 Home
 Qualifications and standards
 NCEA

Māori and Pasifika
 Field Māori Assessment Support Materials
 Field Māori programme development support
 Mātauranga Māori qualifications and assessment standards
 Te Hono o Te Kahurangi quality assurance
 Māori providers
 Te Kōkiritanga 20202023
 Māori and the Future State
 Pasifika
 Ngā Kete Mātauranga
 Equity in STEM Symposium

Providers and partners
 About education organisations
 NZQA's quality assurance system for tertiary education organisations
 Guidelines and forms
 Consistency of graduate outcomes
 Approval, accreditation and registration
 Monitoring and Assessment
 Selfassessment
 External evaluation and review
 Assessment and moderation of standards
 Submitting results and awarding qualifications and microcredentials
 Tertiary and International Learners Code of Practice
 Offshore use of qualifications and programmes
 Reform of Vocational Education
 International Education planning
 Rules Consultation
 international
 About us
Assessment Report
New Zealand Scholarship
Physics 2021
Standard 93103
Part A: Commentary
The 2021 paper again contained four questions. Many candidates completed the paper within the threehour period. The performance of the better candidates was significantly improved compared to recent years. However, there was still a large percentage of candidates who performed very poorly.
General performance across all questions was quite similar. Candidates who gained Scholarship with Outstanding Performance found the paper very straightforward and showed outstanding performance across all four questions. They demonstrated a broad and deep understanding of Physics principles, and they have sufficient highlevel mathematical skills to enable them to very easily navigate the problem solving questions.
Candidates achieving Scholarship were well prepared and showed a breadth of conceptual understanding across most of the curriculum. They have the necessary mathematical skills and insight to physics principles to consistently show scholarship level performance throughout the paper
Only the better candidates were able to correctly define and explain binding energy in the given context. Many candidates use their mathematics skills to attempt to reverse engineer calculations and derivations. This results in working that is mathematically equivalent, but with no basis in physics concepts. e.g. Q 1(c), 2(b), 2(c). Candidates need to start from the basic physics concepts and then apply appropriate mathematics tools. When asked to explain why a change in one parameter will affect another (e.g. Q 2(d)) many resort to some form of "because the maths says so" as a reason, rather than explaining the linking of physics concepts this involves.
For "show" questions the working needs to be clearly set out with the logic carefully explained, e.g. for Q 3(a) many candidates calculated the time of flight of a projectile by calculating the time for it to reach the top, then sometime later multiplied by two to get the total time, but without explaining that was what they were doing.
The above examples demonstrate that a significant percentage of the candidates would benefit from more direct instruction in terms of how to approach an examination of this nature.
Part B: Report on performance standard
Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:
 demonstrated their understanding across the entire curriculum
 applied physics concepts correctly in complex situations
 supported and explained their mathematical reasoning with salient comments, including explaining why it was appropriate to apply a particular concept to a problem
 structured their answers in a clear and logical fashion, making the train of thought easy to follow
 applied fundamental concepts in an unfamiliar situation
 derived a formula for distance using the vertical and horizontal components of a projectile
 demonstrated their understanding of, and discussed the validity of, the assumptions in regard to the drag force on a ball and the effects it has on the motion
 defined binding energy correctly, and explained its significance in fission reactions
 explained inductor voltages in terms of "rate of change of current/flux"
 explained the shape of plots of voltage in terms of decreasing rates of change
 applied the conservation of energy principle correctly.
Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:
 completed all or nearly all of the paper
 demonstrated understanding of fundamental physics concepts, and were able to identify which concept to apply to a particular problem
 explained basic principles when they applied them
 did not make basic algebraic or mathematical errors
 explained capacitor voltages in terms of charge stored on a capacitor
 defined binding energy correctly
 addressed all aspects that are asked in the question
 stated and applied fundamental physics concepts clearly as a foundation for mathematical derivations
 showed and/or described each step in the derivation of a formula clearly.
Other candidates
Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:
 did not complete the entire paper
 did not demonstrate comprehensive understanding of fundamental physics concepts
 made basic mistakes with numerical working or algebra
 did not completely answer the questions
 did not explain their reasoning
 displayed little or no understanding of binding energy
 did not identify key concepts applicable to the question (e.g. conservation of energy)
 did not review their answers for errors and to check if described physics principles.
Subject page
Previous years' reports