IB MYP Mathematics: The Four Assessment Criteria in Practice – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, modelling the kind of evidence-evaluation judgment MYP Mathematics’s assessment actually requires. They are not reproduced IB material – the IB holds copyright in its own subject guides and exemplars. Use these alongside official exemplars available through your school.

Related: Criteria in Practice study guide and revision notes.

---

Section A

1. Name the four assessment criteria for MYP Mathematics. [4]

2. State the four mathematical branches Criterion A evidence should be drawn from across more than one of them. [4]

---

Section B

3. A student correctly solves ten practice quadratic equations presented in standard textbook form, but struggles when given a word problem describing a garden’s area that requires setting up a quadratic equation first.

(a) Explain why success on the ten practice equations alone does not demonstrate top-band Criterion A evidence. [3] (b) Describe what additional skill the student needs to practise. [3]

4. A student’s investigation into a number pattern presents only the final general formula, with a note “found by trial and error,” and no working shown.

(a) Identify what is missing relative to top-band Criterion B evidence. [2] (b) Describe what the student would need to add. [3]

5. Two students solve the same simultaneous equations problem and both reach the correct answer. One shows only “x = 3, y = 2” with no working. The other labels each equation, shows each algebraic step, and concludes with a sentence stating both solution values.

(a) Explain why only the second response demonstrates top-band Criterion C evidence, even though both reached the correct answer. [3] (b) Describe two more specific features top-band communication should include. [2]

---

Section C

6. A student models a small business’s monthly costs using a linear equation, calculates a cost prediction for a much higher production volume than the business has ever operated at, and submits this prediction as their final answer with no further comment.

(a) Explain why this response is unlikely to reach top band on Criterion D. [3] (b) Describe what the student would need to add. [3]

7. Explain why treating the four assessment criteria as fully independent skills to revise in isolation is a mistake, using a specific example of one coursework task that could naturally generate evidence for two criteria at once. [6]

---

Worked answers

1. Knowing and understanding (A), Investigating patterns (B), Communicating (C), Applying mathematics in real-life contexts (D). [4]

2. Numerical and abstract reasoning [1], thinking with models [1], spatial reasoning [1], reasoning with data [1]. [4]

3. (a) Top-band Criterion A evidence specifically requires applying mathematical knowledge successfully to both familiar AND unfamiliar situations. Solving ten practised, standard-form equations demonstrates competence with a familiar problem type, but does not demonstrate the knowledge transfers to an unfamiliar situation – which is exactly what the word problem is testing, and exactly where the student is struggling. [3] (b) The student needs to practise translating a real-world scenario described in words into a mathematical equation before solving it – identifying which quantities in the scenario correspond to which variables, and which relationship in the scenario becomes which equation – rather than only practising equations that are already presented in solvable mathematical form. [3]

4. (a) Missing is the reasoning process itself: how the pattern was noticed, what conjecture was formed, and how or whether that conjecture was tested and justified. “Found by trial and error” with no working shown does not demonstrate the risk-taking, inquiring and critical-thinking process top-band Criterion B evidence specifically requires. [2] (b) The student would need to show the process of examining the pattern’s early terms, explain what regularity or pattern was noticed (for example, in the differences between consecutive terms), state the conjecture this observation led to, and show the conjecture being tested against at least one further case before being presented as a justified general rule. [3]

5. (a) Criterion C assesses the clarity and completeness of the mathematical communication itself, independent of whether the final answer is correct. The first response provides no way for a reader to follow how the answer was reached, uses no visible mathematical notation or labelled steps, and does not state the solution in a complete concluding statement. The second response shows all three, and top-band communication requires all three: a correct final answer on its own does not demonstrate them. [3] (b) Any two reasonable features, for example: consistent and correct use of mathematical notation throughout (rather than shorthand or inconsistent symbols); clearly labelled diagrams or graphs where relevant to the problem; and a logical, step-by-step structure that a reader could follow and verify without needing to infer any missing intermediate step. [2]

6. (a) Top-band Criterion D evidence requires drawing valid conclusions and reflecting critically on results, including their reasonableness and the model’s limitations – not just producing a numerical prediction. Extrapolating a linear cost model far beyond the range of volumes the business has ever actually operated at, with no comment on whether a linear relationship remains realistic at that scale, produces a technically calculated but critically unreflective answer, which is exactly what falls short of top band on this criterion. [3] (b) The student would need to add a critical reflection on the prediction’s reasonableness – for example, questioning whether costs would really continue rising at a constant linear rate at a much higher production volume, or whether factors such as bulk discounts, additional staffing costs, or capacity constraints might make the true relationship non-linear at that scale – explicitly discussing the model’s limitations rather than presenting the extrapolated number as a straightforward, unqualified prediction. [3]

7. Each criterion is scored on its own separate 1-8 scale (the four descriptor bands; the MYP subject-group guide additionally recognises a level of 0 below the lowest band, so a criterion’s actual attainable range is 0-8, and the four-criterion total is 0-32, not 4-32), but a single well-designed coursework task is often built to generate evidence relevant to more than one criterion simultaneously, so revising the criteria as entirely separate, unconnected skills risks producing work that satisfies one criterion while accidentally neglecting another the same task was also meant to assess. A mathematical investigation task illustrates this directly: the investigative process itself – noticing a pattern, forming and testing a conjecture – generates Criterion B evidence, while how clearly and completely that process is written up, with correct notation and a logical structure a reader can follow, generates Criterion C evidence at the very same time, from the very same piece of work. A student who focuses revision only on “getting the right formula” (Criterion B’s eventual output) while neglecting how that process is documented and communicated (Criterion C) can undermine their own mark on a task that was always going to be assessed on both criteria together. [6]

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Mathematics, from 2020, first assessment 2022 – the same source cited by the study guide and revision notes. Verified 2026-09-06.