IB Maths IA criteria explained

This is our plain-words guide to the five Maths IA criteria for students on the current courses (exams up to November 2028), at SL and HL, in both Analysis and Approaches and Applications and Interpretation. We have not copied the IB's wording or descriptors. Use this page to understand the intent, and use the IB's own criteria, which your teacher can show you, as the official reference. New maths courses from 2029 change the criteria, so check which applies to you.

Total 20 marks, worth 20% of your final grade at SL and HL. The recommended length is 12 to 20 pages. E carries the most marks: 6 of 20.

A. Presentation (4 marks)

What it rewards. Organisation. A reader should see an aim, a sensible order and a conclusion, so nothing needs explaining out loud. It is not about decoration; it is about being easy to follow.

What moves an exploration up. Give the exploration an aim in the first page and return to it in the conclusion. Use headings and a logical order. Cut what does not serve the aim. Keep the length within the recommended range, because a longer piece is not a better one.

Common slips. No stated aim; background maths that fills pages but never links to the question; a conclusion that does not answer the aim; padding with screenshots to reach the page count.

Checklist

• Can I state my aim in one sentence on page one?
• Does each section lead into the next?
• Does my conclusion answer the aim?
• Is every page doing a job?

B. Mathematical communication (4 marks)

What it rewards. Whether the maths is written clearly and correctly: defined variables, proper notation, labelled graphs and tables, and working that a classmate could follow.

What moves an exploration up. Define each symbol the first time you use it. Write maths the way it appears in your textbook, not as calculator or spreadsheet syntax. Label axes and units, caption figures, and explain what each graph shows. Round sensibly and keep the working that matters.

Common slips. Calculator notation such as "^" and "E"; graphs with no axis labels; tables pasted without comment; variables that change name halfway; code or output screenshots left unexplained.

Checklist

• Have I defined every variable and symbol?
• Is my notation what a mathematician would write?
• Do all graphs and tables have labels, units and a caption?
• Have I explained each result in words?

C. Personal engagement (3 marks)

What it rewards. Evidence that this is your exploration: your question, your data, your angle, your way through the problem. It is about ownership more than enthusiasm.

What moves an exploration up. Use a context from your own life or interests, collect or choose your own data, and try something that is not in a textbook. Show decisions: why you chose this model, why you changed your approach. A plain statement of why the topic matters to you, supported by the work, helps more than adjectives.

Common slips. A topic anyone could have copied from a website; "I am interested in" with nothing to back it up; data downloaded without any choice of what to use and why; the same method as a worked textbook example.

Checklist

• Could someone else have written this exploration, or is it clearly mine?
• Did I make and explain at least two decisions?
• Is there something original in the data or the question?
• Does my interest show in the work rather than in a sentence?

D. Reflection (3 marks)

What it rewards. Thinking about your results, not just reporting them. It rewards asking what the results mean, what limits them and what you would change or extend.

What moves an exploration up. Reflect at the points where something happens: after a model fits poorly, after an unexpected value, after you compare two methods. Say what you conclude from that, not just that it happened. End with a considered evaluation of the whole, including strengths, limitations and possible extensions.

Common slips. A single paragraph of reflection at the end; reflection that only says the results "matched expectations"; generic limitations such as "human error" with no link to the data; praising the model without testing it.

Checklist

• Is there reflection in the body, not only at the end?
• Do I say what each result means for my aim?
• Have I named specific limits of the model or data?
• Have I said what I would do next and why?

E. Use of mathematics (6 marks)

What it rewards. The most heavily weighted criterion. It looks at whether the maths is at the right level for your course, whether it is used correctly and whether you understand it well enough to use it in your own context.

What moves an exploration up. Choose a question where the maths goes beyond the routine for your course. At HL, criterion E expects HL-level maths, so an exploration built on SL ideas will limit the mark. Show that you understand why a method works, not only how to apply it. Check results for sense, compare methods, and justify assumptions.

Common slips. Maths below the course level; copying a derivation with no use of it; correct steps with no reasoning; errors in working; a technique used because the software offered it.

Checklist

• Is the core maths at the right level for my course (HL-level at HL)?
• Can I explain why each method works?
• Have I checked that my answers make sense?
• Have I justified my assumptions and tested them?

Putting it together

Two of the five criteria, B and E, together carry 10 of the 20 marks and are largely about the mathematics itself. The others reward the shape of the work: how clearly it is presented, how much of it is yours and how well you think about it. That is why the best explorations start with a question that needs real maths, not a topic that merely sounds mathematical.

If you need a topic, see 40 Maths IA ideas. To see how a plan connects to the criteria, try the annotated outlines. The Maths IA guide covers the overview.

Written by Ejaz Ahmad, IB teacher since 2015. Checked against the IB's published guide, October 2026. Photon Resources is independent of the IB.