Physics Peer-Grading Worksheet — DOK Practice

Read each sample paper and assign a DOK score (1–4) for every section. Leave brief comments and reflect on strengths and improvements.

Paper A — Level 2 (DOK 2)

Title: Building a Small Magnet Generator — Basic Report
Abstract

I built a small generator using a magnet and a coil to see how motion makes electricity. I turned a magnet inside a copper coil and observed that a small LED would sometimes light up. This project shows that moving magnets produce voltage.

Introduction

Investigates how moving magnets can create electricity (electromagnetic induction). Chosen because it is a simple generator demonstration connected to Faraday’s law.

Methodology

Materials: copper wire (~50 turns), neodymium magnet, LED, cardboard tube. Steps: wrap coil, connect LED, move magnet by hand; observation by eye.

Results

Faster magnet movement produced brief LED flashes; stronger magnet gave better results.

Discussion

Matches Faraday’s idea qualitatively. No multimeter or repeat trials; limited quantitative analysis.

Conclusion

Moving magnets near coils creates current. Recommend measuring voltage next time.

SectionScore (1–4)Comments
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Paper B — Level 3 (DOK 3)

Title: Quantifying Voltage from a Hand-Cranked Coil Generator
Abstract (short):

Explores how coil turns and magnet speed affect generator voltage. Built three coils and measured open-circuit voltage at controlled RPMs (100, 300, 600). Found near-linear increase of voltage with RPM and proportional increase with turns. Compared to Faraday’s Law and estimated uncertainties.

Introduction:

Goal: test how rotation speed and coil turns affect induced emf. Hypothesis: voltage scales with RPM and turns (Faraday’s law).

Methodology:

Materials: Motor-driven shaft, coils (50/100/150 turns), tachometer, multimeter. For each coil and RPM, recorded 5 readings and reported mean ± SD.

Results:

Provided mean ± SD results. Voltage increased with RPM and turns. Linear fits show R² > 0.94.

Discussion:

Explained differences from theory (resistance, flux leakage); suggested improvements (core, rectifier, load testing).

Conclusion:

Confirmed predictions; suggested further tests (power into a load, core materials).

SectionScore (1–4)Comments
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Paper C — Level 4 (DOK 4)

Title: Design Optimization and Performance Analysis of a Low-Cost Micro-Generator
Abstract:

Designs and tests prototypes across coil turns, magnet grades, and cores. Measures open-circuit emf and matched-load power; compares to FEM predictions; identifies optimal configuration for powering low-power sensors and proposes practical scaling strategies.

Introduction:

Frames the problem (power for IoT sensors), connects to Faraday’s Law, and proposes a study balancing emf, coil resistance, and mechanical coupling to optimize delivered power.

Methodology:

Systematic multi-variable experiments using precise instruments, repeated trials (n≥7), uncertainty propagation, and FEM modeling for comparison. Efficiency measured as P_out / P_mech.

Results:

Quantitative tables: best configuration (200 turns, N52, laminated core) produced 5.4 ± 0.12 V and 120 ± 5 mW into matched load; FEM matched within 12% when geometry included.

Discussion:

Deep analysis of trade-offs; explores mitigation of eddy currents, suggests Litz wire, MPPT, and mechanical coupling improvements; provides feasibility and scaling analysis.

Conclusion:

Gives clear design rules and next steps: integrate storage/boost, field-test, and optimize coil geometry for manufacturability.

SectionScore (1–4)Comments
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Reflection & Final Notes