May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics HL TZ1

Time zone variants of examination papers

To protect the integrity of the examinations, increasing use is being made of time zone variants of
examination papers. By using variants of the same examination paper candidates in one part of the
world will not always be taking the same examination paper as candidates in other parts of the world.
A rigorous process is applied to ensure that the papers are comparable in terms of difficulty and
syllabus coverage, and measures are taken to guarantee that the same grading standards are applied
to candidates scripts for the different versions of the examination papers. For the May 2014
examination session the IB has produced time zone variants of Mathematics HL papers.

Internal assessment
Component grade boundaries
Grade:
Mark range:

0-2

3-5

6-8

9 - 11

12 - 14

15 - 16

17 - 20

The range and suitability of the work submitted

The majority of explorations were generally commensurate with the Maths HL content but the quality
was very mixed with very few explorations in the top range. Unfortunately many explorations lacked
citations. This requirement needs to be made clearly known to all teachers; otherwise students will
risk a malpractice decision.
Some of the explorations were too long, sometimes because the scope of the exploration was not
focused enough. On the other hand a few explorations were too short and included very little
mathematical content.
Some repeated topics were seen like The Monty Hall Problem, Rubic Cube Mathematics or
Mathematics behind the Pokemon game. A number of explorations were based on common
textbooks problems and demonstrated little or superficial understanding of the mathematical concepts
being explored. A few of the students however demonstrated thorough understanding and managed
to personalize their explorations. Modelling explorations based on Physics problems were also
abundant. The most popular topic explored was the Parabolic Trajectory and the Catenary
equation.

Candidate performance against each criterion

A In general students performed well against this criterion. Some teachers seem to believe that
subheadings indicating Aim, Rationale etc., are required in order to achieve top levels. Most
explorations were complete and concise, however, some were far too long. Works that were based
on typical text book problems and depended a lot on sources tended to be incoherent and were
difficult to follow. Any paraphrased information needs to be cited at the point in the exploration where
it is used. A footnote referring to the bibliography is not enough and may lead to a decision of
malpractice.
B Students did well in general on this criterion. Graphs and tables were often provided but not
commented on. Sometimes graphs lacked labelling, and tables had no headings. The teacher
sometimes condoned the misuse of computer notation; this lead to a change in the achievement level
awarded. Some explorations lacked the definition of key terms used.
C This is the criterion that was mostly misinterpreted by teachers with a quite a few students being
awarded top levels because of their commitment or enthusiasm for the subject without any of this

Page 2

May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics HL TZ1

being evident in the student work. Students who presented explorations based on common textbook
problems beyond the HL curriculum, were unable to score highly on this criterion because the
mathematics was not understood fully to enable them to take ownership and extend the work beyond
the theory presented. Some teachers understood the criterion descriptors well and this was
transmitted to students effectively.
D Some teachers misunderstood this criterions descriptors and must have conveyed to students
that reflection was a summative of the work done. As such some explorations were written as an old
IA Task with just a narrative about the scope and limitations of the work done and no meaningful or
critical reflection. Again students who wrote a textbook problem investigation found it difficult to
reflect on the process and / or results and their significance. For higher achievement levels in this
criterion students need to consider further explorations, implications of results, compare the strengths
and weaknesses of the different mathematical approaches of their investigation and also look at the
topic from different perspectives.
E There was a large variety of mathematical content in the exploration, ranging from very basic
mathematics to extensions well beyond the HL syllabus. A number of explorations were full of
formulae which seemed to be copied from mathematical journals or Wikipedia without appropriate
sources. It was not always clear whether the teacher had checked the mathematical content; this
made it more difficult to understand how the achievement levels were interpreted and awarded by the
teacher. In some explorations the content seemed forced and overly sophisticated abstract concepts
were added in an attempt to raise the quality of the exploration. Often this created a patchwork of
mathematical formulae and equations that were not necessarily understood by the student. Although
an exploration may take the form of a research paper, containing mathematics that is found in
appropriate sources, the student needs to demonstrate a deep understanding of the mathematics
being explored.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

The exploration should be introduced early in the course and referred to frequently enough to allow
students to reflect on an area of Mathematics that best suits their interest and allows them to develop
an appropriate exploration.
Students should be provided with material to stimulate ideas for the exploration. These may include
movies, short videos, photographs, experiments etc
Students need to develop research and writing skills through reading and understanding different
forms of mathematical writing as well as the possible assignment of mini tasks.
Teachers should discuss the suitability of the topic chosen by students before a first draft is handed
in.
Students should use some of the time allocated to the Exploration to explain clearly the expectations
when it comes to using borrowed ideas from sources. Teachers need to make it very clear to students
that each and every quoted, paraphrased, borrowed or stolen reference must be cited at the point of
reference, otherwise the students work will be referred to the Academic Honesty department that may
decide on a possible malpractice (plagiarizism).
The teacher should ensure that the work being submitted is the students own work.
The teacher must show evidence of checking the mathematics with tick marks, annotations and
comments written directly on the students work. This will help the moderator to confirm the
achievement levels awarded by the teacher.

Page 3

May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics HL TZ1

The teacher must mark a first draft of the exploration. This should provide students with written
feedback. This should also lead to a discussion to ensure that the student understands the
mathematics used and demonstrates this in the work.
Students should be discouraged from using difficult Mathematics beyond the HL syllabus if this
cannot lead to some creativity or personalized problem.
Students should be reminded that the exploration should be between 6 to 12 pages typed in an
appropriate font size (e.g. Arial 12). Diagrams and /or tables which are not significant and do not
enhance the development of the exploration should not be included.
Candidates need to understand the difference between describing results and critically reflecting on
their results.
Using difficult mathematics that goes well beyond the HL syllabus often results in a lack of thorough
understanding and this in turn makes it difficult for the student to demonstrate Personal Engagement
or Reflection.
Students should be encouraged to create their own questions based on their own individual interest
which may include current social, economic or environmental problems in the community.
Teachers are encouraged to use past explorations (TSM exemplars) and engage students in marking
them early on in the process. This will clarify the importance of each criterion and the impact the
choice of topic may have on the achievement levels that may be reached.

Further Comments
A number of explorations showed very little work other than paraphrasing entries in Wikipedia. It is
the schools responsibility to check for plagiarism before student work is submitted for assessment.
When students choose to present an exploration which is based on a scientific phenomenon, they
should be aware that they are writing about mathematics and not reproducing a laboratory report.
It is felt that the new format of the IA has provided students with a great opportunity to explore a topic
in Mathematics that they enjoy as well as take up ownership of their mathematical work.

Paper one
Component grade boundaries
Grade:
Mark range:

0 - 16

17 - 32

33 - 43

44 - 57

58 - 70

71 - 84

85 - 120

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for
the candidates
The sums and products of roots. This is a topic that it is new in the syllabus this year and was
unfamiliar to many students.
Some of the vector question (q 12) was poorly done, particularly surprising was how few knew what
was required to prove a quadrilateral was a square.

Page 4

May 2014 subject reports

MATHEMATICS SL TZ1

Overall grade boundaries

Grade:
Mark range:

0 - 17

18 - 34

35 - 48

49 - 60

61 - 71

72 - 83

84 - 100

Time zone variants of examination papers

To protect the integrity of the examinations, increasing use is being made of time zone variants of
examination papers. By using variants of the same examination paper candidates in one part of the
world will not always be taking the same examination paper as candidates in other parts of the world.
A rigorous process is applied to ensure that the papers are comparable in terms of difficulty and
syllabus coverage, and measures are taken to guarantee that the same grading standards are applied
to candidates scripts for the different versions of the examination papers. For the May 2014
examination session the IB has produced time zone variants of Mathematics SL papers.

Internal assessment
Component grade boundaries
Grade:
Mark range:

0-2

3-5

6-8

9 - 11

12 - 14

15 - 17

18 - 20

The range and suitability of the work submitted

A wide range of appropriate topics with mixed quality was submitted. Candidates who had chosen
appropriate topics could attain the upper levels of each criterion. A few others, however, produced
work that was not commensurate with the level of this course.
Examples of popular themes that were received were card games and gambling, demographics,
spread of disease, athletics/sports, and video games. In addition there were many candidates who
attempted explorations on common investigations or textbook problems, like the Golden Ratio,
Fibonacci numbers, the Birthday paradox, Monty Hall Problem, Pascals Triangle. There were also
numerous modelling activities of real life situations that were very similar in style with the old portfolio
modelling tasks. Often in these cases, candidates produced work that was a summary of common
facts and or general history of the topic. This would normally demonstrate a lack of personal
engagement. Nevertheless, explorations which were based on textbook problems sometimes did also

Page 1

May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL TZ1

lead to a good exploration, when the students decided to extend the investigation beyond the original
problems and/or add something of their own in the exploration. However, this was not in abundance.
Most of the explorations based on these common textbook problems or examples revolved around
superficial understanding of the concepts, repetition of methods found on the internet and did not lend
themselves to anything new, and hence, could not reach the highest levels.
The use of technology to develop regression functions in an attempt to model data was very common.
In some cases this was done effectively with suitable mathematical support. However there were
cases where the regression model was simply created and applied via technology with very little
understanding shown. It is recommended that in future, students will justify their choice of regression
model and reflect critically on their choice.
There were a few instances where candidates simply submitted explorations entirely based on old
portfolio tasks, which were specifically designed for the old assessment criteria. As a result, such
explorations would not necessarily provide the candidates with the opportunity to achieve the highest
levels.
The students generally adhered to the recommendation that the exploration be between 6 and 12
pages long. However there were many that were too long. These were often found to be selfpenalizing.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A:
This criterion was addressed well by most of the students, with work being coherent and organized to
different extents. In general, they made an attempt to provide a relevant introduction, a rationale, an
explicit aim and some sort of conclusion. They also tried to explain relevant concepts and took
conciseness into consideration. However, some teachers did miss the subtle differentiation between
level 3 and 4, which is about the conciseness and completeness of student work. For instance, very
lengthy tables of data may be relegated to an appendix, with a summary in the text where the
information is used. Similarly, pages after pages of repetitive calculations would affect the
conciseness and flow of the paper; one or two sample calculations would suffice and the rest could be
summarized in a table.
Students should be more careful with the stated aim matching what they write and present in their
work, and the conclusion they reach. If they find themselves unable to write a paper originally
intended because of space constraints or any other reasons, then it would be wise for them to adjust
the intended aim accordingly.
In addition, work that depended on a lot of secondary sources tends to have less coherence and is
more difficult to follow.
It is crucial that quoted information be correctly cited at the point in the exploration where it appears,
both for the flow of the piece and for academic honesty.
Criterion B:
This criterion was appropriately dealt with in most of the explorations. There were plenty of varieties of
mathematical presentation displayed but it is essential that students are reminded that these are to be
appropriate. Most students were able to use appropriate terminology and notations in their work,
including the use of appropriate ICT tools. However, there were students who still used inappropriate
computer or calculator notation (this is not an issue if generated by the software), did not define key
terms and employed inappropriate presentations, like poorly labelled diagrams or badly scaled
graphs. Graphs copied from the Internet were inserted but without any real purpose. Graphs need a
purpose and not just included to "use multiple forms of mathematical representation". Mathematical

Page 2

May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL TZ1

formulas and theorems just taken from the Internet were often included but did not always really add
to the students work.
Criterion C:
This criterion proved to be the most difficult for teachers to assess or interpret and appeared to be the
least understood by both students and teachers. It seems that too many teachers stated that they
saw engagement but this was not supported by the work submitted. They simply assumed that
interest in the topic chosen by the student meant high personal engagement. High marks should not
be awarded to students who just stated how much they enjoyed the topic or who demonstrated
enthusiasm in class, unless this is seen in the exploration itself. Simply stating, "...it interests me..." is
not personal engagement.
Students who explored a common investigation/textbook problem without any personal input or
extension would not usually achieve the higher achievement levels in this criterion. Nevertheless, a
number of teachers did seem to understand this criterion and were able to transmit that information to
their students effectively. Some explorations do lend themselves more readily to high levels for
personal engagement - for example those where students do their own research and data collection.
With the more descriptive or historical topics it is not particularly easy to score highly here.
It is important to note that this criterion cannot be used to penalize late submission of work.
Criterion D:
This criterion was clearly understood well by many teachers and students and there was a wide range
of achievement here. Many students simply described the results in their explorations. They also
sometimes reflected on why they found the exploration interesting or enjoyed learning about it. Less
often did they reflect on the analytical process of exploring. Many reflections were superficial. There
were also cases where students would undertake explorations similar to the old portfolio tasks using
the same questioning technique to reflect on the process. This did not lend itself to meaningful
reflection.
Many students were under the impression that reflection could only come through in the conclusion
and hence missed out on the opportunity of demonstrating substantial evidence of critical reflection
throughout the exploration.
Higher levels were generally awarded to those students who considered further exploration,
discussed implications of results, compared strengths and weaknesses of mathematical approaches
and contemplated different perspectives.
Criterion E:
There was a wide range of achievement in this criterion from the lowest to the highest. Most students
employed relevant mathematics that was commensurate with the level of the course, since the
majority of topics were chosen to allow students to demonstrate at least some mathematics.
Students could be seen using many areas of mathematics from sequences to differential equations. In
general, most teachers were able to determine whether or not the work was commensurate with the
level of the course.
Regression analysis was used extensively but not with thorough understanding demonstrated. There
were cases where the regression model was simply created and applied via technology with very little
justification of their choice of regression model.
Teachers occasionally awarded high marks for work with numerous calculations even if no clear
understanding was shown. In addition just showing the correct answer is not the same as showing
understanding; it must be demonstrated. Students who did an excellent job of explaining their
reasoning throughout their papers would gain the higher marks. A considerable number of students
chose topics where the mathematics involved was clearly beyond their understanding. This was often

Page 3

May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL TZ1

because it had been taken from other sources. Although students did reference these sources, it was
clear that many did not understand what they were doing mathematically.
The mathematics used need only be what is required to support the development of the exploration.
This could be a few small topics or even a single topic from the syllabus. It needs to be made clearer
to the students that it is better to do a few things well rather than trying to do more mathematics badly.
If the mathematics used is relevant to the topic being explored, commensurate with the course, and
understood by the student, then it can achieve a high level.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Teachers need to become familiar with the assessment criteria. There are numerous
examples located in the Teacher Support Material (TSM) on the Online Curriculum Centre
(OCC), and they should familiarize themselves with the goals of the exploration, and how
achievement levels for the new criteria are awarded by referring to the annotated student
work in the TSM.
One of the major issues was the lack of annotation and/or comments specific to individual
student work provided by the teachers. In many cases, where comments were provided,
these tended to be paraphrased from the descriptors. Teachers are reminded that it states in
the TSM that one of their responsibilities is to assess the work accurately, annotating it
appropriately to indicate where achievement levels have been awarded. This includes
marking the mathematics and identifying any errors. These comments greatly help to confirm
the level awarded by the teacher. Without supporting comments, changes are more likely.
Teachers should provide relevant background information about their courses where
appropriate.
Teachers need to follow the procedures in the guide which allows students to submit a first
draft. This way, teachers can assess the suitability of the topic, check the general
organization and coherence, orally test the students knowledge of the mathematics and most
importantly, ensure that the work is that of the student and not just a regurgitation of Wolfram,
Wikipedia and other math sites.
If students are going to type their work, they need to use an appropriate equation editor to
avoid errors in notation. Students should not insert screenshots of equations and formulas
from Wikipedia or Wolfram. This habit is a good indicator that the work is not their own. They
would also benefit greatly from explicit instruction in the use of those tools.
Teachers should discourage students from choosing common or textbook topics without a
clear plan on how to make them into a proper exploration (with enough relevant mathematics
in it) since these tended to be research based with very little personalization or creativity
demonstrated. Yet teachers should not predefine certain topics for their students or limit them
to a certain area of mathematics.
Teachers need to emphasize the importance of clear referencing and proper citation in
student work. Many students provided a bibliography or work cited page at the end of their
documents without identifying how these resources have been used in the body of their work.
Students should be guided to cite all resources used in the body of their work including all
data and images from secondary sources.
Teachers must annotate and write comments on student work. Those schools where teachers
did this were more likely to have scores confirmed, as would be expected; the reasoning
behind the scores awarded was readily apparent.
Teachers could issue practice explorations to hone/practice certain specific skills.
Students should be reminded of the guidelines that the exploration should be between 6 and
12 pages long.
Schools should be strongly discouraged from mandating a particular type of exploration.
Rather students should be free to explore an area of their choice.

Further comments
There were instances of potential plagiarism, with many students using sources such as

Page 4

May 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL TZ1

Wolfram or Wikipedia to copy content, formulas or ideas.

The mathematical content was often lacking even though the exploration itself was well
written and scored well.
The general feeling after seeing the variety of explorations is that this new IA has provided the
students with a great opportunity to explore what they wished, and given them the opportunity
to appreciate mathematics in their own way.
The exemplar materials and the frequently asked questions in the TSM have been/will be
updated after the first live session. Teachers should make sure that they read these
documents carefully, along with the updated guidance on applying the criteria.

Paper one
Component grade boundaries
Grade:
Mark range:

0 - 17

18 - 34

35 - 46

47 - 56

57 - 65

66 - 75

76 - 90

General comments
The areas of the programme and examination which appeared difficult for
the candidates
Integration, definite and indefinite
Probability, combined and conditional
Application of discriminant
Direction vectors of lines
Infinite geometric series in a generalized context

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Quadratic functions
Arithmetic sequences and series
Logarithms
Derivatives of polynomials
Intersection of lines in vector form
Probability on a tree diagram

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment of

individual questions
Question 1: the quadratic function and its graph
Candidates showed great familiarity with the quadratic function and the vertex. A common error was
to give a negative value for h . In solving for a, many found the substitution and subsequent algebra to
be straightforward. Occasionally a candidate would expand the quadratic before substituting the given
values, which led to a more burdensome expression.

Page 5

November 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics HL

Internal assessment
Component grade boundaries

Grade:
Mark range:

0-2

3-5

6-8

9 - 11

12 - 14

15 - 16

17 - 20

The range and suitability of the work submitted

There was a wide range of interesting topics and some schools are to be commended on the
guidance given to students. Tasks included modelling real life situations and others provided
a synopsis of mathematics that was found during the research process. Among the latter,
common explorations included the Birthday Problem, the Buffon needle, game theory, solving
the Rubiks cube and probabilities in a poker game. Although all these were suitable some
topics did not allow students to show personal engagement apart from understanding the
topic. Some explorations were also far too long, and sometimes too complex for peers to
understand and also for the author to demonstrate good understanding of the mathematics
involved.
It was also noted that some explorations were written in very small font to make them look
concise, whereas others were very short with large diagrams, written in larger font and
double-spaced.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A
In general students performed well in this criterion; however some explorations were far too
long and therefore not concise. In some cases students had a rationale that was made up
and not genuine. Some students did not write a clear aim and this often led to an incoherent
piece of work that was not complete since they could not write a conclusion to put it all
together.

Criterion B
Language, notation and terminology were generally correctly used. Students also used
technology effectively and included diagrams, graphs and tables in the appropriate places,
along the work. A single notational error can be condoned but repeated use throughout the
exploration should be penalized. Marks were lost when students did a modelling exploration
and did not define key terms.

Page 2

November 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics HL

Criterion C
More candidates are aware of the requirements for this criterion, and some will give contrived
reasons for choosing the topic thinking that this might give an extra mark. In many cases this
rationale was not supported in the rest of the exploration. A number of explorations were
mere reproductions of papers found on the Internet or common advanced textbook problems.
In this case students would receive some marks for mastering new techniques but it is difficult
to justify top achievement levels. Exploration in a mathematical topic occurs when candidates
use something that has already been explained or systematized as a tool to approaching a
new question that they themselves have come up with. For example, candidates are allowed
to recreate a Koch snowflake as long as they generate their own fractal. Some teachers are
still under the impression that Personal Engagement is a measure of effort so that the choice
of achievement levels becomes subjective.

Criterion D
A number of students did not offer any meaningful or critical reflection but wrote a conclusion
summarizing results. Teachers often marked high on this criterion, which then led to
achievement levels being marked down by the moderator. Students and teachers need to
understand that for high achievement levels reflection needs to take place throughout the
exploration, through candidates isolating themselves from the problem, to see it from another
point of view and to analyse its limits, the connections it may have to other similar problems,
other implications that might arise, aspects that could have been considered but were not,
applications to other real world problems or contexts, discussing the techniques being used,
the validity of the results obtained etc. Once more, students who reproduced common
textbook problems presented work that contained only superficial reflection.

Criterion E
Mathematical content was varied and while some explorations contained extensive
mathematics others were very descriptive. Most explorations were also in the form of a mini
research paper with mathematical content being reproduced, sometimes without
demonstrating good understanding. In some cases students demonstrated an understanding
of the technique being used but no significant understanding as to why the particular
technique works. Some modelling explorations incorporated fitting data into a model, without
any justification for choosing that model or development of the mathematical model used.
Students need to be well guided when choosing their topics. It is sometimes easier to
achieve good levels using simple HL mathematics content than going beyond the syllabus.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
The exploration needs to be introduced early on and referred to frequently with references to
appropriate topics as they arise during the learning experience. Teachers must dedicate the
number of hours specified in the programme to guide the candidates throughout the process.
It is important that teachers highlight the importance of proper referencing and citations.

Page 3

November 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics HL

Teachers are encouraged to read the new publications on the OCC; i.e., Academic Honesty
in the IB educational context and Effective citing and referencing.
It is recommended that teachers provide candidates with mathematical stimuli in various
forms, including but not limited to texts, web pages, specialized bibliographies, movies, video
clips, photographs, paintings, graphic design, games of chance, board games, experiments,
magic tricks, etc The investigations that were part of the former internal assessment
component may also serve as a source of ideas for candidates to develop their explorations
creatively and constructively.
Students need to understand the 5 criteria thoroughly before starting to develop their own
exploration. They need to be guided to choose a topic wisely; one that incorporates
Mathematics that allows them to demonstrate full understanding, and which is commensurate
with the course. The topic should allow them to demonstrate personal engagement by
possibly giving them the avenue to be original and creative. The topic should also be focused
and the aim achievable within the set number of pages (6 to 12).
Teachers should refrain from making anecdotal comments about student commitment to the
exploration process, as this has no bearing on criterion C. Personal engagement should be
evident in the students own work. All student work should contain evidence of marking with
errors being pointed out; this makes it easier for the moderator to confirm the teachers
marks.

Further comments
Although it is not stated that teachers need to supply information regarding material before
the exploration process was started, it is highly recommended that this background
information be given as it helps the moderator put the development of the exploration into
perspective.
It might be useful for candidates to practice assessing explorations that are available in the
TSM. This gives them an idea of what is expected of them in a project of this nature and it
will ensure that candidates understand all 5 criteria. Class time might even be spent
developing a group exploration with the help of the teacher as a means of understanding the
methodology involved.
Having said all this the moderation of Internal Assessment with the wide variety of creative
and interesting explorations continues to be an enjoyable task for moderators.

Page 4

November 2014 subject reports

MATHEMATICS SL
Overall grade boundaries
Standard level
Grade:
Mark range:

0 - 17

18 - 36

37 - 49

50 - 61

62 - 73

74 - 85

86 - 100

Internal assessment
Component grade boundaries

Grade:
Mark range:

0-2

3-5

6-8

9 - 11

12 - 14

15 - 17

18 - 20

The range and suitability of the work submitted

A wide range of appropriate and engaging topics with mixed quality was submitted, leading to
a range of marks from 1 to 20. Explorations that were suitable tended to have more original
aims that had clear personal relevance and foci. Many students still submit explorations with
research questions similar to textbook problems, or they were not focused enough to be dealt
with adequately within 10 to 12 pages. For instance, there were still many attempts on topics
like the Golden Ratio, Monty Hall Problem, Pascals Triangle, Handshake Problem and Koch
Snowflake. These candidates generally produced work that was a summary of common facts
and/or a general history of the topic. There were also many candidates who produced work
that read like a common textbook example or explanation. In the Koch Snowflake, for
example, student work mirrored the old IB Task, showing no personalization or extension. In
both cases candidates tended to not score well.
The use of technology to develop regression functions in an attempt to model data was very
common. Some schools included samples that were all modelling tasks and generally
following the old portfolio style. Although there is nothing wrong with these tasks, per se, it
would be disappointing if students felt limited to these or were specifically directed to do these
by their teacher. In some cases these tasks were done effectively with suitable mathematical
support. However there were cases where the regression model was simply created and

Page 1

November 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL

applied via technology with very little understanding shown. It is hoped that students will be
able to justify their choice of regression model and be able to reflect critically on their choice.
The students generally adhered to the suggestion that the exploration be between 6 and 12
pages long. However there were many that were very long. These were often found to be
self-penalising.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A
Most students scored well on this criterion. Most of the work was well organized and
systematically presented. They presented some sort of introduction, attempted an aim, made
a conscious effort to organize the work and provided a conclusion at the end. Students who
did poorly in this criterion usually did not have a focused aim and thus could not present a
coherent development for the work. Also some students provided particularly contrived
rationales or simply stated that they found the topic interesting, which is insufficient for a
rationale. There were quite a few candidates that provided page after page of repetitive
calculations that hurt the conciseness and flow of the paper. Students should provide only
one or two sample calculations in the body and all other similar calculations should be
summarized in a table. Coherence was generally good but at times the work flowed poorly,
with missing explanations and poor linkage between subsections.

Criterion B
Presentation was generally done well. Most students had made a conscious effort to present
their work appropriately and with a variety of mathematical presentations. They used an
equation editor or other mathematical software to enter proper mathematical expressions.
The use of appropriate diagrams with clear labelling was often a problem. It may be that
tables and graphs are more easily generated by computer while diagrams take more effort.
Many graphs and diagrams were cut and pasted from Internet sources and often these were
without any real purpose. Graphs need a purpose and not just included to "use multiple forms
of mathematical representation". Mathematical formulas and theorems just taken from the
Internet were often included but did not always really add to the students work.

Criterion C
Many students made an effort to make the work their own by doing their own research,
collecting their own data and providing convincing personal rationales for choosing the topics.
On the other hand, there were quite a few students who did not make the exploration their
own and only did descriptive work. Students who used textbook problems and basically cutand-pasted from resources in the public domain often did poorly in this criterion. Similarly,
there were still a good number of teachers awarding high marks for candidates who simply
stated how much they enjoyed the topic or for the enthusiasm they demonstrated even
though there was no evidence in the work of good personal engagement. It is important to
note that this criterion cannot be used to penalise late submission of work.

Page 2

November 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL

Criterion D
Many students could produce some reflections and attempted to make these meaningful.
They would at least consider the relevance of the mathematics they were using or
investigating. Unfortunately, only a few were capable of producing critical and substantial
reflections throughout their explorations. Nevertheless, this did not stop some teachers from
awarding the top level for student work which simply summarized the results.

Criterion E
There was a wide variety of mathematics used in the explorations and a wide range of levels
of understanding. The majority of the students were able to produce explorations that are
commensurate with the mathematics SL syllabus and relevant to the tasks. However often
they were not able to show that they understood the concepts well. For instance, the
mathematics appeared to be regurgitated from textbooks or the internet and not really applied
to the question in hand. Applying it to the students own work needs to be encouraged. Only a
few challenged themselves by going beyond the mathematics SL syllabus. The success rates
of these attempts varied.
Students and teachers should be aware that just showing the correct answer is not the same
as showing understanding, it must be demonstrated.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future

candidates
Teachers should ensure that they are familiar with all the relevant information in the guide and
the Teacher Support Material (TSM), especially the teacher responsibilities in the TSM. In
particular, the following points should be noted.
Teachers should go over some of the exemplars in the TSM and mark them with their
students so that the students will have a better idea on the expectations of each
criterion.
Teachers should encourage originality of work, particularly the idea of making the
work their own. They should stress the idea of applying the mathematics that
students have discovered to their own work.
Students should be guided to cite all resources used in the body of the work. These
include images and data that are used. A bibliography is not sufficient because it
does not inform the reader how and where these resources have been used in the
exploration.
Students should be guided to produce explorations that have clear and focused aims,
with evidence supporting their personal engagement.
Teachers need to follow the suggested procedures in the TSM which allows students
to submit a first draft. This way, teachers can assess the suitability of the topic, check
the general organization and coherence, orally test the students knowledge of the
mathematics and most importantly, ensure that the work is that of the student and not
just a regurgitation of Wolfram, Wikipedia and other sites.
Schools should be strongly discouraged from mandating a particular type of
exploration. Rather students should be free to explore an area, where this leads to a

Page 3

November 2014 subject reports

Group 5, Mathematics SL

decent exploration, of their choice.

It is extremely helpful to the moderation process if teachers annotate and comment
on the student work as well as on the form 5/EXCS. Teachers must indicate that they
have checked mathematical processes, and noted if they are correct or not.
Where there is more than one teacher, it is essential that internal standardization
between teachers takes place.

Standard level paper one

Component grade boundaries

Grade:
Mark range:

0 - 17

18 - 35

36 - 46

47 - 56

57 - 66

67 - 76

77 - 90

The areas of the programme and examination which appeared

difficult for the candidates
Integration using substitution and/or inspection
Expected value of a fair game
Sketching functions, including important features of the graph
Trigonometric ratios of obtuse angles
Conditional and binomial probability
Applying properties of logarithms
Vectors and vector equation of a line

The areas of the programme and examination in which candidates

appeared well prepared
Applying formulas for terms and sums of an arithmetic sequence
Sum of a probability distribution
Integration and differentiation of polynomial functions
Solving quadratic equations
Simple probability and tree diagrams

The strengths and weaknesses of the candidates in the treatment

of individual questions
Question 1: quadratics
Parts (a) and (b) of this question were answered quite well by nearly all candidates, with only
a few factoring errors in part (b). In part (c), although most candidates were familiar with the
general parabolic shape of the graph, many placed the vertex at the y-intercept (0, -6), and
very few candidates considered the endpoints of the function with the given domain.

Page 4