This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) IA Exemplar: Student… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
IB Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) SL Internal Assessment Example
Is it financially more viable for a student to pay for their education and living expenses by working while studying or is it necessary to take out the student loan, and analyse how this decision will affect their financial stability in future?SL
4
Official IB Result
9/20
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
2/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
A.1Coherence and logical development
Moderate
A.2Organization and structure
Good
A.3Conciseness and relevance
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Clear articulation of the research question providing a strong foundation for coherence
Well‐structured table of contents and consistent use of headings enhancing navigation
Conclusion synthesizes quantitative findings and directly addresses the research question
Logical progression in data‐collection section from assumptions to methodology
Abrupt transitions between sections (e.g., from interest results to time‐budget discussion) interrupt the flow
The research question is clearly articulated and focused, providing a strong foundation for the exploration’s coherence and logical progression.
1.2·Strength
Page 2• Click to view
The table of contents is well structured with clear headings and page references, enhancing navigation and overall organization.
1.3·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The introduction mentions the IB learner profile, which adds narrative context but dilutes the mathematical focus. Consider refining this to emphasize the specific mathematical aims and models used.
1.4·Weakness
Page 4• Click to view
Citations for tuition and supply costs lack consistent formatting (e.g., access dates, authors). Adopt a standard style to enhance presentation quality.
1.5·Strength
Page 4• Click to view
The data-collection section is clearly sectioned and provides a logical progression from assumptions to methodology.
1.6·Suggestion
Page 13• Click to view
This detailed time-budget paragraph interrupts the mathematical flow. Consider summarizing it or relocating to a reflective section to maintain coherence.
1.7·Strength
Page 15• Click to view
The conclusion concisely synthesizes the quantitative findings and directly addresses the research question, demonstrating strong logical development.
Criteria B: Mathematical Communication
2/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
B.1Mathematical language and notation
Moderate
B.2Multiple representations
Moderate
B.3Clarity and consistency
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Comprehensive and well‐formatted inflation data table supporting analysis
Effective Table 1 presenting scenarios clearly and enabling comparison across representations
Graphical representations lack labeled axes and units, reducing clarity
Inconsistent and incorrect currency symbols throughout calculations
Mixed notation (boldface vs. standard symbols) and unexplained models (exponential inflation) undermine precision
2.1·Suggestion
Page 3• Click to view
The aim statement is broadly worded. Specify precisely how compound-interest formulas and linear models will address the research question to clarify the methodology.
2.2·Weakness
Page 7• Click to view
The calculation shows €10404 but uses the sterling symbol. Ensure consistent and correct currency notation to avoid confusion.
2.3·Weakness
Page 7• Click to view
Notation for living costs uses the Greek epsilon and the euro symbol interchangeably, which reduces clarity. Standardize currency notation (e.g., “€1000”).
2.4·Weakness
Page 9• Click to view
The SF35 monthly repayment is shown as £340.3; currency symbol and rounding should match earlier sections and be clearly defined.
2.5·Suggestion
Page 10• Click to view
Breaking the multi-step wage/working-hours calculation into separate lines would improve readability and reduce potential arithmetic confusion.
2.6·Strength
Page 12• Click to view
Table 1 presents scenarios effectively, allowing clear comparison across multiple representations. The layout supports easy interpretation.
2.7·Strength
Page 13• Click to view
The inflation data table is comprehensive and well formatted, providing a solid basis for subsequent analysis.
2.8·Weakness
Page 14• Click to view
The best-fit line graph lacks axis labels and units, which reduces clarity and interpretability. Include clearly labeled axes and scales.
Criteria C: Personal Engagement
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
C.1Independent thinking
Good
C.2Personal approach
Good
C.3Creativity and initiative
Poor
Criteria Feedback
Problem choice and data gathering reflect significant independent thinking beyond textbook examples
Clear personal approach: investigation framed around the student’s own upcoming studies and priorities
Creativity and initiative are limited to standard models without deeper extension or novel applications
Criteria D: Reflection
1/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
D.1Depth of reflection
Poor
D.2Critical analysis
Poor
D.3Connection to understanding
Poor
Criteria Feedback
Includes brief personal insights linking deflation and stress considerations to decision making
Reflection is brief and not woven through the exploration, lacking depth or reevaluation of earlier assumptions
No critical analysis of mathematical models or their limitations
Connections to enhanced understanding are only partially developed
3.1·Weakness
Page 14• Click to view
The narrative on deflation and wage effects provides personal insight but lacks critical analysis of the model’s validity and limitations.
3.2·Weakness
Page 16• Click to view
The evaluation mentions practical challenges but omits critique of key assumptions (e.g., constant rates). Include analysis of model limitations to deepen reflection.
3.3·Suggestion
Page 17• Click to view
The final conclusion restates findings nicely but could strengthen the link by referencing specific numerical results from the analysis.
Criteria E: Use of Mathematics
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
E.1Relevance and level
Moderate
E.2Accuracy and correctness
Poor
E.3Knowledge and understanding
Poor
Criteria Feedback
Uses compound-interest, linear income and regression models appropriate to the SL syllabus
Calculations demonstrate partial correctness in several sections, indicating some technical competence
Key errors in applying amortisation versus compound-interest formulas
Unit inconsistencies (months vs. years) and rounding mismatches lead to incorrect totals
The assumptions list simplifies the scenario but neglects potential variability in costs. Incorporate a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of fluctuating expenses.
4.2·Suggestion
Page 5• Click to view
Clarify whether the stated hourly wage is gross or net of taxes and deductions, as this will affect actual take-home pay and loan reduction calculations.
4.3·Weakness
Page 6• Click to view
The compound-interest formula A = Pigl(1+{rig/ n}igr)^{nt} is misapplied for loan amortisation. Use the standard amortisation formula M=P rac{r(1+r)^N}{(1+r)^N-1} for accurate monthly repayments.
4.4·Weakness
Page 8• Click to view
The monthly repayment calculation divides by 180 months but labels t in years, leading to unit inconsistency. Revise to clarify the period or recalculate correctly.
4.5·Suggestion
Page 8• Click to view
The formula for monthly repayment uses M=tA without clarifying that t is in months. State units explicitly to maintain consistency.
4.6·Weakness
Page 10• Click to view
The monthly cost sum uses 221 for tuition instead of 216.75; this rounding mismatch leads to an incorrect total of €1216.75. Ensure precise calculations and rounding.
4.7·Suggestion
Page 10• Click to view
The average hourly wage is calculated by a simple mean, but working hours may not split evenly between €13.50 and €15. Consider weighting by expected work distribution.
