Criterion C is where your data earns its marks. Present it cleanly, describe the pattern with numbers, explain it with physics, and be honest and specific about what could have gone wrong.
Clear tables and graphs with units, labels and any calculations shown.
You describe the pattern with numbers and explain it using science.
You say whether the evidence supports your hypothesis and how far.
You link specific weaknesses in the method to their effect on the results.
Realistic changes that would fix the weaknesses you found, or the next question to test.
A little of the criterion is addressed. Ideas are basic, partly missing, or not linked to the task.
The main points are there but thin. Some explanations are correct; links to the task or evidence are incomplete.
Mostly accurate, well explained and consistently tied to the task, with only small gaps.
Detailed, precise and justified throughout, with ideas connected and applied to new situations or evidence.
A plain-language guide only. Your teacher marks against the official IB level descriptors.
Evaluate the method used to time a ball in free fall over 1.5 m.
Human error affected the results. We should use more accurate equipment.
Timing by hand adds a reaction-time error of about ±0.2 s. The fall lasts only about 0.55 s, so that is a percentage uncertainty of roughly 35%, large enough to hide the pattern I was looking for. Using two light gates connected to a timer would remove the reaction-time error. Repeating each drop five times would also show how consistent the readings are.
Criterion C is Processing and evaluating. It is marked out of 8 across 5 strands (C.i, C.ii, C.iii, C.iv, C.v). Criterion C is where your data earns its marks. Present it cleanly, describe the pattern with numbers, explain it with physics, and be honest and specific about what could have gone wrong.
Put units and uncertainty in table headings, and label graph axes with quantity and unit. Describe the trend with numbers (for example, doubling the force roughly doubled the acceleration) before you explain it. Say whether the data supports the hypothesis and how strongly, rather than just proves or does not prove.
Writing human error, which says nothing about what happened or how much it mattered. Improvements such as be more careful instead of a specific change. A conclusion that never refers back to the hypothesis.
Written by CritABCD for study and revision, in our own words. The official MYP Physics guide and assessment criteria are published by the International Baccalaureate. Official IB guide ↗