (30%) finding it too difficult. The HL paper was deemed to
be a little more difficult than the previous year’s paper by 50% of respondents, although 36%
of HL respondents did judge it to be of a similar standard. For the SL paper, 42% of respondents
felt the paper was of a similar level of difficulty as the previous year’s paper, with 29%
considering it a little more difficult. The clarity of wording also showed some difference between
the SL and HL paper, with 59% of HL respondents feeling that the paper had good or better
‘clarity of wording’, while 70% of SL respondents reported the same level. Presentation of the
paper was judged as good or better by 75% (83%) of respondents.

There was a feeling expressed in the G2 comments that this paper required more higher level
thinking than in the past as a result of more challenging, often multi-step, questions. It was also
suggested that a number of questions tested multiple concepts or required significant equation
manipulation; any of these factors may have led to time being more of an issue this year for
students as they worked to complete the paper. (See discussion of ‘Time’ and ‘Trickiness’
below.)

There was some concern that certain questions were wordy and long, which would present a
particular challenge for second language learners.

There were only a few G2 general comments. Question-specific comments will be dealt with
later in this report.

Time

The syllabus specifies that 50% of multiple choice questions will require AO3 skills and students
should expect some questions to be answered in well under a minute allowing extra time for
questions of greater complexity.

There is evidence from the number of blanks that both SL and HL candidates may have
struggled a bit with finishing the paper in good time. It should be noted that the common
elements of the curriculum need to be taught to the same level of complexity and will normally
be tested with the same multiple-choice questions. In this session there were 17 common
questions which is in line with previous practice.

Trickiness

It is not the intention to ‘trick’ students, but students cannot expect multiple choice questions to
follow a familiar pattern. It is important that students read all questions carefully and expect
them to be different from those asked in previous years.

Physics involves the application of general principles to new situations. There is very little that
needs to be memorized in physics; instead time should be spent applying the underlying core
ideas to observed phenomena. Sometimes, for example, a problem can be solved by a
consideration of the relative magnitude or units of the responses rather than a detailed working
of the algebra.

Other comments will be dealt with in the item analysis below.

Page 8
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

Statistical analysisHL

Page 9
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

SL

The overall performance of candidates and the performance on individual questions are
illustrated in the statistical analysis of responses. These data are given in the grids below. The
numbers in the columns A-D and Blank are the numbers of candidates choosing the labelled
option or leaving the answer blank.

The question key accepted answer is indicated by a shaded cell.

Comments on the analysis

Difficulty

The difficulty index (perhaps better called facility index) is the percentage of candidates that
gave the correct response (the key). A high index thus indicates an easy question.

Ignoring a couple of outliers, the difficulty index varies from about 23% in HL and 17% in SL
(relatively ‘difficult’ questions) to about 79% in HL and 77% in SL (relatively ‘easy’ questions).
The papers gave a reasonable spread of marks while allowing all candidates to gain credit.

Page 10
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

This range of indices showed that the paper was accessible to students of all abilities. In both
papers, there was an even range of difficulties amongst the questions, which led to a normal
distribution of marks. This meant that both papers were effective assessment tools with the
mean mark being broadly like the previous May.

Discrimination

The discrimination index is a measure of how well the question discriminated between the
candidates of different abilities. In general, a higher discrimination index indicates that a greater
proportion of the more able candidates correctly identified the key compared with the weaker
candidates.

All questions had a positive value for the discrimination index. Ideally, the index should be
greater than about 0.2. Six HL and three SL questions fell below this standard. However, a
low discrimination index will not always result from an unreliable question. It could indicate a
common misconception amongst candidates or a question with a high difficulty index.

‘Blank’ response

In both papers, there were a number of blank responses throughout the test with a noticeable
increase toward the end as in previous years. This supports the observation on the G2 forms
that some candidates had insufficient time to complete their responses. In other cases,
candidates will have left blank the questions they were unsure of. Candidates should be
reminded that there is no penalty for an incorrect response. Therefore, if the correct response
is not known, then an educated guess should be made. In general, candidates should be able
to eliminate some of the ‘distractors’, thus increasing the probability of selecting the correct
response. As indicated above, in certain instances the correct response can be selected
through a consideration of relative magnitude or units of the responses rather than a detailed
working of the algebra. In this manner, there should be adequate time to complete all the
questions and check any uncertain responses.

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
SL & HL Common Questions

1 HL, 1 SL

This question was generally well answered, however a number of candidates seemed to
confuse fractional uncertainty with calculating volume itself (leading to answers A & D).

2 HL, 3 SL

There were concerns expressed in the G2 forms around the use of g here. For publication we
have amended the answers so that speeds are given in the more conventional m s -1. .

3 HL, 4 SL

Page 11
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

Candidates need to recognize that the descriptor smooth implies a frictionless surface. The
distinction between the two surfaces as rough & smooth should suggest to candidates that the
wall is frictionless while there is friction between the ladder and the floor.

4 HL, 5 SL

Without careful reading, candidates might assume the ratio is for both energies at h/4, leading
to an incorrect answer.

8 HL, 11 SL

Units in responses were given as k rather than K. For publication, we have amended the
answers to the correct unit.

9 HL, 12 SL

This question had a particularly low difficulty index, indicating that the majority of candidates
selected an incorrect answer. The most common (incorrect) answer was A, which was close
to the solution obtained through the incorrect use of PV = nRT. However, in order to use this
formula, the N (number of molecules) in response A would have to be n (number of moles), and
N is clearly expressed in question stem. Furthermore, N cannot be used with R, which is also
present in response A. The challenge here tends to be the result of overthinking the question;
this is an instance where students should look generally at all responses in order to determine
the correct one rather than trying to derive the answer.

10 HL, 10 SL

Many students incorrectly selected response C, which would be correct if the x-axis was in
Kelvin.

HL 11, SL 13

Response A was a common incorrect answer, the result of assuming wavelength = 3.0 m rather
than lambda/4. The guide is clear that the first harmonic is n=1, and so this should not have
presented a particular difficulty.

HL 16, SL 18

Some candidates had difficulty interpreting the circuit diagram, with some treating all three
resistors as if they were in series, while others considered only the two, three ohm, resistors.

HL 19, SL 24

Response B was a common incorrect answer, despite the incorrect arrow direction for positron
and the presence of an antineutrino rather than a neutrino). Candidates did not need to
consider time in this instance as it over complicated the analysis.

Page 12
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

HL Only Questions

This question was generally well answered, however some candidates solved for net force or
momentum rather than upward force.

The fact that the mass was given in grams appears to have been missed by a number of
candidates, leading to a POT error.

15

A significant number of candidates selected response A, perhaps mistaking E for k in the

formula V = kQ/s. It would be useful for candidates to look at units to help determine the correct
answer.

17

Many candidates appear to have assumed that current remained constant in the two situations;
this assumption would produce response A as a result (P and R directly proportional), which
was a common error.

24

Only one statement correctly describes GHE; the graph is not necessary to correctly answer
this question and was perhaps confusing for a number of candidates.

30

Many candidates incorrectly selected response A, likely confusing electric potential with electric
field.

33

The majority of candidates recognized that the direction of force would change when opening
compared to when closing, however many incorrectly selected response B here.

The discrimination index is very low for this question, suggesting that candidates successfully
eliminated two wrong answers, but then randomly chose between responses B and C (perhaps
due to timing of the paper).

34

This question had a high difficulty index. Most candidates selected responses A or B,
recognizing a change in current would occur, but many were unclear whether it was an increase

Page 13
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

or decrease. Few candidates recognized the phase shift that would occur between current in
the primary vs. secondary coil. This question might be a useful teaching point, since it was
surprising that few candidates selected responses C or D.

38

Candidate answers were fairly evenly distributed among responses. This question would be
useful when teaching students about the spacing of energy levels in diagrams.

SL Only Questions

This is a good example of a question that can be difficult to solve, but is easy to reason through
to get the correct answer. This question had a very low success rate, and a relatively low
discrimination index. Candidates almost equally chose response A and B.

Candidates overwhelmingly chose response D, and there was a low discrimination index which
indicates that stronger candidates were missing this as much as weaker. The term “rate of
change” may be problematic for many candidates, and so this question might be useful as a
teaching point.

19

Candidate answers were distributed among all four answers. Careful interpretation of the
diagram is needed here.

20

This is another example of a question that can be a difficult to solve mathematically, but is pretty
easy to work out conceptually (based on currents). Candidates clearly struggled, with the
majority (incorrectly) choosing response A.

23

Very few candidates correctly selected response B, indicating a need for greater preparation
around the nature of science (NOS).

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
Multiple choice items are an excellent, motivating and highly time-efficient way of testing and
promoting learning while a course is being taught. They can be used as warm up questions to

Page 14
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

stimulate discussion as well as for quick tests and should never be regarded as add-ons only
to be practiced, a paper at a time, for the final examination.

Well-constructed multiple choice questions can be very beneficial in addressing student

misconceptions about a particular topic. Looking through many of the questions on these
papers it is easy to see that candidates who did not fully understand the topic or who held a
common misconception would choose a particular answer over the correct response. This can
be a very useful teaching tool, particularly when that information can be aggregated to
determine how the class as a whole is understanding a particular concept.

Arithmetically the students should be adept at dealing with powers of ten quickly and efficiently.
Total reliance upon a calculator for simple cancelling and combining the powers of ten can be
a waste of valuable time. Overreliance on a calculator can also cause candidates to potentially
panic on this paper when they are faced with a calculation in a question. The non-calculator
mathematical skills of cancellation, mental arithmetic and dealing with powers of ten may need
to be taught explicitly to students.

Teachers frequently comment on unfair ‘tricky’ questions. In order not to be ‘tricked’, candidates
must read the question very carefully to visualize the situation. This visualization will involve
stepping back from the question and understanding what is happening. It can start with thinking
about what core physics concepts are involved in the situation and what the candidate knows
about those concepts. Plunging into the minutiae of a question or scouring the data booklet
without first thinking about these steps first can cause students to fall into traps rather than see
the correct answer.

There is no single most successful strategy with MCQs, so flexibility of thinking is needed.
Students should be encouraged to develop strategies for spotting the correct answer - rather
than working it out as they would in a paper 2. Among the strategies leading to successful
completion of multiple choice questions are:
• Eliminate the clearly wrong responses.
• Consider the units. Paying attention to units can sometimes lead to the identification
of the correct response.
• Exaggerate a variable - this will often point the candidate in the correct direction.
• Draw or visualize the situation while reading the stem. A simple sketch will aid in
understanding and often lead the candidate to the correct response. This is particularly
important for students who are not testing in their native language.
• Distinguish between cos, sin and tan functions - mentally making the angle 0° or 90°
will often show which is correct.
• Use proportion: new quantity = old quantity x a fraction, where the fraction depends
upon the variables that have changed.
• Observe the axes on graphs and use units to attach meaning to the gradient and the
area.
• If all else fails, make an intelligent guess.

Candidates should try every question. It should be emphasized that an incorrect response does
not give rise to a mark deduction.

Page 15
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

The stem should be read carefully to identify or highlight key words or phrases. Inevitably some
questions may appear at first sight similar to past questions, but students should not jump to
conclusions. It appears that some candidates do not read the whole stem but rather, having
ascertained the general meaning, they move on to the options. Multiple choice items are kept
as short as is possible. Consequently, all wording is significant and important. They should
also bear in mind that they are asked to find the best response. Sometimes it may not be
strictly 100% correct but physics candidates should be used to identifying and ignoring
quantities that have negligible impact.

Candidates should consult the current physics guide during preparation for the examination, in
order to clarify the requirements for examination success. Teachers should be aware that
questions are constructed from the requirements of the syllabus - not from previous papers.

The guide does invite the candidates to recall certain simple facts, although most of physics is
process oriented. Occasionally there are items in physics that need to be memorized but the
students should not expect to find many multiple choice questions based purely upon memory.
That said, student understanding of core concepts and definitions often impacts how they read
and answer multiple choice questions; for example, the topics of nuclear binding energy and
the photoelectric work function where critical in correctly answering questions on this paper. It
is also worth noting that current specifications require that about 50% of the items will be AO3
questions involving higher order thinking skills.

Candidates can expect the proportion of questions covering a particular topic to be the same
as the proportion of time allocated for teaching that topic, as specified in the physics guide.

Paper two

Component grade boundaries

HL
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-7 8-15 16-24 25-36 37-47 48-59 60-95

SL
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-4 5-9 10-15 16-20 21-26 27-31 32-50

General comments
This was the third May assessment for the new course and there was evidence that this year’s
candidates are more at home with the changed demands of the course.

Page 16
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

The G2 comments were generally favourable for both papers. At HL (SL in brackets) 44 (91)
schools responded – a very small number given the number of centres assessing in Physics.
Teachers are strongly encouraged to fill out the G2 forms each session. 86% (76%) of
respondents felt the paper was at an appropriate level of difficulty. 63% (74%) found the paper
of a similar or easier standard than in 2017. Clarity of wording and presentation of the paper
were both found to be good or better by 60% (75%). Many teachers regarded the papers as
having interesting contexts and to represent the type of paper that should be set for candidates
at this level. Only around 10% (13%) found minor issues with accessibility.

At HL there was some evidence that candidates were short of time on the paper, with the last
few questions on the paper being left blank more often than others. There were no dead marks
on the paper and excellent attainment was seen from some candidates who wrote and
evaluated at a high standard. In the work of these candidates, calculations were often clear and
laid out in a very satisfactory way. However, this was not seen from all. There was the usual
negligence in respect of units and candidates need to continue to work at this aspect of
examination technique.

At SL the standard was more mixed. There were clearly some candidates who had a good
grasp of the subject matter and could express it concisely, but far too many candidates
struggled with the construction of a reasoned argument and its presentation.

Candidates at all levels would be well advised to take note of the command word in a question
and try to demonstrate their very best physics when answering questions. In their own interests,
candidates should write with precision and care.

This effective presentation of work is a skill with which many candidates struggle. Examiners
cannot give credit for illegible statements. Work – whether written, algebraic, or numerical
answers – is often poorly conveyed. The order of written material is ill-considered; numerical
solutions are jumbled and incoherent. The standard of work is in many cases very poor indeed.
Candidates are given enough space for answers provided they seek to lay the work out in a
neat and obvious way. Numbers are frequently illegible to some degree. The numerals 4, 7 and
9 are often written so poorly that they are indistinguishable; powers of ten are poorly written –
examiners will not give the benefit of the doubt in such cases. They should seek to lay out work
in a clear and unambiguous way, they should seek to write legibly, and they should ensure that
the final answer is clear and obvious. These are small points that will gain some candidates
many marks.

Some candidates continue to work outside the scanned area (denoted in all case by the boxes
rules around the answer lines and other working areas). When examiners see material sliding
off into un-scanned areas or are directed to it by the candidates then they will do everything
possible to find the answer. However, if invisible off-scan work is not flagged up, then examiners
cannot be blamed for failing to consider it in the marking. The instructions to candidates are
very clear on this point.

Where a candidate is asked to ‘show that….’ examiners require a reasoned argument within
the context of the question leading to the desired result. All algebra must be clear as well as
any substitutions made. The answer should be given, in this case, to one more SD than

Page 17
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

declared in the stem to indicate that a calculation has been made as the final step in the
argument.

When asked to “calculate” candidates should also give steps in a logical progression. It is only
in this way that the candidate can guarantee to receive compensatory credit for errors that occur
in the middle of the work. Thus, many candidates miss out on errors carried forward through
this type of poor communication both within and between sub-sections of questions. It is not
the role of the examiner to investigate the origin of mysterious numbers that appear and
disappear in work. It is the candidate’s job to communicate clearly.

When asked to “explain” candidates should think about how an expert in the field would go
about explaining a concept or a phenomenon. Candidates should use clear, precise, correct
terminology and lay the explanation out in a proper order. Too many candidates used vague
terms and very loose language to answer these types of questions and often received few
marks as a result.

Most calculations in Physics proceed from an equation that often needs to be re-arranged from
a version in the Data Booklet. Then a numerical substitution is required before final calculation.
These stages are, ideally, written beneath each other in a logical order. At both HL and SL,
examiners find that too many candidates present a jumble of unrelated algebra and numbers
with an answer appearing in some random position. Candidate who present their work in this
way do themselves no favours.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
• drift speed
• photoelectric effect
• diffraction and interference patterns
• nuclear decay

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
• basic thermal calculations
• calculations in the mechanics section
• transformers, both calculations and their use

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
1a HL, 1a SL

This question was well answered in general.

1b HL, 1b SL

Page 18
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

This first part of this question was well answered in general. This second part may have
confused candidates because of the fact that they were asked to draw in a resultant force vector
and not a traditional free-body diagram. Stronger candidates drew one long upward vector,
while weaker candidates added other forces in - many of which did not make sense in this
context (such as a normal force). While not a traditional question, the candidates were not being
asked to construct a free-body diagram, but instead were being asked to draw a scaled vector.
The third part of the question was generally well answered with a few candidates getting the
force summation backwards. Some candidates clearly confused the tension in the rope with the
resultant force previously calculated.

1c HL, 1ci SL

Candidates generally had the correct idea, but failed to use proper names for the types of
energy using more generic phrases like “Potential energy converts to kinetic energy” rather
than referring than using a full proper name like “gravitational potential energy”. For the second
part of the question, like the first, some candidates did not use the proper names of the types
of energy - this was particularly problematic in this question because of the two different types
of potential energy present. Additionally, because there were two objects candidates were
expected to link the type of energy to a specific object (kinetic energy of the box, for example).

1d HL, 1d SL

Many candidates made the link between elastic constant and the elastic potential energy
equation, but few fully explained how conservation of energy could be properly used. A few
candidates approached this as a force/Hooke’s law question even through the prompt was
specifically about energy.

1e HL

This was a challenging question for candidates. Very few recognized this was a simple
harmonic motion problem, and so most tried to apply a kinematics solution assuming a constant
acceleration. For the second part, while many candidates continued with constant acceleration
attempts similar to the previous question, some did successfully apply the conservation of
energy to determine the correct final velocity, and a small number successfully applied the SHM
equations to solve for velocity.

2a HL, 2a SL

This question was well answered in general.

2b HL, 2b SL

This question was well answered in general with the occasional power of 10 error. The second
part of this question was challenging for candidates for two reasons; candidates needed to
select the correct formula as well as convert the given temperature to kelvin. A number of
candidates incorrectly attempted to solve for energy using the kinetic energy formula. Weaker
candidates confused temperature with average kinetic energy and gave an answer in Kelvin.

Page 19
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

For the final part of the question on the HL paper few candidates determined a correct solution.
Many were able to earn a mark for determining one of the steps in the solution, though.

2c HL, 2c SL

Many candidates were able to discuss this from a microscopic view and successfully connected
temperature to speed of gas molecules and pressure to collisions with walls. However, some
attempted to simply cite PV=nRT and suggest that pressure is therefore related to temperature.
This approach was awarded zero marks.

3a HL, 3a SL

Most candidates were able to make the connection between destructive interference and dark
fringes, but many gave very vague, general responses about this. The command term “explain”
requires more detailed information than many candidates provided. On the HL paper, few
candidates demonstrated an understanding of the concept of coherence and its connection to
interference patterns. On the next section the interference questions were a challenge for
candidates, and there seemed to be much confusion about which equation to apply to which
circumstance. Even when using the correct equation, many candidates neglected to double the
distance provided when determining y.

3b HL

As with the previous interference question there were many creative attempts at a solution. It
is worth noting that there was a mark assigned for writing an answer with the proper number of
significant digits. Candidates can be awarded this mark regardless of whether or not the answer
is correct. The next part of the question was left blank by many candidates, and those that
attempted it did not earn full marks. One source of issues for candidates was recognizing that
the angle used in this calculation needs to be in radians, not degrees. This is another indicator
that candidates are not as comfortable with the equations for interference.

3c HL

This was generally well answered, with a few candidates reversing the wavelengths and ending
up with the earth and galaxy moving towards each other. Many candidates also mentioned the
Doppler Effect which was not required but was good to see.

3d HL, 3b SL

This question was surprisingly difficult for candidates, and very few were successful in
calculating the new wavelength. The second part of the question was addressed with mixed
results. Some candidates clearly did not understand what the question was asking and gave
very general responses about how to change an interference pattern (such as changing the slit
width) and others took a very generic approach about possible changes (such as the intensity
might increase or decrease). The final part of the question was addressed with mixed results.
Some candidates clearly did not understand what the question was asking and gave very
general responses about how to change an interference pattern (such as changing the slit

Page 20
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

width) and others took a very generic approach about possible changes (such as the intensity
might increase or decrease). Candidates should be reminded to read the question carefully
before writing a response.

4a HL, 4a SL

Candidates generally chose the correct equation for this, but there were many power of ten
errors.

4b HL, 4b SL

As with 4a, there were many power of ten errors in this calculation. Additionally, many
candidates calculated speeds that were far outside the bounds of reasonable (powers of ten in
the twenties). For SL candidates, there was a mark assigned for writing an answer with the
proper number of significant digits. Candidates can be awarded this mark regardless of whether
or not the answer is correct.

4c HL

This first part of this question was not well answered by candidates. For the second part while
many candidates skipped this question, a significant portion made some attempt at a solution.
We allowed a variety of approaches that allowed candidates to be awarded at least some
marks.

5a HL, 5a SL

There was a wide variety of answers here, many incorrectly stating that the field was circular
(clockwise/counter-clockwise) or tangential to the circular path.

5b HL, 5b SL

This question was well answered in general. However, some candidates incorrectly used a
value of 1 for q rather than the proper charge on an electron.

5c HL, 5c SL

In this “explain” question, candidates needed to demonstrate an understanding of the

importance of the relationship between the direction of magnetic force and the direction of
electron travel. Candidates were required to specify that the relevant force was magnetic
(rather than the more generic “net” or “resultant” force). In the second part of the question
candidates generally recognized that the electron was experiencing a centripetal
force/acceleration and so earned a mark. Many candidates compared the direction of the
magnetic force with the direction of electron travel rather than specifying that it was the fact that
the magnetic field and electron velocity being at right angles that produced the circular path.

6a HL, 6a SL

Page 21
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

On the SL paper this question was well answered in general. However, on the HL paper this
question was not well answered. A surprising number of candidates switched the labels on the
electron.

6b HL, 6b SL

Many candidates correctly identified the general shape of the curve but precision around where
the lines cross (0.050No) and/or the final vertical height of the B curve (around 0.80No) was
often lacking. The second part of the question was addressed with mixed results. Candidates
were not awarded credit for simply recognizing that 1.4 is one-third of 4.3. Key to solving the
problem was the recognition that the fraction of Be remaining was ⅛. Following this, candidates
determined that three half-lives had passed either by using logarithms or recognizing (½)3 = ⅛.
Many candidates failed to include an additional significant figure when determining half-life,
which was required to show the exact value obtained from their calculation. The final part of the
question was generally well answered on the SL paper but was a challenging question for HL
candidates.

6c HL, 6c SL

For the first part of the question few candidates recognized that thermal radiation was a form
of EM radiation; most referred to heat transfer. On the second part many candidates recognized
that the universal wave equation could be used with Wien’s law, using frequency to determine
temperature. The third part of the question was left blank by many candidates, but those who
attempted to answer it did well. A few candidates neglected to convert temperature for Celsius
to Kelvin. On the HL paper, of the third part of the question some candidates were able to
specify the direction of energy transfer, but it was clear that they did not fully understand that
they were being asked to name and describe an actual method of energy transfer. Finally, on
the last part of the question a number of candidates found the unit identification challenging. It
was common for candidates to correctly identify the units for intensity, for example Wm-2 or
Js-1m-2, but then neglect to convert these units to fundamental SI units as required for MP2.

7a HL

This question was generally well answered.

7b HL

Many candidates were able to calculate the charge on the capacitor (although there were many
who did not correctly convert the capacitance in picofarads). Fewer candidates were able to
correctly identify the charge as negative (many simply did not specify a charge).

7c HL

Many candidates correctly identified that the charge would increase and connected this to the
change in capacitance. However, very few correctly stated that the potential difference would
remain constant, and therefore were not awarded the second marking point. A small percentage

Page 22
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

of candidates suggested that the charge would decrease on the capacitor for a variety of
reasons. This response was awarded zero marks.

7d HL

This question was left blank by a surprising number of candidates. The candidates who
attempted this question generally did fairly well, although a small percentage switched the
number of turns on the two sides and were awarded 2 marks for 12.9 V. A few candidates only
calculated the RMS value of the input potential difference and were awarded one mark.

7e HL

A small number of candidates did not read the question and simply discussed how transformers
work. Quite a few candidates connected the decrease in current with a decrease in energy lost
to the power lines. Many candidates used the terms “step up transformer” and “step down
transformer” without clearly indicated the connection to the potential difference. Given that
some suggested that a “step up” transformer increases current, or even resistance, it is evident
that these terms are too vague to be used in a proper exam answer. Likewise, others simply
said that the voltage had been “stepped up” without clearly indicating that the voltage had been
increased.

8a HL

Few candidates were awarded marks for this calculation. Many used the correct equation, but
only for n=1 and stated that 13.6 was roughly 10. Quite a few used the energy to calculate a
frequency, and then stated that the frequency was in the UV part of the spectrum. As a “show
that” calculation, it was required for candidates to calculate the answer to one extra significant
figure to be awarded MP2.

8b HL

This first part of this question was left blank by many candidates, but those who chose to
attempt it did fairly well. The second part of the question was challenging with very few
candidates received marks. Few candidates discussed this properly in terms of electrical
potential energy choosing instead to discuss the stopping potential. Some discussed the kinetic
energy of the charges, although in many responses the candidates discussed the impact of
changing the voltage on the initial kinetic energy of the ejected electrons. A small number simply
cited a version of the conservation of energy and made no attempt to connect it to the situation
given. The final part of the question was not very well answered with many blank responses.

8c HL

For the first part of the question there were some incorrect diagrams drawn, but there were
many that were close enough to be awarded marks. Candidates should be reminded to draw
diagrams carefully - too many drew hasty slashes that were slightly angled or curved rather
than using a ruler or some other straight edge to draw a clear, straight line. The second part of

Page 23
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

the question was left blank or barely attempted by many candidates - this is not surprising since
it was the last question on the exam.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
• Encourage candidates to learn the meanings of command words.
• Encourage candidates to read the examination questions carefully and to identify the
number of physics points required to answer each question.
• When discussing energy changes, encourage candidates to include the correctly
named type of energy and the place/object where the energy is stored.
• Encourage candidates to show clearly show their work so that examiners have the
opportunity to award ECF marks if appropriate.
• Encourage candidates to take care when drawing and labelling diagrams.
• Give candidates practice with explaining concepts, and encourage use of proper terms,
concepts, etc.
• When calculating a given value, candidates should write an unrounded answer with at
least one extra significant figure.
• It is common on exam questions now to include a specified unit for the result.
Candidates should pay attention to this an ensure that they are writing their response
with the proper unit and power of 10.

Paper three

Component grade boundaries

HL
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-5 6-11 12-17 18-21 22-26 27-30 31-45

SL
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-3 4-7 8-10 11-14 15-18 19-22 23-35

General comments
The paper is designed in accordance with the Physics guide. Section A is prepared for
summative assessment of core material, mainly of Topic 1 Measurement and uncertainties.
The contexts for the assessment are selected appropriately, oscillations and internal resistance
of a battery. One of the contexts required knowledge from core material.

Options in Section B are well balanced. Each of the options included questions measuring the
level of knowledge, understanding, skills and other of the assessment objectives 1,2 and 3

Page 24
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

required by the syllabus. In line with the Physics guide, the questions in each of the options
presupposes knowledge on core material and AHL where appropriate.

Questions in section B used well selected contexts and applications. The candidates proved
that they had enough time for the paper. Discrimination of the paper is at the appropriate level,
the difficulty level of all the options is almost the same. Among answers we can see many
examples of good understanding in each of the questions. Almost all candidates answered all
questions from section A and all questions from one option selected.

The vast majority of candidates kept responses in the answer boxes provided and if used
additional answer sheets they referred to this within the answer box. Handwriting seems to be
at the same level as in the last sessions, the answers were legible, there was no problem with
marking in black-and-white.

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
The most difficult area in this paper was the application of physics knowledge to core material
in questions focused on topic 1 Measurement and uncertainties. This syllabus specifies
questions on Topic 1 will be set with the contexts of core material and it is critical that students
carefully read the situation, and the stem of the question. The questions should be answered
using their whole knowledge of core.

Main difficulties related to the syllabus:

• Explaining, how random and systematic errors can be reduced (1.2);
• Internal resistance (5.3);
• The Lorenz transformations, simultaneity (A.2)
• Relativistic mechanics (A.4);
• Principle of conservation of energy (2.3), solving problems using rotational quantities
analogous to linear quantities (B.1);
• Energy changes in SHM (9.1)
• Generation of ultrasound in medical context (C.4)
• Describing rotation curves as evidence for dark matter (D.5)

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
The well prepared candidates can analyse the situations, present working in a logical manner,
and use proper terminology, physical quantities and units. They demonstrated understanding
of facts and concepts and were able to use them with proper terminology. Also presented well
developed competences to apply knowledge and abilities related to mathematics. Most
candidates demonstrated the ability to clearly present well known facts in words and sentences.
Amazing is, that in this paper well prepared candidates proved their ability to work throughout
the range of very real to very abstract phenomena, applying both practical and theoretical
physics.

Page 25
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Section A

Oscillating magnetized needle. Well discriminating question. The greatest difficulty was to
carefully read the information, that the time on the graph is for 10 oscillations while in b i the
question requested the time of 1 oscillation. Determining the units proved difficult for many,
particularly in SL.

Internal resistance measurement. After the straightforward part a) part b) was more demanding,
where candidates should know that in raising temperature of a metal its resistance also rises.
Many answered in terms of energy loss, particularly in SL. This is a difficult question
discriminating the best and average prepared candidates.

Section B, option A - Relativity

Answered by about 20% of the candidates. Increase in proportion of SL students answering
this option this year, probably up to 20%.

3 HL, 3 SL

Metal wire and relativity. Well answered by average prepared candidates; in b ii many
candidates forgot to mention the current caused by the moving positive charges.

4 HL, 4 SL

Muons. Well scored question for HL. SL struggled with using the correct method to calculate
the times.

5 HL, 5 SL

Two rockets. Most candidates used spacetime diagrams well and used relativistic velocity
addition, but the majority of candidates failed to explain simultaneity in c).

6 HL

Pion decay. Many candidates proved they had well mastered the concept of conservation of
momentum and working with appropriate units in relativistic mechanics, but there is a difficulty
in solving complex problems in collisions.

7 HL

Page 26
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

Beam of light on a surface of a planet. Well done by many candidates.

Section B, option B - Engineering physics

answered by about 30% of the candidates.

8 HL, 6 SL

Merry-go-round. Good discrimination on question. Part a) was done very well, but the work
done by the child was only well calculated by the best prepared candidates.

9 HL, 7 SL

Heat engine. For HL, most prepared candidates answered all sub-questions well, but some
candidates in b ii assumed an isothermal process and failed this subquestion. For SL, the
calculations were generally well-answered, but the more descriptive answers demonstrated a
lack of conceptual understanding.

10 HL

Outlet pipe. The candidates proved knowledgeable in laminar and turbulent water flow and
demonstrated the ability to apply it. Weaker candidates did not show the steps of derivation in
b) clearly enough.

11 HL

Spring-mass system. Majority of candidates correctly identified the damped vibration, but only
the best candidates were able to use the formula from AHL physics to calculate the value of Q.

Section B, option C - Imaging

answered by about 10% of the candidates.

12 HL, 8 SL

Lenses. Majority of candidates well answered part a). In part b), the image obtained by Lens 1
was constructed by the majority of candidates but only the best candidates were able to use
this image as an virtual object for lens 2. The best candidates proved their ability to use ray
diagrams in such complex situations. Some candidates also calculated the value of focal length
to get a more precise value. in a) i)

13 HL, 9 SL

Signal in an optic fibre. Well done question. A number of students, especially in SL, failed to
make the attenuation negative, resulting in a signal stronger than the original. Again students
should consider if their answer is possible. Weaker candidates demonstrated difficulty in
explaining the improvement of optic system using graded-index fibre in c) iii).

Page 27
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

14 HL

Well answered question, except for generation of ultrasound in medical context. Only a few the
best candidates have knowledge in this area, explicitly formulated in the syllabus.

Section B, option D - Astrophysics

answered by about 35% of the candidates.

15 HL, 10 SL

Solar system. The basic terminology of objects in astrophysics is well mastered by majority of
candidate answering this option, but many candidates described comets as objects freely
moving through the universe, without gravitational attraction.

16 HL, 11 SL

A main sequence star. Well answered except for part a1. The students did not read the stem
and consider the data shown, incorrectly believing the hydrogen emission spectrum came from
the star. The alternative common mistake was that the absorption spectrum lines are there
because of nuclear synthesis, because of ‘missing’ hydrogen. In b ii) many candidates did not
realise, that there is a difference between the temperature of the Sun and the star.

17 HL, 12 SL

Age of the universe. Well answered, but many candidates had difficulty in POT, failing to note
the units of the Hubble constant.

18 HL

Supernova. Well answered by average candidates.

19 HL

Average candidates had problems in the explanation required in c). This subquestion
discriminated well between the best and average prepared candidates.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
• Students should always check that the calculated answer is reasonable.
• Practice in explanations, using Physics language eg proportional rather than ‘as one
goes up so does the other’, using energy, force, pressure, power, correctly and
precisely.
• Questions requiring ‘show’ should be laid out carefully, showing steps and reasoning.

Page 28
May 2018 subject reports Group 4, Physics

• Candidates need to be familiar with the Data Booklet, with the units used in each
formula, and the proper use of each.
• Work that is crossed out is not marked, even if it can be seen to be correct. So don’t
cross out an answer until the reworked answer is finished.
• Students need to practice interpreting a question to decide what is required. This can
be achieved by issuing questions that do not need to be answered, but only need to be
used to determine what is required. Once that is determined, then they could answer
the question, as a separate exercise. Very few papers showed any evidence of analysis
of the question, by highlighting or underlining significant terms in the instructions eg
show, deduce, calculate, using, explain.
• Definitions are at the very heart of Physics – they must be known and practiced
• Round off at the end of a string of calculations, not at each step.
• As this is a Physics examination: explain the physics involved rather than generalised
statements.
• The practice of removing constants from equations before substituting values when a
ratio is required would simplify working and reduce arithmetical errors eg 11/16 bii.

Page 29