Upload your Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation IA draft and get instant feedback aligned with official IB criteria.
Follow the same rubric-first flow students use to move from a raw draft to a submission-ready version.
Start by dropping in your coursework PDF. We built this flow to mirror how students prepare final submission drafts.
Drag and drop to upload
Limit 10 MB per file. Supported files: PDF
Sign in to start your first grading run.
Marksy maps your draft against the rubric so you can see where marks are gained or lost in each criterion.
Every important scoring decision is anchored to your writing so revision is evidence-based, not guesswork.
Get structured next actions so you can move from draft to stronger markband performance in the right order.
For class-wide workflows, the same logic extends to batch marking so feedback stays consistent across submissions.
Keep one grading system across IA, EE, TOK, and subject variants so your preparation process stays consistent.
Use this guide to keep your exploration focused on a practical question, clear communication, and a model that is justified by the context it serves.
Recommended Length
1,500-2,000 words plus mathematics, graphs, tables, and supporting material as needed
Build Timeline
3-5 weeks: topic selection, modelling, testing, drafting, and refinement
Anchor Question
Does the mathematics fit the context, and does the context actually matter to the mathematics?
Want a full playbook format? Read Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: Organization and coherence of the exploration.
Top-band move: The exploration is coherent, well organized, and concise.
Common penalty: The exploration has some coherence or some organization.
Examiner focus: Appropriate use of mathematical language and representation.
Top-band move: The mathematical communication is relevant, appropriate and consistent throughout.
Common penalty: The exploration contains some relevant mathematical communication which is partially appropriate.
Examiner focus: Student's independent engagement with the topic.
Top-band move: There is evidence of outstanding personal engagement.
Common penalty: There is evidence of some personal engagement.
Examiner focus: Depth of analysis and evaluation in the exploration.
Top-band move: There is substantial evidence of critical reflection.
Common penalty: There is evidence of limited reflection.
Examiner focus: Relevance and understanding of mathematics used.
Top-band move: Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is correct. Thorough knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Common penalty: Some relevant mathematics is used.
Examiner focus: Relevance, understanding, and sophistication of mathematics used.
Top-band move: Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is precise and demonstrates sophistication and rigour. Thorough knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Common penalty: Some relevant mathematics is used. Limited understanding is demonstrated.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The exploration does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The exploration has some coherence or some organization.
Points 2
The exploration has some coherence and shows some organization.
Points 3
The exploration is coherent and well organized.
Points 4
The exploration is coherent, well organized, and concise.
Points 0
The exploration does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
The exploration contains some relevant mathematical communication which is partially appropriate.
Points 2
The exploration contains some relevant appropriate mathematical communication.
Points 3
The mathematical communication is relevant, appropriate and is mostly consistent.
Points 4
The mathematical communication is relevant, appropriate and consistent throughout.
Points 0
The exploration does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
There is evidence of some personal engagement.
Points 2
There is evidence of significant personal engagement.
Points 3
There is evidence of outstanding personal engagement.
Points 0
The exploration does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
There is evidence of limited reflection.
Points 2
There is evidence of meaningful reflection.
Points 3
There is substantial evidence of critical reflection.
Points 0
The exploration does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
Some relevant mathematics is used.
Points 2
Some relevant mathematics is used. Limited understanding is demonstrated.
Points 3
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. Limited understanding is demonstrated.
Points 4
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is partially correct. Some knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Points 5
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is mostly correct. Good knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Points 6
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is correct. Thorough knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Points 0
The exploration does not reach the standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1
Some relevant mathematics is used. Limited understanding is demonstrated.
Points 2
Some relevant mathematics is used. The mathematics explored is partially correct. Some knowledge and understanding is demonstrated.
Points 3
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is correct. Some knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Points 4
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is correct. Good knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Points 5
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is correct and demonstrates sophistication or rigour. Thorough knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Points 6
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level of the course is used. The mathematics explored is precise and demonstrates sophistication and rigour. Thorough knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.
Step 1
Select a context where modelling or statistics genuinely helps answer something useful.
Step 2
Use clean tables, labels, and notation so the mathematical reasoning is easy to follow.
Step 3
Explain what the numbers mean, where the model is strong, and where it oversimplifies reality.
Step 4
Discuss assumptions, limitations, and whether a better model would materially change the conclusion.
The exploration question is tied to a clear real-world context.
Notation, graphs, and calculations are consistent and easy to read.
Results are interpreted in words, not just left as numbers.
Reflection explains how well the model fits the context.
Add a short sentence after each calculation that says why it matters.
Use the same symbols and labels throughout tables, graphs, and formulas.
End each section by linking the result back to the practical question.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation and returns criterion-level marks with actionable feedback.
Yes. Most students use draft grading to identify weak criteria, revise, and re-check before final submission.
Yes. Teachers can upload multiple files in one batch from the bulk grading route for faster class-wide feedback.
Absolutely. By default, nobody other than you can access your uploaded files, however you may make them shareable to others. Even then, you have full control to delete your files at any moment, and your files are not used to train AI models. More information here.
Upload a single submission and get criterion-by-criterion feedback aligned to IB descriptors.
Open Single GradingProcess up to 15 files in one run and keep feedback consistent across your class.
View Bulk Plan