IB Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA) SL Internal Assessment Exemplar: The Linear Correlation between Points on the Math Test and Study Time

The title clearly states the scope and variables under investigation, providing immediate context and focus for the reader.

The table of contents is comprehensive and matches section labels and page numbers, aiding navigation and structure.

The aim statement could be more concise by reducing redundancy and focusing on a single clear research question.

The empty table placeholder for Class One lacks data entries, disrupting the logical flow and clarity of presentation.

The appendix table is excessively long and interrupts the main narrative; consider summarising key data or moving to a separate document.

Relocate lengthy raw data tables to an external file or compress into summary statistics to maintain conciseness of the exploration.

Numerical notation is inconsistent: commas are used in decimals (e.g., “44,5”), which may confuse readers accustomed to international conventions.

A potential leverage point at zero hours of study might influence slope; consider discussing whether 0 h acts as an outlier or boundary effect.

The box plot title and section header are clear, and the representation effectively complements the scatterplots.

The embedded box-plot images lack axis labels and numerical scales, which reduces interpretive clarity.

Report the median value explicitly in the achieved-points box-plot discussion to reinforce clarity and precision.

Boundaries for outlier detection are mis-computed; ensure consistency with correct Q1/Q3 when calculating 1.5 × IQR.

The appendix mixes German and English headings (e.g., “Mögliche Punkte”), which disrupts consistency in mathematical communication.

The introduction describes a clear personal motivation and context, demonstrating genuine engagement with the problem.

The data collection section clearly states sample size and anonymization method, strengthening the investigation’s reliability.

The first reflection remains largely descriptive and does not probe methodological assumptions or implications of findings.

The fourth reflection expresses surprise but lacks deeper critique of sample bias or methodological limitations.

The conclusion recognizes limitations but stops short of outlining concrete next steps or quantifying reliability of findings.

The regression equations lack consistent unit labels: the mean study time includes “h” but the mean score is in “u” without clarifying this notation.

The arithmetic mean calculation for Class One is clearly shown with formula and substitution, demonstrating solid mathematical procedure.

Ellipses in the second-class mean calculation obscure the data used; list key values explicitly or provide an appendix reference.

Including the mode analysis demonstrates initiative in exploring further measures of central tendency beyond requirements.

Use of GeoGebra for regression visualization shows effective integration of technological tools to support the analysis.

Labeling r = –0.571 as a “strong” correlation is misleading; |r|≈0.57 indicates moderate strength by statistical convention.

Describing r = 0.0208 as a “positive correlation” overstates its practical significance; |r|<0.1 typically indicates negligible relationship.

The IQR calculation uses incorrect quartile values (72.5 and 51) not matching the preceding box-plot summary.

The text notes exclusion of absence data but does not integrate or justify its omission mathematically; consider modelling its effect.