Mathematics Applications & Interpretation (AI) IA Example: The main… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

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

The main aim of the exploration was achieved where I was able to model the shape of the Abdali Mall rooftop using different functions and then determine the area of the rooftop using calculus to examine how many solar panels can be installed to make it more environmentally and efficient friendly.HL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Presentation

3/4

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Coherence and logical development

Good

A.2Organization and structure

Good

A.3Conciseness and relevance

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The exploration has a clear mathematical pathway from roof geometry to an applied solar-energy estimate.
The structure is generally easy to follow, with identifiable sections and a logical sequence of modelling steps.
Most material stays focused on the chosen building and question, with only limited digression.

Some final equations and displayed models are inconsistent with earlier derivations, which weakens the reliability of the presentation.
The flow is not fully seamless because repeated images and a late, repetitive conclusion reduce efficiency.
The final cost/payback discussion overreaches the evidence from the area model and should be framed more cautiously.

Criteria B: Mathematical Communication

3/4

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Mathematical language and notation

Moderate

B.2Multiple representations

Good

B.3Clarity and consistency

Good

Criteria Feedback

The work uses a substantial range of appropriate mathematical language and notation, including piecewise functions, domains, integrals, coordinates, and units.
Multiple representations are used effectively: graphs, tables, coordinates, shaded regions, and algebraic expressions all contribute to the model.
The communication is mostly clear, and the reader can usually follow which boundary segment or interval is being discussed.

Some notation is inaccurate or inconsistent, including the incorrect interpolation degree rule and mismatched final expressions.
The visual evidence is strong but not always independently validated, so graphs and quoted fit values sometimes do more than they can justify.
The final mathematical statements need tighter proofreading, especially where later formulas differ from earlier derivations.

Criteria C: Personal Engagement

2/3

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Independent thinking

Good

C.2Personal approach

Good

C.3Creativity and initiative

Good

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria D: Reflection

2/3

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Depth of reflection

Good

D.2Critical analysis

Good

D.3Connection to understanding

Good

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria F: Use of Mathematics (HL)

2/6

Criteria StrandsPro

F.1Relevance and level

Excellent

F.2Accuracy and correctness

Poor

F.3Knowledge and understanding

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Presentation

3/4

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Coherence and logical development

Good

A.2Organization and structure

Good

A.3Conciseness and relevance

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The exploration has a clear mathematical pathway from roof geometry to an applied solar-energy estimate.
The structure is generally easy to follow, with identifiable sections and a logical sequence of modelling steps.
Most material stays focused on the chosen building and question, with only limited digression.

Some final equations and displayed models are inconsistent with earlier derivations, which weakens the reliability of the presentation.
The flow is not fully seamless because repeated images and a late, repetitive conclusion reduce efficiency.
The final cost/payback discussion overreaches the evidence from the area model and should be framed more cautiously.

Criteria B: Mathematical Communication

3/4

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Mathematical language and notation

Moderate

B.2Multiple representations

Good

B.3Clarity and consistency

Good

Criteria Feedback

The work uses a substantial range of appropriate mathematical language and notation, including piecewise functions, domains, integrals, coordinates, and units.
Multiple representations are used effectively: graphs, tables, coordinates, shaded regions, and algebraic expressions all contribute to the model.
The communication is mostly clear, and the reader can usually follow which boundary segment or interval is being discussed.

Some notation is inaccurate or inconsistent, including the incorrect interpolation degree rule and mismatched final expressions.
The visual evidence is strong but not always independently validated, so graphs and quoted fit values sometimes do more than they can justify.
The final mathematical statements need tighter proofreading, especially where later formulas differ from earlier derivations.

Criteria C: Personal Engagement

2/3

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Independent thinking

Good

C.2Personal approach

Good

C.3Creativity and initiative

Good

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria D: Reflection

2/3

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Depth of reflection

Good

D.2Critical analysis

Good

D.3Connection to understanding

Good

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria F: Use of Mathematics (HL)

2/6

Criteria StrandsPro

F.1Relevance and level

Excellent

F.2Accuracy and correctness

Poor

F.3Knowledge and understanding

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.