Report an issue
This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our
Cookie Policy
.
Opt out
Allow
Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) IA Exemplar: UV Index… | RevisionDojo
Loading document preview...
View file
Back
IB Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) SL Internal Assessment Example
Scores
Rubric
Similar Examples
10
Chat
Is there a correlation between UV index levels and melanoma cases per state?
SL
A
B
C
D
E
4
Official IB Result
10/20
Verified
Moderated
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
Review my coursework for free
General feedback
10/20
0
10
20
6.1
·
Weakness
Page 1
• Click to view
Including the word count here disrupts flow; consider omitting or placing administrative details separately.
Criteria A: Presentation
3/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
View Full Rubric
A.1
Coherence and logical development
Good
A.2
Organization and structure
Good
A.3
Conciseness and relevance
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Follows a clear logical progression from introduction through data to conclusion
Well-defined structure with a Table of Contents, section headings and numbered subsections
Conclusion neatly ties results back to the research question
Lengthy textbook-style definitions add unnecessary bulk
Table of Contents omits page numbers and contains blank rows
Bibliography entries are inconsistently formatted
Comments
1.1
·
Strength
Page 1
• Click to view
The title is concise and directly reflects the research focus, aiding reader orientation at the outset.
1.2
·
Weakness
Page 2
• Click to view
The table of contents lacks page numbers, reducing navigational clarity; adding them would strengthen structure.
1.3
·
Suggestion
Page 2
• Click to view
Empty cells in the contents table appear; remove or complete them to improve presentation coherence.
1.4
·
Weakness
Page 3
• Click to view
Definitions of external concepts (e.g., scatterplots) in the introduction add bulk; move them to the methods section.
1.5
·
Suggestion
Page 4
• Click to view
Section headings would improve readability within the Mathematics section rather than a single block of text.
1.6
·
Weakness
Page 5
• Click to view
The data table spans two pages and even includes a blank row after Oregon; remove empty rows to maintain consistency.
1.7
·
Weakness
Page 6
• Click to view
Caption citation for the scatterplot is missing full source details; include complete attribution following a chosen style.
1.8
·
Strength
Page 13
• Click to view
Conclusion neatly summarizes findings and ties back to the research question, showing coherence in development.
1.9
·
Weakness
Page 16
• Click to view
Bibliography entries are numerous but inconsistent in formatting; apply a uniform citation style (e.g., APA) for coherence.
Criteria B: Mathematical Communication
2/4
0
2
4
Criteria Strands
View Full Rubric
B.1
Mathematical language and notation
Moderate
B.2
Multiple representations
Moderate
B.3
Clarity and consistency
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Uses standard statistical notation (r, Σ, χ²) and correctly rounds the Pearson result
Includes a labelled scatterplot and a comprehensive numerical table
Observed-frequencies table is clearly presented and supports the χ² calculation
Inconsistent notation (typos in Σ, missing subscripts) and mis-typed Q₃ values
Limited to two representations; lacks box-plots or residual plots
Switching between prose and symbols causes occasional clarity lapses
Comments
2.1
·
Question
Page 1
• Click to view
The research question clearly specifies variables but could mention the year mismatch upfront for precision.
2.2
·
Weakness
Page 4
• Click to view
Method plan refers to “doing the outlier formula” but lacks detail on which dataset and order; specify the step-by-step sequence.
2.3
·
Suggestion
Page 6
• Click to view
Consider adding additional representations (e.g., box plot, residual plot) to examine distribution and deviations more effectively.
2.4
·
Weakness
Page 7
• Click to view
Inconsistent Q₃ values (5.7 vs earlier 5.8) appear; maintain consistency to avoid confusion in statistical communication.
2.5
·
Suggestion
Page 8
• Click to view
Column headers like “
x^2
” lack subscripts for individual observations (e.g., x_i²); use precise notation to enhance clarity.
2.6
·
Suggestion
Page 8
• Click to view
The table is very dense and overwhelms the reader; consider summarizing key sum totals and moving raw data to an appendix.
2.7
·
Weakness
Page 10
• Click to view
Typo in the substituted formula uses “\sum 44” instead of “\sum x”; correct variable notation for accuracy.
2.8
·
Strength
Page 10
• Click to view
The Pearson result is rounded to three significant figures correctly, demonstrating appropriate mathematical communication.
2.9
·
Suggestion
Page 11
• Click to view
Hypotheses are described in prose; define H₀ and H₁ using symbolic notation to enhance mathematical precision.
2.10
·
Strength
Page 11
• Click to view
Observed frequencies table is well labeled and supports the chi-square calculation clearly.
2.11
·
Weakness
Page 11
• Click to view
Grouping by mean values needs justification; discuss why splitting at 4.88 and 23.9 is statistically appropriate.
2.12
·
Suggestion
Page 13
• Click to view
P-value source (TI-84 output) is not shown; include a screenshot or summary of calculator steps for reproducibility.
Criteria C: Personal Engagement
1/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
View Full Rubric
C.1
Independent thinking
Poor
C.2
Personal approach
Poor
C.3
Creativity and initiative
Poor
Criteria Feedback
Includes a personal anecdote about living in the “sunshine state”
Selects topic and data sources independently
Analysis follows routine statistical recipes with little novel insight
Personal approach does not drive the mathematical strategy
Creativity is limited to a basic outlier decision
Comments
3.1
·
Strength
Page 3
• Click to view
Personal anecdote about living in the “sunshine state” adds engagement but could be more tightly linked to methodology.
3.2
·
Strength
Page 16
• Click to view
The extensive bibliography indicates thorough research across multiple sources, adding credibility to the exploration.
Criteria D: Reflection
2/3
0
2
3
Criteria Strands
View Full Rubric
D.1
Depth of reflection
Good
D.2
Critical analysis
Good
D.3
Connection to understanding
Good
Criteria Feedback
Meaningful reflection on lack of expected correlation and study limitations
Basic critique of data quality (year mismatch, confounding variables)
Clear link between results and personal understanding of melanoma risk
Reflection remains descriptive; lacks deeper statistical critique (effect sizes, confidence intervals)
Brief mention of Yates correction needs further explanation
Uniform residuals in χ² are not analysed in depth
Comments
4.1
·
Suggestion
Page 11
• Click to view
The rationale for Yates correction is briefly mentioned; expand on why small sample size warrants this adjustment.
4.2
·
Suggestion
Page 12
• Click to view
All |O−E| values are identical (1.88); include commentary on why residuals are uniform across cells.
4.3
·
Strength
Page 14
• Click to view
Identification of age as a confounding variable demonstrates critical reflection on study limitations.
4.4
·
Suggestion
Page 14
• Click to view
Suggest designing a follow-up study with age-stratified incidence rates to address the highlighted limitation.
Criteria E: Use of Mathematics
2/6
0
3
6
Criteria Strands
View Full Rubric
E.1
Relevance and level
Moderate
E.2
Accuracy and correctness
Poor
E.3
Knowledge and understanding
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
Correct application of Pearson’s r and χ² methods within the SL syllabus
Systematic presentation of x, y, x², y² computations
Expected frequencies and degrees of freedom are calculated accurately
Copying errors in formulas (∑44 vs ∑x), mis-stated correlation range
Inconsistent Q₃ values and outlier-rule bound misapplication
Several computational inaccuracies undermine full correctness
Comments
5.1
·
Strength
Page 3
• Click to view
The aim statement precisely identifies x and y variables and methods, giving clear direction to the exploration.
5.2
·
Strength
Page 5
• Click to view
Including all 50 states shows relevant mathematics at course level and completeness of data collection.
5.3
·
Weakness
Page 6
• Click to view
The narrative under 'Scatterplot' merely defines it; interpret key features (e.g., point clusters, trend line) to deepen analysis.
5.4
·
Weakness
Page 7
• Click to view
The IQR calculation uses Q₃ rather than Q₁ in the lower bound; ensure Q₁=3.8 is used for the expression Q₁−1.5·IQR.
5.5
·
Strength
Page 7
• Click to view
The application of the 1.5 IQR rule is appropriate; the formula is clearly stated with correct notation.
5.6
·
Strength
Page 8
• Click to view
Presenting the full xy, x², and y² breakdown in a table demonstrates a systematic use of mathematics for Pearson’s calculation.
5.7
·
Weakness
Page 10
• Click to view
The statement “0.0 < r < -0.3” is logically incorrect; use “-0.3 < r < 0.0” when describing a weak negative correlation.
5.8
·
Strength
Page 11
• Click to view
Degrees of freedom formula is correctly applied, showing understanding of chi-square prerequisites.
5.9
·
Strength
Page 12
• Click to view
Expected frequency calculations are correct, demonstrating thorough understanding of contingency table mechanics.
5.10
·
Strength
Page 13
• Click to view
The computed χ² calc and p-value interpretation is correct, leading logically to failure to reject H₀.
