This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA) IA Exemplar: Tea Cooling… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA) SL Internal Assessment Exemplar: Comparative Analysis of Tea Cooling Techniques: Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Metal Spoon versus Ice Cube Methods Through Mathematical
Modelling
Comparative Analysis of Tea Cooling Techniques: Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Metal Spoon versus Ice Cube Methods Through Mathematical
Modelling
Loading scores...
5
Official IB Result
14/20
Was this exemplar helpful?
Want a report just like this?
Free mini report for your own coursework
Fast feedback on what to improve next
Annotated highlights on your writing
Criteria A: Presentation
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Coherence and logical development
Good
Organization and structure
Moderate
Conciseness and relevance
Criteria Feedback
Clear table of contents with numbered headings and logical subdivision of sections
Figures and tables placed appropriately after introduction in text
Recognisable investigative thread linking personal context, model derivation, data collection and conclusion
Page-long blocks of raw calculations and duplicate tables interrupt the flow
Tangential background material and repeated definitions reduce conciseness
Inconsistent reference formatting and minor navigability issues in the table of contents
1.1·Weakness
Page 2• Click to view
The table of contents contains duplicated entries and blank rows which disrupts navigability. Consolidate identical items and remove empty lines to enhance organizational clarity.
1.2·Suggestion
Page 4• Click to view
The hypothesis statement is lengthy and lacks mathematical clarity. Condense the wording and express key predictions succinctly using defined variables (e.g. cooling rate k) for precision.
1.3·Weakness
Page 4• Click to view
The introduction digresses into personal travel and air-conditioning context that is not directly linked to the cooling model. Focus on relevant background to maintain conciseness and relevance.
1.4·Weakness
Page 13• Click to view
The data table on page 13 shows only headers and no values. Include the observed and theoretical values in the table or refer clearly to the appendix.
1.5·Suggestion
Page 16• Click to view
When splitting data by drinking temperature threshold, highlight ranges numerically rather than by color to ensure clarity in monochrome printing.
1.6·Weakness
Page 21• Click to view
References are formatted inconsistently (e.g., missing dates or italics). Adopt a single consistent style (APA or MLA) to strengthen presentation.
1.7·Suggestion
Page 22• Click to view
The appendix’s raw data tables span many pages, overwhelming the narrative. Summarise key data in main text and relocate full tables to an online supplement.
1.8·Suggestion
Page 41• Click to view
The mathematical concepts table is informative but overly verbose. Summarize each concept in one sentence to improve conciseness and readability.
1.9·Suggestion
Page 43• Click to view
The experimental photographs lack captions indicating date, time, and variable values. Add concise captions for each image to document data collection conditions.
Criteria B: Mathematical Communication
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Good
Mathematical language and notation
Good
Multiple representations
Good
Logical structure and clarity
Criteria Feedback
Consistent use of defined variables, correct application of calculus notation in differential equation derivation
Effective employment of multiple representations (equations, data tables, overlay graphs)
Logical progression of mathematical steps and clear linkage between model and data
Minor notation inconsistencies (misplaced subscripts, missing brackets)
Graphs lack error bars and fully labelled axes for precision
Occasional long calculation dumps without commentary dilute clarity
2.1·Weakness
Page 5• Click to view
In the equilibrium inequality Temptea>Tempequilibrium>Tempice, the subscript spelling is inconsistent (“eaulbrium”). Correct variable names and ensure brackets when needed.
2.2·Weakness
Page 7• Click to view
The text alternates between ΔU and dE/dt for internal energy, causing confusion. Use a single consistent symbol throughout to represent the rate of change of energy.
2.3·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
The separation of variables step could be clearer. Show explicitly dividing both sides by T−Ts to reach dT/(T−Ts)=−kdt instead of skipping intermediate algebra.
2.4·Weakness
Page 10• Click to view
The exponentiation explanation references eiθ incorrectly. Use elnx=x to justify removing the log for clarity.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 14• Click to view
Graphs lack error bars to indicate measurement uncertainty. Including error bars would strengthen the analysis by showing confidence in the fit.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 15• Click to view
Axes on all graphs should include clear labels and units (e.g. °C vs minutes). This improves interpretability and mathematical communication.
Criteria C: Personal Engagement
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
Good
Independent thinking
Good
Personal approach
Good
Creativity and initiative
Criteria Feedback
Clear evidence of independent choice in adapting and applying Newton’s cooling model
Personal narrative (family context, drinking-temperature threshold) motivating methodological decisions
Good creativity in linking physical theory to an everyday context and designing homemade experiments
Mathematical methods remain standard without significant extension beyond textbook techniques
Limited deeper personal reflection on challenges or insights during the investigation
No highly innovative or novel approach beyond adapting published methods
3.1·Suggestion
Page 20• Click to view
Include a brief personal reflection on what challenges or insights emerged during the investigation to demonstrate deeper personal engagement.
Criteria D: Reflection
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
Good
Depth of reflection
Good
Critical analysis
Good
Evaluation of outcomes
Criteria Feedback
Meaningful reflection on modelling assumptions, limitations, and comparison of experimental outcomes
Thoughtful discussion of results in terms of cooling-rate differences
Clear evaluation of implications and suggestions for future improvements
Lacks quantitative error analysis or uncertainty propagation to critically assess model fit
Reflection remains descriptive with limited probing of why assumptions fail
Minimal discussion of statistical validity or deeper critical insight
4.1·Suggestion
Page 19• Click to view
No quantitative error analysis or uncertainty propagation is included. Incorporate uncertainty estimates to critically evaluate model fit and experimental precision.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 19• Click to view
Reflection sections describe limitations but lack deeper insight into why assumptions fail or how they could affect results. Probe consequences of each assumption.
Criteria E: Use of Mathematics
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Relevance of mathematics
Moderate
Level appropriateness
Moderate
Understanding and accuracy
Criteria Feedback
Correct derivation and application of Newton’s cooling differential equation to real data
Use of calculus and basic statistics is fully appropriate to SL level
Mathematics is used effectively to predict temperatures and compare cooling methods
Omission of absolute value notation in integration step
Inconsistent ambient temperature values and unit specification for the cooling constant k
No uncertainty propagation or more advanced regression analysis to strengthen results
5.1·Weakness
Page 6• Click to view
Table 2 lists k with unit “constant,” which is not a physical unit. Define k as dimensionless or specify its units (e.g. s⁻¹) to clarify its mathematical role.
5.2·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
The rearrangement from Q=ΔU−W to dE/dt=−Q skips clarifying sign conventions for heat flow and work. Explicitly state why W=0 and how Q’s sign is defined.
5.3·Weakness
Page 9• Click to view
In the integration step you use ∫1/(T−Ts)dT but omit absolute values. The correct antiderivative is ln∣T−Ts∣. Include |·| to ensure mathematical accuracy.
5.4·Weakness
Page 12• Click to view
The ambient temperature Ts is later recorded as 31°C but earlier graphs show 29°C. Reconcile these values consistently in your model and data.
5.5·Weakness
Page 17• Click to view
The average rate uses n=52 intervals for 52 data points; correct denominator should be number of intervals (n−1) to avoid bias in rate calculation.
5.6·Weakness
Page 18• Click to view
The formula A=∑T4/∑T4 is incorrect; average should be ∑T4/n. Correct the expression for clarity.
