At UWC Red Cross Nordic, Chris always facilitated coursework in the first year of DP physics. This year, new guide in hand, Emma retained this tradition.

This is how it went...

To begin with, a heads up about 'RCN' life since Chris stepped out of the lab (taking his hats collection with him). I (Emma) took over all of the college's physics for a short period to conclude the academic year 2022-23 and had the great pleasure of Stefan joining our team from August 2023 onwards - allowing me my 50% allocation for academic leadership duties (and some learning support teaching). Therefore, I can't speak for how the IAs went for every student - only those in my Standard Level class.

I first formally hinted at the scientific investigation IA process in December, taking around half an hour to discuss the criteria (and connecting them to experiments we had already done) and then giving my students a few days before the end of term to check out some of the exemplars from My IB. We also attempted 'an IA in a day' (well, two hours) with the aim that students would become more relaxed when they realised that it's possible to come up with a question, method, analysis procedure, conclusion and evaluation in a short period. This also doubled-up as an effective revision technique for all of kinematics, forces, work, energy, power and momentum; often there were different conceptual models for students to choose from.

Even with this effort to keep things 'loose', however, with hindsight I should have set more formal reports as homework and marked them against the critieria. Perhaps because this was my first full academic year at the college, and despite being the IB coordinator (!), I was surprised by how quickly January and February evaporated. Students were understandably a little nervous when we launched things on Monday 18th March with a draft deadline of Friday 5th April (selected because it came before First Year exams week, meaning Stefan and I had time to give feedback) - and even more nervous because I missed a lesson in this window due to leading a workshop.

Nonetheless, most students had an approved idea that seemed to 'work' by the end of Week 1 and, by the end, these were some of the topics on show:

• Stiffness vs original length of latex loops (made tricky because the student handmade the loops so thickness was hard to control, made interesting because it went beyond the extension of just one loop)
• Proportion of a large ice object that melts vs starting temperature of liquid into which it was submerged (made tricky and interesting because the student didn't go with the easier route of changing the mass of ice and waiting for all of it to melt)
• Mass that could be supported in a container within saltwater vs density of the saltwater (inspired by our fjord-side location and college-wide enthusiasm for boats and swimming!)
• Starting height up a ramp and speed at the top of a loop-the-loop (the ultimate test of the classic '5r/2' derivation)

Perhaps connected to my personal concerns connected to originality, collaboration and AI, no one opted to work together on the same equipment. My idea was that students would write up the 'chapters' connected to Research Design in Week 1, Analysis in Week 2 and Conclusion and Evaluation in Week 3, using the criteria as prompts.

Of course, it didn't work out as elegantly as this. Although about a third submitted on time, a few asked for an extra 48 hours (which teachers can choose to give in our context) and some used their term's 2-week 'Extension Pass' (my college-wide policy that aims to give students agency and responsibility). Nonetheless, after a week of revision combined with IA feedback appointments (and then a week of First Year exams), everyone was ready to crack on once more ahead of the final deadline on 3rd May. I allocated an additional 2-hour lesson for this recognising the challenge that many felt because this was their first piece of coursework.

It did take me until June to do the marking (I run our IB exams), and we haven't yet had our internal moderation - vital because there are two teachers and we're opting to mark our own classes - but overall I'm happy. The new criteria are easy to use and not as 'overlapping' as in the previous guide. Most students exceeded their internal exam grade, which I think is the ultimate test of whether things went 'well enough'. And, although I'm certain that students would score 1 or 2 points higher out of 24 (inevitably in Evaluation!) if we waited until our final term, I'd much rather they score 10 or 20% higher in the exams.