Criterion

Name

Mark

Justification

A

Presentation (4)

2

On p.3 the student lists a number of aims. The relationship between them/how they link together to make a coherent whole, is unclear. It reads like a selection of mini-investigations rather than one, larger, unified whole making it difficult, at times, to follow. The exploration just qualifies for ‘some’ coherence and ‘some’ organization with a consistent theme of the number of words per song and the percentage of unique/repeated words.

B

Mathematical Communication (4)

2

The inclusion of a y-axes on the box and whisker diagram and absence of any scale on the x-axes contrasts with the correct use of notation and terminology (hypothesis tests, critical values etc.) for the X² test. There is some consideration given to appropriate degree of accuracy implicitly in the rounded values used for the mean and standard deviation results used in the body of the work (not the screenshots from software) and in the X² test value used. Overall the work just qualifies for “some relevant and appropriate” mathematical communication.  

C

Personal Engagement (3)

1

Too much of the material used in this exploration is copy and pasted from external sources. No references are given for the sources of the students excel database which makes it difficult to assess the personal engagement required to build it.

D

Reflection

(3)

1

The reflections on the line graphs, bar chart, pie chart, box and whisker diagrams and X²  test are best described as a “simple description of results”.

E SL

Use of Mathematics

(6)

3

The  X²  test is commensurate with the level of the course, as is the ‘production’ of box and whisker diagram. However, both show evidence of a ‘limited’ understanding with errors present in the calculations/assumptions made.

E HL

Use of Mathematics

(6)

2

Some relevant mathematics is used which is partially correct (e.g. expected frequencies less than 5 on the X² test) and demonstrates a limited understanding.