Fail 0-12.

5 (0-49%)
Part A (5%) 1. Title 2. Aim 3. Hypothesis 4. Materials 5. Method 1. Not relevant or missing 2. Is irrelevant or missing 3. Not formulated or irrelevant 4. List is either not present or irrelevant 5. Is not relevant or is extremely impractical

Band 2 12.5-15 (50-60%)

1. Shows some indication of the experiment 2. A vague aim is presented 3. Is either unrealistic or lacks logic 4. Contains too few or too many items 5. It either over simple or complicated

Band 3 15-17.5 (60-70%)

1. Is appropriate but not succinct 2. Suitable but not concise 3. Well informed but not direct 4. Most items not listed but some insight 5. Steps are listed but no elaboration and past tense

Band 4 17.5-20 (70-80%)

1. Is succinct and appropriate 2. Suitable and concise 3. Well informed and direct 4. Some items not listed but clear evidence of research 5. Steps are mostly clear with some further elaboration needed, mostly past tense 1. Completely corrected or no revisions needed 2. Reliability clear, calculations satisfactorily set out and mostly correct, good discussion of errors and improvements with minor points missing 3. Good explanation of g constancy, other planets g values mostly well set

Band 5 20-22.5 (80-90%)

1. Is succinct and appropriate 2. Suitable and concise 3. Well informed and direct 4. All listed with correct qualities 5. Clear steps, lacks some elaboration and logical and in past tense

Band 6 22.5-25 (90-100%)

1. Is a succinct and appropriate 2. Suitable and concise 3. Well informed and direct 4. All listed with correct qualities 5. Clear steps, elaborate, logical and in past tense

Part B (10%) 1. Part A corrections identified and rectified 2. Results - Repeats - Calculations - Discussion of potential errors and improvements 3. Discussion - g constant explanation - Calculation of g on other planets - Accurate measurement of g

1. Not evident or 1. Minor resubmitted corrections 2. Incomplete/nonmade but the serious attempt major still or not submitted requiring 3. Not submitted revision or majority 2. Reliability not incomplete clear, 4. Not offered or calculations are irrelevant and attempted but none listed illogically set out and mostly incorrect, discussion of errors and improvements lacks some points 3. Explanation of g

1. Majority corrected with some slight revisions remaining 2. Reliability questionable, calculations satisfactorily set out with some errors, adequate discussion of errors and improvements with one major and some minor points missing 3. Satisfactory explanation of g

1. Completely corrected or no revisions needed 2. Reliability clear, calculations well set out and mostly correct, fantastic discussion of errors and improvements 3. Fantastic explanation of g constancy, other planets g values well set out, correctly calculated and

1. Completely corrected or no revisions needed 2. Reliability clear, calculations well set out and correct, excellent discussion of errors and improvements 3. Excellent explanation of g constancy, other planets g values well set out, correctly calculated and

4. Conclusion and references

constancy constancy, other out, correctly attempted, planets g values calculated and other planets g mostly well set compared, good values out, with some explanation of incorrectly set incorrect accurate g out, with some calculations and measurement incorrect compared with some calculations and logically, minor omission comparison explanation of 4. Concise and lacked logic, accurate g informative and explanation of measurement clear evidence accurate g missing some of relevant measurement points research missing some 4. Good succinct major points summary with 4. Overly minor mistakes simplistic, lacked or omissions and summation and research was only 1-2 listed evident but more needed

compared, well thought out explanation of accurate g measurement 4. Concise and highly informative and clear evidence of extensive research

compared, outstanding explanation of accurate g measurement 4. Concise and highly informative and clear evidence of extensive research