The Math IA is marked out of 20, split across five criteria. Most students read the official criteria descriptors once, nod, and then write the whole exploration without checking back against them — which is exactly how marks get left on the table. Here's what each one is actually asking for.
This is about whether someone could follow your exploration from start to finish without getting lost. Is there a clear aim stated early? Does the work build logically? Are graphs, tables, and calculations labelled and placed near the text that refers to them, rather than dumped in an appendix?
This checks whether you're using correct mathematical language, notation, and terminology consistently — not just getting the right numbers. Defining variables clearly, using appropriate notation throughout, and expressing results precisely all matter here, independent of whether your maths is advanced or simple.
Examiners are looking for evidence the topic is genuinely yours — not just "I chose this because I like football," but signs of independent thinking: why you made specific choices, what you found surprising, or how you adapted your approach when something didn't work as expected.
This is one of the most commonly under-scored criteria. A single "in conclusion, this was interesting" sentence at the end is not reflection. Strong reflection happens throughout — commenting on the limitations of your model, what a result actually means in context, and what you'd explore next if you continued.
This covers both correctness and how well-suited the maths is to the level (SL or HL) you're being assessed at. A technically correct exploration that only uses content well below your course level will still lose marks here — the maths needs to be commensurate with your level, and demonstrated with real understanding, not just applied mechanically.
Almost every criterion rewards depth over breadth. An exploration that goes deep into one well-chosen technique, with genuine reflection on its limitations, consistently outscores one that touches many topics superficially to "show off" a wider range of maths.
A practical way to self-check before submitting
- Read your introduction alone. Does it clearly state what you're exploring and why? If a stranger read only this paragraph, would they know what to expect?
- Search your own document for "I" and "my." If personal engagement only appears in the introduction and conclusion, it's probably too thin throughout the middle.
- Check every graph and table has a caption and units. This alone catches a surprising number of Presentation and Communication losses.
- Look for at least one place where something didn't go as planned — a limitation, an unexpected result, an assumption you had to make — and make sure you discussed it, not just noted it.
Not sure what topic to explore?
Get personalised IA topic suggestions based on your interests, course and level.
✦ Try the IA Topic GeneratorFrequently asked questions
Which criterion is worth the most marks?
Marks are distributed across all five criteria rather than weighted toward one — consistently scoring reasonably across all five tends to produce a better result than excelling at one while neglecting another.
Do I need HL-level maths to get a high mark at HL?
Criterion E specifically expects maths commensurate with your level, so yes — an HL exploration using only SL-level techniques throughout will typically be capped lower on this criterion, regardless of how well it's executed.