How many marks is the IB Design Technology IA worth?

For first assessment in 2027, the Design Technology IA is marked out of 33 marks at both SL and HL. Criterion A is worth 9 marks, while Criteria B, C, D and E are each worth 6 marks. The same task and criteria apply at both levels. The IA contributes 40% of the final subject result at SL and 30% at HL. Students completing the legacy course must use its different 36-mark SL or 54-mark HL structure instead.

Is the Design Technology IA marked by my teacher or the IB?

Your teacher initially marks the design project using the official IB criteria. The IB then externally moderates a sample of work from your school to check whether the marking standard is appropriate. Moderation can lead to an adjustment across the school's marks if the sample indicates that the criteria were applied too generously or severely. This is why your teacher needs to award marks that can be defended with visible evidence. Clear labelling, precise annotations and traceable decisions make that evidence easier to verify.

Do SL and HL students use the same Design Technology IA criteria?

Under the course with first assessment in 2027, SL and HL students use the same five criteria and complete the same 50-hour design project. Both levels are marked out of 33 and have the same IA expectations. The difference is the contribution to the final subject result, which is 40% at SL and 30% at HL. Older guidance may say that HL students complete two additional commercial-production criteria, but that applies to the legacy course. Always identify your examination session before using an online checklist or exemplar.

Can I score highly if my final prototype does not work perfectly?

A flawless final object is not required for a strong mark, because the criteria assess the quality of your documented design process. A prototype limitation can produce valuable evidence if you test it properly, explain the cause and make a justified refinement. However, repeated failure without analysis or development will restrict the evidence available for Criteria C and D. Be honest about limitations rather than hiding them or claiming complete success. Markers reward evidence-based evaluation and user-centred improvement, not unsupported perfection.

Are the suggested page and word counts compulsory for each criterion?

The individual criterion allocations are recommendations intended to help students distribute space sensibly. The overall report must remain within 35 A4 pages and 3,500 words for the 2027 course. This means Criterion A does not automatically need exactly nine pages, provided the complete evidence is clear and the total limit is respected. Annotations of no more than 10 words are excluded from the word count, while longer annotations count toward it. Do not use smaller text or overcrowded pages to avoid editing weak or repetitive material.

What is the most important feature of a high-scoring DT IA?

The most important feature is traceability, meaning every important decision can be followed back to user evidence, research or testing. Your persona and task analysis should reveal the problem, which should then produce measurable specifications. Those specifications should guide idea evaluation, prototype tests and design refinements. The final presentation should show how the redesign resolves the same problems established at the beginning. When this chain is clear, the marker can identify evidence for each criterion without having to infer your reasoning.

Back to all posts

IB Design Technology IA Criteria Explained

IB Design Technology Internal Assessment IB IA

• 7 Oct 2026•11

IB Design Technology IA Criteria Explained

Join 650k+ students breezing through the IBReady to breeze through the IB?

IB Design Technology IA Criteria Explained | RevisionDojo

Back to all posts

IB Design Technology IA Criteria Explained

IB Design Technology Internal Assessment IB IA

• 7 Oct 2026•11

The IB Design Technology IA criteria assess the evidence behind your design decisions, not simply the appearance or technical ambition of the final product. For first assessment in 2027, SL and HL students complete the same 50-hour design project, marked across five criteria for a total of 33 marks.

The project requires you to identify, analyse, evaluate and redesign an existing product for an intended user. Your teacher marks the work first, after which the IB externally moderates a sample to check that the criteria have been applied consistently.

Check which Design Technology syllabus applies

The IB introduced a new Design Technology course for first assessment in 2027. Its IA differs substantially from the legacy course, so using an outdated checklist can lead to incorrect sections and expectations.

Assessment model	Criteria and marks	IA weighting
First assessment 2027, SL	Five criteria, A-E, 33 marks	40%
First assessment 2027, HL	Five criteria, A-E, 33 marks	30%
Legacy course, SL	Four criteria, A-D, 36 marks	40%
Legacy course, HL	Six criteria, A-F, 54 marks	40%

Students examined in 2027 or later should use the five-criterion model below. Students examined in 2026 should confirm the legacy requirements with their teacher. The official IB Design Technology curriculum update summarizes the new assessment model.

How the Design Technology IA is marked

Although the project has five criteria, markers expect a connected design process:

user evidence -> problem -> specifications -> ideas -> testing -> refinement -> final solution

The descriptors use command terms carefully. To state means to provide a brief answer, while describe requires a detailed account. To explain means giving reasons, and to evaluate means reaching a supported judgment using evidence, successes and limitations.

Length alone earns no marks. Markers look for observations, annotated images, comparisons, test data, user feedback, design changes and accurately communicated drawings. An attractive product cannot compensate for an undocumented process.

Overview of the IB Design Technology IA criteria

Criterion	Main focus	Marks	Suggested pages	Suggested words
A: Empathize	Persona, task and existing products	9	9	900
B: Defining the project	Problem and specifications	6	4	1,200
C: Ideation and modelling	Ideas, tests and feedback	6	8	900
D: Designing a solution	Iterative models and drawings	6	10	300
E: Presenting a solution	Final presentation and comparison	6	4	200
Total	Complete design project	33	35	3,500

The report has an overall maximum of 35 A4 pages and 3,500 words. The individual section allocations are recommendations, not compulsory limits. Qualifying annotations containing no more than 10 words are excluded from the word count, while longer annotations count.

Criterion A: Empathize, 9 marks

Criterion A assesses how thoroughly you understand the user, task and existing product before proposing a redesign. It covers the primary persona, a storyboard based on task analysis, and analysis of a range of existing products.

Lower-band work names a persona but provides limited insight into their context. Middle-band work describes relevant needs and identifies successes or weaknesses in existing products. Upper-band work explains needs, motivations and circumstances through specific evidence, documents the task comprehensively and evaluates relevant product features accurately.

Avoid generic personas such as “teenagers who need storage.” Observe or carefully research an identifiable user, then record precise difficulties such as excessive wrist rotation, limited reach or an inefficient closure mechanism. The storyboard should reveal every important stage of the task, while product analysis should compare function, form, ergonomics, materials, safety, construction and environmental considerations. The guide indicates that 4-6 products is a typical range.

Criterion B: Defining the project, 6 marks

Criterion B converts Criterion A evidence into a focused problem statement and justified design specifications. It rewards traceability, meaning each requirement has a clear origin in user research, task analysis or product evaluation.

At the highest level, the problem statement explains important redesign opportunities rather than merely naming a general issue. Do not embed a preferred solution too early. “Design a foldable aluminium stand” restricts ideation, whereas “reduce the user's neck flexion while preserving portability” defines the performance problem.

Specifications should be specific, measurable, justified and testable. Replace “must be lightweight” with a threshold such as “must have a mass below 1.2 kg,” supported by evidence and accompanied by a testing method. The RevisionDojo guide to strong DT design requirements explains how to convert research into useful requirements.

Criterion C: Ideation and modelling, 6 marks

Criterion C assesses whether you generate feasible redesign ideas and distinguish between them through modelling, testing and user feedback. The highest band requires three strong, distinct and feasible ideas, not three cosmetic versions of one concept.

Each idea should communicate materials, dimensions, mechanisms, interactions and the reasons its features suit the persona. Feasibility matters, so concepts must be physically and technologically plausible in their intended context.

Evaluate differences against the specifications through quick physical models, CAD studies, ergonomic trials or mechanism experiments. A weighted decision matrix can organize evidence, but it cannot replace practical testing or user feedback. The step-by-step Design Technology IA guide provides further guidance on evidence-led concept selection.

Criterion D: Designing a solution, 6 marks

Criterion D develops the selected idea into a refined solution. It assesses iterative fidelity models and the drawings used to communicate the intended design to a third-party manufacturer.

One photograph of a completed prototype does not demonstrate iteration. Show a sequence in which testing identifies a weakness, you change a feature for a documented reason, and the revised model is tested again. For example, if users find a handle uncomfortable, record its original profile, the user response, the dimensional change and the repeated trial result.

Upper-band evidence evaluates the model against all relevant specifications and user needs. Formal drawings should also communicate dimensions, components, materials, assembly and necessary production information. The RevisionDojo guide to showing genuine iteration structures each cycle as test, result, problem, change, reason and re-test.

Criterion E: Presenting a solution, 6 marks

Criterion E communicates the final intended redesign and demonstrates how it improves the original product. It is not another development section, and visual style is not assessed separately.

Useful methods include perspective, exploded, assembly, orthographic and cutaway views. Annotate dimensions, materials, components, functions, ergonomic decisions and manufacturing processes clearly. The final comparison must return to the original product and identified problems. Instead of stating that the redesign is “better,” show what changed, which difficulty it resolves and why the result is better suited to the user.

Common DT IA mark scheme mistakes

Frequent weaknesses include:

Collecting research without applying it. Important findings should influence the problem, specifications or design decisions.
Writing vague specifications. Terms such as durable, portable and comfortable need thresholds and test methods.
Producing cosmetic variations. Criterion C requires meaningfully different feasible ideas.
Claiming iteration without evidence. Show the test result that caused each change.
Prioritizing appearance over analysis. Polished CAD cannot replace user evidence and evaluation.
Making unsupported comparisons. Improvements must connect to problems established earlier.
Using the legacy rubric. The 2027 IA has no separate HL commercial-production criteria.

Use the RevisionDojo first-exam-2027 IA grader one criterion at a time. The final IA submission checklist can then help verify legibility, citations, evidence and logical flow.

A practical self-marking method

Read each descriptor and highlight the evidence supporting every phrase. If you cannot locate that evidence quickly, a moderator may not be able to award the corresponding level.

For each criterion, ask:

What claim am I making?
What evidence proves it?
Where is the user's perspective visible?
Which specification or research finding does it connect to?
Have I evaluated rather than merely described?

Do not award yourself the highest band simply because every heading is present. Judge the quality of execution and the links between sections. RevisionDojo's explanation of how Design Technology IAs are graded clarifies this evidence-based approach.

Conclusion

The IB Design Technology IA criteria reward a traceable, user-centred redesign process. Success in the 2027 course requires a well-supported persona, an evidence-based problem, three feasible ideas, iterative testing and a final presentation tied directly to the original difficulties.

Keep the official descriptors beside you throughout development. RevisionDojo's IA Feedback and Jojo AI can help identify missing links, while the first-exam-2027 rubric grader provides a focused final criterion check.

Sources and referenced URLs

Add as a preferred source on Google