#FURTHER MATHS IB TEXTBOOK FULL#

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 being evident in the student work. Some explorations lacked the definition of key terms used. The teacher sometimes condoned the misuse of computer notation this lead to a change in the achievement level awarded. Sometimes graphs lacked labelling, and tables had no headings. Graphs and tables were often provided but not commented on. Students did well in general on this criterion. A footnote referring to the bibliography is not enough and may lead to a decision of malpractice. Any paraphrased information needs to be cited at the point in the exploration where it is used. Works that were based on typical text book problems and depended a lot on sources tended to be incoherent and were difficult to follow. Most explorations were complete and concise, however, some were far too long. Some teachers seem to believe that subheadings indicating “Aim”, “Rationale” etc., are required in order to achieve top levels. In general students performed well against this criterion. The most popular topic explored was the “Parabolic Trajectory” and the “Catenary equation”. Modelling explorations based on Physics problems were also abundant. A few of the students however demonstrated thorough understanding and managed to personalize their explorations. Some repeated topics were seen like “The Monty Hall Problem”, “Rubic Cube Mathematics” or “Mathematics behind the Pokemon game”.Ī number of explorations were based on common textbooks problems and demonstrated little or superficial understanding of the mathematical concepts being explored. On the other hand a few explorations were too short and included very little mathematical content. Some of the explorations were too long, sometimes because the scope of the exploration was not focused enough. This requirement needs to be made clearly known to all teachers otherwise students will risk a malpractice decision. Unfortunately many explorations lacked citations. 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. The rest of the text (italic) is taken from the IB report here. These are after all being made by the people who will be (ultimately) grading your coursework. I would recommend reading the below comments very very carefully. Because this was the first year students have had to do this type of exploration there are a large number of comments from the IB giving guidance for how teachers and students can improve their grades in the future. The IB have just released their marking report for the May 2014 maths explorations. IB Feedback for May 2014’s HL Explorations (applicable in nearly all parts to SL) From teacher discussions, this year’s IAs for HL (summer 2014) seem to have been moderated down quite a few points – and as a result the IB have released further clarifications about marking criteria.

#FURTHER MATHS IB TEXTBOOK FULL#

It is essential that you read the SL and HL guidance from the IB prior to starting your IA maths exploration – this linked site gives the full list of assessment criteria you will be judged against and also gives 9 full examples of investigations students have done.

That’s a huge difference which could easily drop you an IB grade. If you fail to read everything below carefully it could make the difference between getting 17/20 and getting 11/20.

The biggest mistake students make is not paying enough (or any) attention to the below recommendations. It is essential that you read all the guidance below, as well as clicking on the links to the information from the IB. IB Guidance on Maths Explorations – Very Important

Further Maths Ib Textbook