IB Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) SL Internal Assessment Example

Consider rephrasing the research question to specify “to what extent” endowment influences ranking. This clarifies the relationship under study.

The title clearly conveys the investigation’s focus, indicating both variables and contexts, aiding reader orientation.

The comprehensive table of contents provides an effective roadmap with clear headings and page references, enhancing navigation.

The raw data table is excessively long. Condense by summarizing key values or moving full data to an appendix to improve conciseness.

Clearly labeled raw data section helps the reader locate the original data used for analysis, supporting transparency.

Citation formatting is inconsistent; adopt a single style (e.g., APA or MLA) and apply uniform formatting to all references.

For list items, ensure complete bibliographic information including access dates and DOIs to enhance reference validity.

Provide a brief caption explaining how the spinning wheel selection was executed to improve clarity of the sampling method.

Notation for hypotheses should use consistent subscript formatting, e.g., $H_0$ and $H_1$. Ensure uniform style to avoid confusion.

Specify the precision (e.g., significant figures) consistently when reporting descriptive statistics to maintain accuracy.

Add axis labels and units to the boxplot image to make the visualization fully interpretable without external reference.

Typographical error “IOR” should read “IQR.” Correct the acronym to maintain accurate mathematical communication.

The description interprets median proximity to minimum as positive skew; could you clarify this interpretation by referencing quartile positions explicitly?

Use consistent notation: the r-value for Spearman should be labeled $r_s$ rather than an unqualified r to distinguish from Pearson’s coefficient.

The introduction effectively contextualizes the investigation through personal rationale, demonstrating clear personal engagement.

The narrative effectively compares UK and US funding levels, demonstrating the student’s understanding of contextual differences.

Enhance critical analysis by discussing why UK and US correlations differ in magnitude and potential underlying factors.

Extend reflection by considering additional statistical assumptions (e.g., monotonicity, independence) and their impact on results.

The aim restates the research question without specifying the statistical approach. Consider adding reference to Spearman’s correlation for focus.

To strengthen reproducibility, include details on how endowment and ranking data were aligned year-to-year and any data cleaning steps.

The description of random selection lacks detail on how ties or stratification were handled. Clarify selection procedure to ensure sample representativeness.

Credible governmental data sources are appropriately cited, enhancing the investigation’s data reliability.

The outline of descriptive and inferential statistical methods shows coherent planning of analytical procedures.

The example calculation shows a sum but omits dividing by 5; include the division step in the table to avoid misunderstanding.

The correlation is described as positive, but since lower ranking numbers indicate better performance, the axis inversion implies a negative relationship; address sign interpretation.

Including the Spearman formula and source enhances mathematical rigor and acknowledges academic referencing.

The calculated Spearman’s coefficient of -0.6369 lies within [-1,1], but the interpretation thresholds “-0.4 > r_s ≥ 0.8” are incorrect; revise strength criteria.

The result $r_s=-5.14615$ is mathematically impossible for a correlation coefficient; re-examine and correct the formula application.