No apparent attempt has been made to plan the work

Little independent work has been done.

Some attempt has been made to solve the problem, but only at a simple level.

The work is poorly organised, showing little overall plan.

A strategy has been outlined and an attempt made to follow it.

A routine approach, with little evidence of the candidate’s own ideas being used.

Appropriate techniques have been used; although some of these may have been suggested by others, the development and use of them is the candidate’s own.

The candidate has worked independently, devising and using techniques appropriate to the task.

The candidate is aware of the wider implications of the task and has attempted to extend it. The outcome of the task is clearly explained.

The candidate has worked independently, the only assistance received being from reference books or by asking questions arising from the candidate’s own ideas.

The problem is solved, with generalisations where appropriate.

The task has been extended and the candidate has demonstrated the wider implications.

The work is very largely descriptive or pictorial.

More advanced mathematical methods may have been attempted, but not necessarily appropriately or successfully.

The candidate has developed the topic mathematically beyond the usual and obvious. Mathematical explanations are concise.

The candidate has employed, relevantly, some concepts and methods not usually associated with the task in hand.

Some mathematical originality has been shown.

Diagrams and tables are poor and mostly inaccurate.

Diagrams and tables are adequate, but units are often omitted or incorrect.

Diagrams are neat and accurate, but routine; and tables contain information with few errors.

The candidate has shown some idea of the appropriate degree of accuracy for the data used.

Units are used correctly.

The candidate has shown an understanding of magnitude and degree of accuracy when making measurements or performing calculations.

Accurate diagrams are included, which support the written work.

Accurate diagrams are included which positively enhance the work, and support the development of the argument.

The degree of accuracy is always correct and appropriate.

Undue emphasis is given to minor aspects of the task, whilst important aspects are not given adequate attention.

The work is presented in the order in which it happened to be completed; no attempt is made to re-organise it into a logical order.

A reasonable summary of the work completed is given, though with some lack of clarity and/or faults of emphasis.

The candidate has made some attempt to organise the work into a logical order.

The work has been arranged in a logical order.

Adequate justification has been given for any generalisations made.

The summary is clear, but the candidate has found some difficulty in linking the various different parts of the task together.

Conclusions and generalisations are supported by reasoned statements which refer back to results obtained in the main body of the work.

Disparate parts of the task have been brought together in a competent summary.

Mathematical and written language has been used to present the argument; good use has been made of symbolic, graphical and diagrammatic evidence in support.

The summary is clear and concise, with reference to the original aims; there are also good suggestions of ways in which the work might be extended, or applied in other areas.

Unable to communicate any sense of having learned something by undertaking the original task.

Can answer questions about the problem and the methods used in its solution.

Shows competence in the mathematical methods used in the work.

Little or no evidence of having thought about possible extensions to the work or the application of methods to different situations.

Has ideas for the extension of the problem, and the applicability of the methods used in its solution to different situations.