School of Physics
Assessment Info
PHYS1110
EVERYDAY PHYSICS
School of Physics
Faculty of Science
Term 2, 2023
Assessment Information
This document is the definitive source for information about the assessments for
PHYS1110. Note that in T2 2023, the assessment structure has changed! The
assessments are not the same as they have been in T1 2023 and in prior years.
If you require any clarification of information in this document, check the Course Forum,
Discord Server and Moodle Site before emailing.
Note that all specific due dates are in the Course Outline. All assessments are submitted
on Moodle.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
You may not use artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT to write your submissions in this
course. You can use ChatGPT as a tool to assist you in research and learning, or
understanding concepts, but should not submit anything that it has written as your own
work. You may use AI for circumstances where it is not possible to generate the output
yourself; for example, using AI to create an audio file of the Prime Minister reading a
script that you have written yourself. You must explain how the AI tool was necessary in
your submission for circumstances like this.
How should I reference things?
The assessments may require you to list references for the information you provide. An
easy way to find relevant references is by using Google Scholar, or following the
references on encyclopaedias like Wikipedia. You should be citing books, journal articles
and similar scholarly items.
You should ideally use the ‘Harvard’ system of citation. You can find more information on
how to use the Harvard system here: https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/citing-different-
sources
Explain-That-Concept!
Role Explain That Concept Assessment task
Task You will create an assessment in a written, graphical, video or other format of your choice that
explains physics phenomena accurately and at an appropriate level for general audiences. General
audiences should learn the science about a physics topic by reading or watching your assessment.
You will be allocated multiple unique physics conceptual questions and will need to select one to
focus on for your assessment. Each question will relate to a specific topic in PHYS1110, and the
questions may include images and videos. A few example prompts are:
“What is a "room temperature superconductor", and why might their discovery change the world?” –
Related to Topic 1: How does a street lamp work?
“When driving around a curve in a road, signs often advise you to slow down. Why is it safer to go
slowly around turns, even if there is no traffic?” – Related to Topic 6: What makes a car stop?
Tutors will have access to the list of questions that have been allocated to students and will check
to make sure you are using a question allocated to you.
You will need to refer to relevant physics, physical equations and physics concepts in your
submission. This will necessitate you conducting research and gathering information beyond that
presented in the lectures in the course.
Specific
Details:
Format: Individual (no group work).
Written submission, Graphical Submission (poster, comic book etc), Video
Submission. Other submission times must be approved by the course facilitator.
Length: Up to 3000 words – written
Up to one A3 page and 1500 words – graphical submission
Up to 5 minutes – video
There is no minimum limit because this is based on the assessment style that you
choose. You must cover a minimum amount of content as per the rubrics (below).
The upper word limit applies to the word count as shown by Turnitin (includes
references, title, figure captions, etc).
Submissions outside of this limit will lose marks as outlined in the rubric.
Style Any style that you wish, within reason. For example, a blog post, a scientific article, a
webcomic, a poem, a poster, a mockumentary, a ‘fun’ YouTube video, an AI-generated
video of the President of the United States explaining the concept, etc.
Submissions must be understandable to your tutors who are marking the
assessment. You should use the proposal (due in Week 5) to make sure your
intended format is acceptable.
All submission formats MUST include references, and they must be Harvard style
referencing.
Content Your assessment must:
• Include the question you have selected from the ones that were allocated to
you, and any images or videos.
• Directly and completely answer the question in your submission. You must
use relevant physics laws (i.e., equations) and concepts to explain to a
general audience the answer to the question you are prompted with, and any
physics relevant to the question.
• Be of sufficient length to answer any follow up questions a general audience
member will have. A ‘single paragraph’ explanation is not acceptable; you are
to be creating science communication content, not a snappy answer to a
simple question.
• Focus on and explain the science related to your question, which may include
(but not be limited to), if relevant:
o The laws of physics relevant to the question.
o The concepts of physics relevant to the question.
o How the relevant physics concepts show up in other everyday
aspects of our lives.
o Alternative scenarios where the physics of the situation was not
considered by engineers and product designers (for example, a world
where cars did not have airbags, if you are asked why cars have
airbags).
o Common misconceptions / incorrect understandings of physics
relevant to the question.
o Any interesting or exciting physics you have learned during your
research process.
• You MUST include reference to some authentic scientific publication:
journals, textbooks etc.
• You must not plagiarise (see below)
Plagiarism Plagiarism is extremely important to understand. The UNSW Plagiarism Policy is
here. You should be very familiar with this policy.
In particular, when using text from any source that you did not write yourself, you
must make it very clear what the source was. The recommended approach for this
assessment is to put the text in quotation marks, with an italic font, and indented. For
example:
“[The aardvark] roams over most of the southern two-thirds of the African continent,
avoiding areas that are mainly rocky. A nocturnal feeder, it subsists on ants and
termites, which it will dig out of their hills using its sharp claws and powerful legs
(Smith et al. 2015).”
Any text that is not in quotation marks and not clearly identified in a similar manner to
the above example will be assumed to be written by you. If we find it to be copied
from another source, it will be classed as plagiarism, with consequent penalties.
Submission You will submit your assessment via Turnitin. Written documents and graphical
submissions can be submitted directly. Video submissions should be uploaded to
YouTube or some other video hosting service, and the URL given in a Word document
uploaded to Turnitin. If you have trouble with video submission, you can email the file
to the course facilitator.
Grading The submission total will be graded out of 30 marks:
1 mark – Proposal (Week 5): You will receive this mark if you submit a suitable (i.e.
something that seems realistic to achieve and addresses your question) assessment
proposal to your group forum.
9 marks – Peer review (Weeks 7 and 8): You will submit a draft for peer review (1
mark). You are graded on the quality (6 marks) and quantity (2 marks) of feedback
you give your peers.
20 marks – Final report (Week 10): You will be graded for your final submission
according to the rubric below.
Extra Credit: Up to two marks of extra credit (2% of the total course grade) (to be
applied to the final course grade) are available for the final report, for exceptional
submissions. The criteria for these depend on the submission type and are intended
to reward students who go above and beyond in their submission. Criteria for these
are included in the marking rubric.
Rubric The following table shows the rubric for marking the final submission (20%)
Criteria Level of achievement1
Exemplary Great Good Solid Progressing Needs work
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n
sk
ill
s
Length Fulfils length
requirements
<10% over
maximum.
10-20%
over
maximum.
More than 20% over
maximum.
Structure Structure matches the
intended style and is clearly
logical.
Structure matches the intended
style and is mostly logical.
Structure does not quite
match the intended style
and/or is mostly illogical.
Structure does not match
the intended style and/or
is highly illogical.
Writing style
(only
applicable if
written)
Extra Credit:
Writing is exceptional
and of a standard to be
published professionally.
Writing is engaging and
matches intended style. Ideas
are expressed succinctly and
efficiently. Author’s purpose
is explicit.
Writing is somewhat engaging and
generally matches intended style.
Ideas expressed are understood by
reader. Author’s purpose is mostly
clear.
Writing is not very
engaging and generally
does not match intended
style. Ideas expressed
require interpretation by
reader. Author’s purpose
is not clear.
Writing is not engaging
and does not match
intended style. Ideas
expressed require
interpretation by reader.
Author’s purpose is not
clear or absent.
Video Style
(only
applicable if
video
submission)
Extra Credit:
Video is of near
professional quality,
delivery is exceptional, of
the standard one would
expect from a
professional YouTuber.
Video is of high video and
audio standard, delivery is
well paced and engaging.
Ideas are expressed
succinctly and efficiently, and
the authors purpose is
explicit.
Video is of sufficient video and
audio quality, and the delivery is
mostly well paced. Content is
somewhat engaging.
Author’s purpose is mostly clear.
Ideas are easily understood by the
audience.
Video and audio quality is
low. Ideas are difficult to
understand, and
presentation is not
engaging.
Purpose of the video is
unclear.
Delivery is clearly
unrehearsed; purpose of
author is not clear or
absent. Production
quality is low, science
content is not clearly
explained or not present
at all. Substantial work
must be done by the
audience to understand
the content.
Visual Style
(only
applicable if
visual
submission)
Extra Credit:
Submission is of
substantial artistic merit
and of the quality
expected for a
professional publication
or conference poster.
Visual submission is
engaging. Science content is
easy to understand and
expressed succinctly and
efficiently.
Purpose behind the
submission is explicit.
Submission is somewhat
engaging, and easy enough to
follow. Purpose behind the
submission is clear, and little work
needs to be done on the part of the
reader to understand the
submission.
Submission is cluttered or
poorly laid out; structure is
difficult to follow.
Presentation of
information is chaotic,
hard to comprehend, or
absent entirely. Purpose
of submission is unclear
or absent.
1 For criteria with several grades, the degree to which each criterion statement is done determines the grade for that criterion.
Di
sc
ip
lin
e
kn
ow
le
dg
e
Thoroughness
of explanation
Question prompt is
thoroughly
addressed, with a
complete
explanation of all
necessary science
concepts (within
reason).
A submission in this
range would be
suitable to output
produced by a
professional
educator.
Question prompt is
mostly thoroughly
addressed, with few
lingering questions or
unanswered issues.
A submission in this
range is akin to a
thorough explanation
from a tutor.
Question prompt is
addressed adequately, with
some attempt to answer likely
follow up questions /
comments.
A submission in this range is
akin to an interested peer
explaining things to the best
of their ability.
Question prompt is adequately
addressed, with the key point
explained and relevant scientific
principles measured.
A submission in this range
indicates that the prompt has been
answered to the bare minimum of
satisfaction.
Question prompt is
answered only partially or
answered very briefly
without further
elaboration.
A submission in this range
is similar to a one-line
reply from an uninterested
peer.
Question prompt is not
answered or addressed.
Science
accuracy
Science is logical
and factually
correct, with no
errors. Author
clearly has a deep
knowledge of the
subject.
Science is logical and
factually correct, with no
errors. Author clearly has
knowledge of the
subject.
Science is factually correct,
with no errors. Author clearly
has knowledge of the subject.
Science is mostly factually correct,
with some errors. Author has some
knowledge of the subject.
Science is mostly factually
correct, with many errors.
Author has minimal
knowledge of the subject.
Science is factually
incorrect, with many
errors. Author has limited
knowledge of the subject.
Content
beyond the
prompt
Considerable extension
content included, e.g., other
contexts where the science
concept is used, alternative
scenarios where the concept
is not understood by
engineers / scientists,
interesting implications of the
relevant science concept, etc.
Content beyond the prompt
links seamlessly into the
existing structure of the
submission.
A suitable effort has been made to
provide additional context or
content that furthers the
audiences’ understanding of
physics beyond the prompt.
Content beyond the prompt is
linked to the submission in a way
that does not feel extraneous.
There is some mention of
content beyond the
question prompt; a few
lines or sentences, but
nothing substantial.
Content beyond the
prompt does not link in
with the rest of the
submission.
Delivers nothing beyond
the explicit answering of
the question prompt.
Li
te
ra
cy
kn
ow
le
dg
e
References All information is accurately
referenced. References
integrated into the text to
support the point. No overuse
of referencing. Consistent
referencing style in the style
required.
All information is accurately
referenced. References integrated
into the text to support the point.
Some overuse of referencing
and/or inconsistent referencing
style used in the style required.
Minimal referencing
and/or incorrect
referencing. References
are overused and/or little
consistency in referencing
style in the style required.
No referencing/copied
and pasted text, or
careless use of
referencing with
significant errors and no
consistency in
referencing style.