Criterion A ‘The key to this criterion and to the exploration as a whole is @ clear and precise aim as this facilitates the coherence, concision and completeness of a candidate's 1A. ‘A common shortcoming is the inclusion of work that is not relevant meaning the work is not concise. ‘Coherence and organization were not generally a problem. However, figures and graphs should be placed next to related work. Itis not necessary to include extensive tables of data, nor repetitive calculations, in the main body of the exploration, Lengthy tables of data may be relegated to an appendix, with a summary in the text where theinformation 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 atable. Criterion B ‘Approximation signs must be used for all rounded values. Computer and calculator notation should not be used, All variables should be clearly defined and consistently used. Degree of accuracy for rounded values should be discussed in relation to the context of the exploration. Graphs and tables included should be commented on. The axes of a graph must be labelled and the scale and numbers on the axes of graphs should be easy to read and clearly visible. This, and the size of the graph, were particularly problematic when screenshots were used (calculator, Geagebra, Desmos). Criterion ¢ Some candidates are producing work that looks like @ textbook exercise and lacks creative and independent thinking. Common textbook topics do not show the expected personal engagement and should be discouraged unless an interesting extension or perspective is added toit. ‘Simply recounting a single incident/lfe event that triggered the candidate's interest in the chosen topic is unlikely to be sufficient to support significant personal engagement. Engagement with the mathematics itself needs to be seen, 2s opposed to just an interestin the topic. Candidates collecting theirown primary data, running simulations, exploring new mathematics as well as relating to their own experiences score better on this criterion. There are still teachers who award levels 3 or 4 without much evidence in the paper itself. Criterion D ‘Almost all candidates have included some reflection, but few of them reach level 3 here. The best papers have some reflection at each stage and use results to inform their nextsteps. “Substantial evidence is likely to mean that reflection is present throughout the exploration” andit is worth noting that itis rare ‘that reflections just in the conclusion will be of a sufficiently critical and high quality, to justify level 3. For critical reflection candidates should reflect on the of their results and the /, strength, weaknesses and limitations of the mathematical processes used (wht conditions and assumptions do the models and techniques require? What happens if these conditions and assumptions are relaxed/do not hold? etc). Critical reflection remains rare. Criterion E There are still some, albeit few, papers with no mathematics at the level of the program and hence ‘cannot reach beyond level 2. However, generally, relevant mathematics was used, and the majority were ‘commensurate with the SL course. The main problem in this criterion is that some candidates are still using technology to produce their models without fully explaining their choice of function. For example, anumber of candidates are applying Pearson's correlation coefficient without first considering if scatter plot of the data suggests that a linear model is appropriate.