IA Playbook
Build a polished exploration that uses mathematics to make sense of a real-world context.
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.
Mathematics: Applications and Interpretation IA
See what each criterion measures, how many marks it carries, and what stronger evidence usually looks like.
This is Marksy's independently written criteria explanation, not an official IB publication.
How coherently, concisely, and purposefully the mathematical exploration is organized.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address presentation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How consistently the exploration uses mathematical notation, terminology, definitions, and representations.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address mathematical communication, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How visibly the exploration reflects independent choices, curiosity, and ownership of the mathematics.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address personal engagement, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How thoughtfully the exploration interprets results, tests limitations, and considers what the mathematics means.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address reflection, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
How relevant, correct, and well-understood the mathematics is for SL study.
Stronger evidence
The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly.
Early-stage evidence
Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address use of mathematics - sl, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported.
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for presentation. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address presentation, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 4 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for mathematical communication. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address mathematical communication, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 4 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for personal engagement. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address personal engagement, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for reflection. |
| 1 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address reflection, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 2 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 3 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| Marks | What the draft currently shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted material does not provide assessable evidence for use of mathematics - sl. |
| 1-2 | Only fragments of relevant evidence are visible. The response begins to address use of mathematics - sl, but important parts remain missing, unclear, or unsupported. |
| 3 | Some relevant evidence is developed, although the response is inconsistent or leaves important connections unexplained. |
| 4-5 | The response addresses the criterion securely in most places, using relevant evidence and generally clear reasoning, with limited gaps. |
| 6 | The response addresses the criterion consistently and precisely. Evidence is well selected, reasoning is sustained, and important choices or limitations are handled convincingly. |
Did You Know? Most weak drafts fail from sequence chaos, not lack of ideas.
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.
Did You Know?
Marksy gives independently written feedback showing where modelling, presentation, and reflection can be tightened. Every criterion mark is an estimate, not an official result. 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.