This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA) IA Exemplar: Age and 50m… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Mathematics Analysis and Approaches (AA) SL Internal Assessment Exemplar: To what extent does age influence the speed of swimming athletes between the ages of 8 to 18 as measured by performance metrics in 50m freestyle sprints?
To what extent does age influence the speed of swimming athletes between the ages of 8 to 18 as measured by performance metrics in 50m freestyle sprints?
Loading scores...
5
Official IB Result
13/20
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 sequence of introduction, data, analysis, evaluation and conclusion
Well-organised with headings, sub-headings, contents table and numbered sections
Logical development of mathematical argument without major jumps
Lengthy narrative and repeated explanations create redundancy
Minor mis-ordering in tables and duplicate headings disrupt flow
Some formatting inconsistencies (inline math in bullets, caption placement)
1.1·Suggestion
Page 1• Click to view
The research question is explicit but could be more concise; consider tightening phrasing to reduce verbosity.
1.2·Strength
Page 1• Click to view
The title is clear and directly states the focus of the investigation, aiding reader orientation.
1.3·Weakness
Page 2• Click to view
The table of contents provides a useful roadmap but shows inconsistent indentation and duplicate entries; streamline for clarity.
1.4·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
Personal narrative is engaging but verbose; consider focusing the introduction more tightly on mathematical rationale.
1.5·Weakness
Page 3• Click to view
The rationale paragraph ends abruptly without continuation; ensure complete exposition before subsection headings.
1.6·Weakness
Page 4• Click to view
The aim statement is explicit in outlining methods but contains a fragmented sentence; merge or rephrase for coherence.
1.7·Suggestion
Page 6• Click to view
Repeating the mean calculation process for every group creates redundancy; consider summarizing and referring to one worked example.
1.8·Suggestion
Page 7• Click to view
Captions appear above tables rather than below; reposition captions to conform with standard presentation practice.
1.9·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
The “Analysis and summary” section would benefit from breaking into subsections with clear subheadings to improve structure.
1.10·Weakness
Page 9• Click to view
Bullet items embed math inline in an uneven style; separate narrative text from symbols for clearer presentation.
1.11·Suggestion
Page 12• Click to view
Introduce the Spearman formula after the rank table to maintain logical progression of analysis steps.
1.12·Weakness
Page 14• Click to view
Table 3 contains an extraneous LaTeX key row of artifacts at the bottom; remove to avoid confusion.
1.13·Weakness
Page 15• Click to view
Table of Spearman ranks for girls is duplicated later as Table 4; renumber or replace with the boys’ rank table.
1.14·Suggestion
Page 20• Click to view
The conclusion restates results at length; consider summarizing key takeaways in a concise paragraph.
1.15·Weakness
Page 21• Click to view
The final reflection duplicates earlier evaluation points; integrate rather than repeat for stronger coherence.
1.16·Suggestion
Page 23• Click to view
References lack a consistent citation style for dates and URLs; apply a uniform format throughout.
Criteria B: Mathematical Communication
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
Moderate
Mathematical language and notation
Good
Multiple representations
Good
Logical structure and clarity
Criteria Feedback
Effective use of tables, scatter plots, trend lines and rank plots to support analysis
Mostly consistent mathematical language with clear definitions of key symbols
Good logical flow with explanations and interpretations following each calculation
Notation errors (e.g. misuse of decimal commas, ambiguous expressions like 8.52.84)
Missing axis labels, units and legends on several figures
Omitted intermediate steps reduce clarity in some calculations
2.1·Strength
Page 5• Click to view
Age variable is defined neatly with LaTeX, enhancing mathematical communication and precision.
2.2·Suggestion
Page 5• Click to view
Time descriptions omit explicit units in formulas; add “s” consistently to maintain clarity.
2.3·Strength
Page 6• Click to view
The mean formula T=3∑Ti is correctly presented, demonstrating sound mathematical communication.
2.4·Weakness
Page 7• Click to view
Table 1 data use colon notation (e.g. 00:49:63) instead of decimal seconds; convert to 49.63 s for consistency.
2.5·Weakness
Page 7• Click to view
Figure 1 is effective but lacks axis labels and units; add “Age (years)” and “Time (s)” for clarity.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
Figure 2 on the following page similarly needs clearly labeled axes and units to support interpretation.
2.7·Suggestion
Page 9• Click to view
The Pearson formula is correctly shown in LaTeX but the term Σxy should be defined explicitly before use.
2.8·Suggestion
Page 10• Click to view
Intermediate steps in the denominator’s square-root calculation are omitted; include full steps to enhance clarity.
2.9·Suggestion
Page 11• Click to view
The boys’ Pearson steps are collapsed into “follow same steps”; full calculations would demonstrate independent mastery.
2.10·Suggestion
Page 15• Click to view
Figure 5 and Figure 6 are insightful, but each needs axis labels and a legend to reinforce clarity and interpretation.
2.11·Weakness
Page 16• Click to view
The word “monotic” is misspelled; replace with “monotonic” for precise mathematical language.
2.12·Weakness
Page 17• Click to view
The bullet “N + 10” is incorrect; clarify that n=10 age groups rather than “N + 10.”
2.13·Suggestion
Page 18• Click to view
Present the boys’ regression equation in LaTeX as T=−1.78x+63.128 to maintain consistency.
Criteria C: Personal Engagement
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
Good
Independent thinking
Good
Personal approach
Good
Creativity and initiative
Criteria Feedback
Authentic motivation from personal swimming experience
Independent data collection and initiative in comparing Pearson and Spearman methods
First-person framing shows clear personal approach
Analytical path remains fairly standard for AA SL
Personal approach, while clear, lacks innovative depth
Creativity is good but not exceptional in method choice
3.1·Strength
Page 3• Click to view
The introduction draws on personal experience vividly, showing authentic motivation and 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 sample-size limits and external variables
Thoughtful analysis of correlation coefficients and method comparison
Clear evaluation of limitations and suggestions for future improvement
Reflection stops mid-discussion in places, indicating incomplete exposition
