{"id":46553,"date":"2026-09-23T09:10:58","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T02:10:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/times.edu.vn\/chua-phan-loai\/ib-physics-ia-common-mistakes\/"},"modified":"2026-09-22T14:08:46","modified_gmt":"2026-09-22T07:08:46","slug":"ib-physics-ia-common-mistakes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/times.edu.vn\/en\/ib\/ib-physics-ia-common-mistakes\/","title":{"rendered":"IB Physics IA common mistakes 2026: What loses marks and how to avoid them"},"content":{"rendered":"

IB Physics IA common mistakes often come from a vague research question, weak experimental design, poor uncertainty treatment, superficial evaluation, and unclear data presentation rather than a lack of physics knowledge. Students can also lose marks by failing to control variables properly, using too few data points, omitting worked calculations, or presenting graphs without appropriate error bars and fit lines. Many of these issues are procedural and can be corrected before final submission through careful review of the investigation and marking expectations.<\/p>\n

This guide explains the most common mistakes in the IB Physics IA and how students can recognise and avoid them more effectively.<\/p>\n

Choosing a topic that is too broad or difficult to measure accurately in IB Physics IA<\/h2>\n

\"IB<\/p>\n

The research question is the foundation of the entire IA. A weak research question creates a cascade of problems that no amount of polished writing can fix downstream.<\/p>\n

A common mistake we see at Times Edu<\/a> is students writing questions like “How does temperature affect a bouncing ball?” This is far too vague for a physics investigation. A high-scoring research question must name the independent variable with its measurement range and unit, the dependent variable with its measurement method, and the controlled conditions under which the experiment takes place.<\/p>\n

A well-formed version of that same question would read: “How does the initial temperature of a squash ball (± 0.5°C) affect its coefficient of restitution when dropped from a constant height of 1.00 ± 0.01 m on a flat hardwood surface?” That single sentence signals to the examiner that the student understands precision, control, and measurability from the very first line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Weak research question<\/th>\nStrong research question<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
How does light affect plant growth?<\/td>\nHow does the wavelength of incident light (450 nm, 530 nm, 620 nm ± 5 nm) affect the rate of oxygen production in Elodea submerged at a constant depth of 10.0 ± 0.1 cm?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
How does mass affect a spring?<\/td>\nHow does the suspended mass (100 g to 600 g ± 1 g) affect the period of oscillation of a steel spring (k = 25 N\/m) for amplitudes below 5.0 ± 0.1 cm?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
How does temperature affect resistance?<\/td>\nHow does the temperature of a nichrome wire (20°C to 80°C ± 0.5°C) affect its electrical resistance measured by a four-probe method?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

One critical detail often overlooked is topic scope versus lab feasibility. Students sometimes choose a topic that sounds impressive on paper, such as measuring the speed of light or replicating a Millikan oil-drop experiment, but cannot be reliably executed with school equipment. If the measurement uncertainty in your setup is larger than the effect you are trying to measure, the entire dataset becomes statistically meaningless.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\t