# data[].attributes.body
unconcise title
unclear aims
organized well
graphs arent examined in depth
maths is unclear

# data[].attributes.body
Mark: 1/3.
The author explores the topic in a creative and independent way. He suggests new methods and approaches to the problem. However, he doesn't state his own personal interest in the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
4/6 marks
Relevant mathematics commensurate with the level the course is used. The mathematics explored is partially correct. Some knowledge and understanding are demonstrated.

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence- all mathematic methods were used correctly to support their aims and there was a sufficient use of mathematics within the AI maths scope.
Marking-5

# data[].attributes.body
2/3
- Refined a linear model to a more accurate polynomial model.
- Notes that information on the topic was limited.
- Reflects on overall mathematical process in conclusion
- Reflection on mathematics is limited in some areas

# data[].attributes.body
4/4
- Appropriate mathematic symbols and notations used.
- Multiple forms of mathematical representation, like formulas, tables and graphs
- Defined variables

# data[].attributes.body
2/3
-No personal engagement and explanation
-Doesn't reflect on validity
-Explains why the method was chosen but not consistently
-Doesn't reflect on the quality of examples
-Has a good conclusion

# data[].attributes.body
Criterion B:
Mark: 3/4
The symbols usage is adeguate and graphs are used correctly, as well as the use of labels and units.

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria C
Mark : 1/3
The writer lacks personal engagement in terms of not adressing his personal interest and the reason for his exploration. However, he does explore in a creative, independant wayand he focuses on a real-world situation.

# data[].attributes.body
an abundance of mathematics applied to real life examples/situations. overcomplicated mathematics when simple mathematics would suffice.

marks = 4

# data[].attributes.body
Mark : 3
- Contains different type of presentation (graphs, tables, and charts)
- No labels
- Uses appropriate mathematical communication (no use of computer notation)
- No GDC display
- Uses appropriate ICT tools

# data[].attributes.body
We could see that the student has used linear interpolation and used a table in age range which shows that she used maths from the past learning and past chapter to determine her answer and used it to make the maths easier to understand for their peers. I think this student deserves a '4' because this student has used the maths alongside sentences which might create confusion and I would reccoment this student to have a separate lines for their mathematical equation.

I think this student should make the equations less than what they wrote since some of the equation that this student has used is quite repetitive and takes a lot of space. I think the student should use the equation once and reference it in the conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Criterion C:
Mark: 1
there is some evidence of personal engagement but nothing concrete. the student has failed to make a connection between them selves and the IA. they explored the mathematics with minimum effort.

# data[].attributes.body
2/4
-The title isn't clear and concise
-The mathematics is hard to follow
-The aim and personal interest isn't clearly started
-The overall organization is good
-The graphs are only referred to briefly
-Subtitles are used to organize

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence - little to no personal engagement, but sufficient use of primary data collection.

Mark = 2

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence - there is some evidence the use of maths to support the aim and is relevant to their exploration. There is also a variety of methods used like equations, graphs, and tables.

# data[].attributes.body
Mark = 2/4
The exploration has coherence, but shows overwhelming and little organisation

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence - lack of personal interest and minimal independent findings
Mark -1

# data[].attributes.body
Calculations are not displayed clearly: they are not isolated from the paragraphs, making them difficult to read.  Isolating the equations from the main text is not enough and can lead to confusion regarding whether the brackets are used to isolate the equation from the paragraph or if it is a part of the equation itself.

Graphs are presented clearly with the use of figure referencing (Illustration 1, Illustration 2 etc.) with appropriate captions.

Each key element that is relevant to the calculation for example the "Number of young people" and "Monthly passes" is well defined and justified.

Variables of equations are clearly defined and arranged in an easy-to-read way.

# data[].attributes.body
this IA does not contain a clear title ( possible title but too vague)
no personal engagement in the intro
clear and thorough aim
ordered goals
strong rational but lacks personal interest (uses statistics)
some of the graphs and tables lack a clear title ( font size= too small)
conclusions are written from the graph/tables and expressed in a relevant manner
and relevant data is highlighted
graphs titles are not mentioned clearly in the analysis
graphs and tables are on the same page as their analysis
tables contain relevant information/data

pages are clearly numbered
references organized in alphabetical order
information are easy to understand
some indicators showing the understanding and research on the topic chosen

they have fulfilled the aims of exploration
minimal reflections

2/4