How I plan IGCSE Physics so it marks like the paper

Last Monday, Week 2, my Year 10s met “resultant force” and half the room jumped straight to F=ma without checking vectors. That’s the crux with British IGCSE Physics: the syllabus looks familiar, but the assessment habits are specific. Core vs Extended matters; Extended leans harder on multi-step reasoning (e.g., gradient from a speed–time graph then using a=Δv/Δt), while Core still expects clean units, precise definitions, and methodical working.

Where “on-topic” resources miss the mark: US wording (“voltage”) in place of “potential difference”; calculators shown with 3 significant figures when the data only justifies 2; no marks for recalling the correct equation from the given list. Practical skills are also assessed even if your board runs an Alternative to Practical paper—students must handle tables, uncertainties-in-words, and graph commentary. So I prep with resources that mirror command words (“state”, “describe”, “explain”, “determine”), model unit conversions, and ask for reasoning steps, not just answers.

When I’m scouting exemplars or storing my own tweaks, I keep them in ClassPods under topic folders that match our scheme (Forces and Motion, Energy, Electricity, Waves, Thermal, Magnetism & EM, Atomic). That way my Year 11 mocks revise from like-for-like tasks.

Two weeks before our winter mocks, my Year 11s stumbled on a 3-mark “define power” because the slide I’d used mashed “rate of doing work” with “energy transferred per unit time” but never modeled units. Since then, I run five quick checks. One: vocabulary—does it say “potential difference (V)” consistently and reserve “voltage” to brackets? Two: command words—are “state/describe/explain” used with mark-weighting that looks like past papers?

Three: units and sig figs—do worked examples carry units through each line and round to what the data justifies? Four: equations—does the resource prompt recall from the formula sheet (or state when it’s given), not invent new symbols? Five: data handling—are tables, axes labels, and gradients set up the IGCSE way, with commentary like “directly proportional” used correctly?

If I’m unsure, I’ll rebuild a sample question and see if it would actually earn method marks under our examiner reports. When I want to road-test a fresh set quickly, I spin up a draft in ClassPods and tweak the stems until the alignment feels right.

Last Thursday’s double with Year 10 focused on speed–time graphs because too many still confused gradient with area. I structured it to train the paper’s moves, not just the concept.

Objective: Interpret and construct speed–time graphs, calculate acceleration from gradient and distance from area, and explain motion in sentences that match mark-scheme phrasing.

Lesson flow and timings:

• Do Now (5 min): Three quick recall prompts on units (m/s, m/s²) and definitions (“acceleration = rate of change of velocity”).
• Starter (8 min): Mini demo with a toy car and data logger; show live graph, ask “What does a flat line at 2 m/s mean?”
• Main input (15 min): Worked example: a runner accelerates from 0 to 8 m/s in 4 s, then continues at constant speed for 6 s, then decelerates to rest in 5 s. Model gradient calculation and area under graph; carry units and round to 2 s.f.
• Guided practice (12 min): Pairs annotate two graphs; one Core, one Extended. Sentence starters: “Between 0–4 s the motion is…”
• Formative check (7 min): Hinge question with three distractors that target common errors (using gradient for distance, mixing units).
• Plenary (8 min): Students write a 3-sentence description of the full motion; one sentence must justify acceleration using numbers.

I keep this as a reusable pack in ClassPods so next term’s Year 10 can get the same structure with fresh numbers.

On Tuesday’s homework, a solid Year 11 wrote “P = E/t = 2400/3.0 = 800” and lost a mark for missing units and another for 1 s.f. Here’s the marking rubric I now drop under every calculation—students staple it to their page and self-check before handing in.

IGCSE Physics Calculation Rubric (Core/Extended)

• Equation (1 mark): Write the correct equation from the formula list before substituting (e.g., P = E/t).
• Substitution with units (1 mark): Include numbers and units in the line of working.
• Method (1–2 marks): Rearrange accurately; show intermediate steps (e.g., find gradient then use a=Δv/Δt).
• Answer + units (1 mark): Final value carries correct unit (e.g., W, N, m/s²).
• Significant figures (1 mark): Round to match the limiting data (usually 2 or 3 s.f. unless stated).
• Reasonableness check (comment): One sentence explaining if the answer makes physical sense.

Printable footer (cut and paste): “I have checked: equation, substitution with units, method, units on final answer, s.f., sense-check.” I store and duplicate this in ClassPods so it rides along with any new worksheet.

Last month I had a bilingual pair (Arabic/English) in Year 10 who kept swapping “weight” and “mass” in translations. I now issue dual-language glossaries for each unit and underline words the paper uses exactly: “weight (W), mass (m), gravitational field strength (g)”. Sentence frames help: “The gradient shows…”, “The area under the graph equals…”. For pacing, I pre-load the Do Now with retrieval from three weeks back and last lesson—tiny wins that stabilise mixed-ability groups.

Teacher review matters when classes split across Core and Extended. I plan the same starter and hinge, then branch practice sets: Core gets single-idea graphs; Extended gets compound segments and requires a proportionality statement. For homework, I recycle the lesson’s worked example with fresh numbers, then add one mixed-data item that forces units and s.f. practice. For revision, I build short, topic-tagged sets for two-a-week drills and a weekend mixed-paper.

If your department needs to sanity-check costs before rolling a shared bank of packs, the pricing page has the tiers laid out cleanly; I just matched it to our CPD budget line.