IA Playbook
Build a coherent exploration with a clear mathematical question and disciplined communication.
Use this guide to keep your exploration focused on a precise line of inquiry, well-presented mathematics, and reflection that goes beyond calculation.
Mathematics: Analysis and Approaches IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
Criterion names, marks, and mark bands follow the IB subject guide. The band descriptions are our own summaries, so check your subject guide for the exact wording.
How coherent, well organized, and concise the exploration is.
Stronger evidence
The exploration develops logically, is well organized, and is concise, with nothing unnecessary.
Early-stage evidence
The exploration shows either some logical flow or some organization, not both.
How relevant, appropriate, and consistent the notation, terminology, and representations are.
Stronger evidence
Relevant, appropriate mathematical communication that is consistent from start to finish.
Early-stage evidence
Some relevant notation and terminology, but only partly appropriate.
How clearly the exploration shows your own thinking, choices, and ownership of the mathematics.
Stronger evidence
Outstanding personal engagement: independent thinking and creativity shape the exploration.
Early-stage evidence
Some signs of personal engagement are visible.
How critically you review, interpret, and question your results and methods.
Stronger evidence
Critical reflection appears throughout, questioning results, methods, and their implications.
Early-stage evidence
Reflection is limited, often just restating results.
How relevant and correct the mathematics is at the level of the SL course, and how well you understand it.
Stronger evidence
Mathematics at the level of the SL course that is correct, with thorough understanding.
Early-stage evidence
Some relevant mathematics is used.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | The exploration shows either some logical flow or some organization, not both. |
| 2 | The exploration has some logical flow and some organization. |
| 3 | The exploration develops logically and is well organized. |
| 4 | The exploration develops logically, is well organized, and is concise, with nothing unnecessary. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Some relevant notation and terminology, but only partly appropriate. |
| 2 | Some relevant, appropriate notation, terminology, and representations. |
| 3 | Relevant, appropriate mathematical communication that is mostly consistent. |
| 4 | Relevant, appropriate mathematical communication that is consistent from start to finish. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Some signs of personal engagement are visible. |
| 2 | Clear, significant personal engagement runs through the work. |
| 3 | Outstanding personal engagement: independent thinking and creativity shape the exploration. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Reflection is limited, often just restating results. |
| 2 | Reflection is meaningful, for example linking results to the aim or noting limitations. |
| 3 | Critical reflection appears throughout, questioning results, methods, and their implications. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | Nothing in the work reaches the lowest band. |
| 1 | Some relevant mathematics is used. |
| 2 | Some relevant mathematics, with limited understanding. |
| 3 | Mathematics at the level of the SL course, with limited understanding. |
| 4 | Mathematics at the level of the SL course that is partly correct, with some understanding. |
| 5 | Mathematics at the level of the SL course that is mostly correct, with good understanding. |
| 6 | Mathematics at the level of the SL course that is correct, with thorough understanding. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
Step 1
Pick a question that invites genuine reasoning, not just a long calculation chain.
Step 2
Show definitions, assumptions, and transitions clearly so the mathematics is easy to follow.
Step 3
Only include methods that move the exploration forward and can be interpreted in context.
Step 4
Explain what the model captures well, where it breaks down, and how your thinking changed.
Did You Know?
Marksy grades your Math AA draft against each criterion, points out weak communication, and helps you tighten the exploration before submission. The result includes an estimated mark for every criterion, evidence from your draft, and the changes to make first. Your final mark may differ after teacher assessment or external moderation.
Instant Grading Results
See where your score is now, not just where it could be.
Criterion-By-Criterion Feedback
See the estimated mark, evidence, and next step for every assessment criterion.
Action List To Improve
Get concrete next edits instead of vague "improve analysis" advice.
Confidence And Integrity Signals
Review flagged sections and strengthen authenticity before submission.