Does anyone have any physics practical exams / past papers which only assess practical knowledge (no module knowledge)? (1 Viewer)

[John Elliot]

Does anyone have any past papers of prac exams where content knowledge is not assessed and only skills are included (i.e doing the prac, validity, uncertainties, graphing, reliability, estimating using the line of best fit, etc. etc.)? I'm doing an assessment like this soon (no content assessed only skills), and I'm looking to improve my timing through past papers.

 

[yolo tengo]

Does anyone have any past papers of prac exams where content knowledge is not assessed and only skills are included (i.e doing the prac, validity, uncertainties, graphing, reliability, estimating using the line of best fit, etc. etc.)? I'm doing an assessment like this soon (no content assessed only skills), and I'm looking to improve my timing through past papers.

which module?

 

[John Elliot]

which module?

It's no specific module. It's purely a skills test. Any knowledge required in the exam is supposed to be given on a sheet with the exam. We will be given this sheet, and create a procedure based off of it. Get data, format it in a table, make a graph, find uncertainties/error bars, find the gradient of the line of best fit, and then answer some questions about the experiment (i.e validity and reliability).

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

Does anyone have any past papers of prac exams where content knowledge is not assessed and only skills are included (i.e doing the prac, validity, uncertainties, graphing, reliability, estimating using the line of best fit, etc. etc.)? I'm doing an assessment like this soon (no content assessed only skills), and I'm looking to improve my timing through past papers.

I'm sure you can find plenty off THSC by going on internals for physics OR just check trial exams for some practical Qs lying around.

To be honest, prac exams for "practical skills" are quiet straightforward. Just knowing the basic stuff like you said above is more than fine to get a 100 for it, you just have to make sure your responses are concise and well written (scientific jargon, relevant analysis, thorough explanation).

 

[John Elliot]

I'm sure you can find plenty off THSC by going on internals for physics OR just check trial exams for some practical Qs lying around.

To be honest, prac exams for "practical skills" are quiet straightforward. Just knowing the basic stuff like you said above is more than fine to get a 100 for it, you just have to make sure your responses are concise and well written (scientific jargon, relevant analysis, thorough explanation).

Thanks, I appreciate your response. All I can find on THSC are assessments based on content or Hurlstone exams which seem to be based on skills, but not really based off of doing an experiment. The only issue I have with these (from the practice tests I've done from my school) is to do with deciphering what they are asking for in the question and how to write a procedure from the info given. Unfortunately, not many schools seem to do it the way mine does though which is a bit annoying when revising.

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

Thanks, I appreciate your response. All I can find on THSC are assessments based on content or Hurlstone exams which seem to be based on skills, but not really based off of doing an experiment. The only issue I have with these (from the practice tests I've done from my school) is to do with deciphering what they are asking for in the question and how to write a procedure from the info given. Unfortunately, not many schools seem to do it the way mine does though which is a bit annoying when revising.

You can think of procedures as simply an algorithm. You should make them as if you were trying to give instructions to a machine i.e anyone could perform them. I'd suggest drawing a mind map/graph diagram and breaking down parts of an experiment into steps/bubbles and connecting them.

I'd say go online and type up "X experiment procedure" and just get the jist of how they are written. For example, go search up a pendulum experiment procedure and perhaps a diffraction experiment procedure and then try to get an understanding of the structure and common elements. You just need to emulate that style and replicate it in your exam.

 

[John Elliot]

You can think of procedures as simply an algorithm. You should make them as if you were trying to give instructions to a machine i.e anyone could perform them. I'd suggest drawing a mind map/graph diagram and breaking down parts of an experiment into steps/bubbles and connecting them.

I'd say go online and type up "X experiment procedure" and just get the jist of how they are written. For example, go search up a pendulum experiment procedure and perhaps a diffraction experiment procedure and then try to get an understanding of the structure and common elements. You just need to emulate that style and replicate it in your exam.

OK thanks for the help I really appreciate it. Other than that, is there anything you would recommend I do to study for the test?

 

[ExtremelyBoredUser]

OK thanks for the help I really appreciate it. Other than that, is there anything you would recommend I do to study for the test?

Make some notes for every possible case for experimental errors that can happen, e.g calibration error, parallax and then make sure you link these errors to some explanation on WHAT type of aspect of the experiment they affect e.g parallax affects accuracy and it does so because ...

Make sure you've got all the practical skills down, like you're able to differentiate between variables, how to plot them, how to improve reliability etc.

There's not much, it should be free marks.