What are Design Technology EE examples?

Design Technology EE examples are real student coursework samples that help you understand structure, rubric expectations, and the standard of work expected in IB Extended Essay.

How should I use these examples?

Use them to compare structure, evidence, feedback, and scoring patterns. Do not copy the topic or wording; use the examples to improve your own planning and revision decisions.

Are these examples useful for understanding IB marking?

Yes. Examples with score and feedback signals help you connect concrete student work to the assessment criteria and understand what stronger submissions tend to do well.

IB Design Technology EE Examples

IB Design Technology Extended Essay Grader

Lots of students struggle to unpack their Design Technology Extended Essay grade and assessment.
This is a free grading tool that breaks down the IB Design Tech EE rubric into plain English, so you understand exactly where your 4,000-word research project stands across all five assessment criteria.
The embedded grader makes self-evaluation faster and more accurate than manual rubric checking, so you're never left guessing.

Note

The grader works in two modes:

Draft Mode: Quick assessment of your work-in-progress. Input your current sections and get instant feedback on which criteria need more work before you finish writing.
Full Mode: Complete evaluation of your finished EE. Input your final project details across all criteria and get a comprehensive grade breakdown with specific improvement suggestions for each section.

Quick Start Checklist

Before using the grader, ensure you have these key elements ready:
1. Research Question - Clear, focused question related to Design Technology content (Topics 1, 4, or 7)
2. Design Problem - Real-world design challenge or analytical investigation with clear scope
3. Primary Research - Evidence of original data collection through testing, surveys, or prototyping
4. Secondary Research - Academic sources, design case studies, and technical literature supporting your investigation
5. Methodology - Clear explanation of research approach and data collection methods
6. Design Process - Evidence of following design cycle thinking and design methodology
7. Word Count Verification - Maximum 4,000 words (excluding bibliography, footnotes, and appendices)
8. Complete Structure - Introduction, Investigation, Analysis, Conclusion, Bibliography, and Reflections

Rubric Breakdown

Criterion A: Focus and Method (6 marks)

This criterion tests how clear and focused your research question is.
It evaluates whether your methodology is appropriate for Design Technology investigation.

Mark Band	What it means	Evidence you must show
0	No clear research question or methodology.	Absent or unclear research question; no evident methodology.
1–2	Research question is present but lacks focus; methodology is inappropriate or poorly explained.	Vague research question; methodology not suited to the question or inadequately described.
3–4	Research question is clear and focused; methodology is appropriate but not fully justified.	Well-defined research question; suitable methodology with partial justification.
5–6	Research question is sharply focused; methodology is appropriate and well-justified.	Precisely defined research question; methodology aligns well with the question and is thoroughly justified.

Criterion B: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

This tests your grasp of the topic and its context within Design Technology.
You should demonstrate this with appropriate use of subject-specific terminology.

Mark Band	What it means	Evidence you must show
0	No relevant knowledge or understanding demonstrated.	Content unrelated to the topic; absence of subject-specific terminology.
1–2	Limited knowledge with minimal use of appropriate terminology.	Basic understanding; occasional use of technical terms.
3–4	Good knowledge and understanding with appropriate use of terminology.	Clear understanding; consistent use of relevant technical terms.
5–6	Excellent knowledge and understanding with precise use of terminology.	In-depth understanding; accurate and consistent use of subject-specific terminology.

Criterion C: Critical Thinking (12 marks)

This tests your ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to construct a coherent argument.
Your arguments should be logical and well-structured with critical evaluation of sources.

Mark Band	What it means	Evidence you must show
0	No evidence of critical thinking.	Purely descriptive content; no analysis or evaluation.
1–4	Limited analysis with minimal evaluation.	Some attempt at analysis; little to no evaluation of sources.
5–8	Good analysis with some evaluation; argument is coherent.	Clear argument with supporting analysis; some critical evaluation of sources.
9–12	Excellent analysis and evaluation; argument is logical and well-structured.	Sophisticated argument with thorough analysis and critical evaluation of sources.

Criterion D: Presentation (4 marks)

This assesses professional presentation and academic formatting.
It includes structure, visual communication, and adherence to academic conventions.

Mark Band	What it means	Evidence you must show
0	No attention to presentation.	Disorganized content; absence of citations.
1–2	Some organization with several formatting errors.	Basic structure; inconsistent citation style.
3–4	Well-organized with consistent formatting and accurate citations.	Clear structure; consistent and accurate use of citation style.

Criterion E: Engagement (6 marks)

This tests your personal engagement with the design research process.
It's based on your reflection sessions and demonstrates your intellectual development.

Mark Band	What it means	Evidence you must show
0	No reflection or engagement evident.	Absence of reflection notes; no personal insights.
1–2	Limited reflection with minimal personal engagement.	Basic reflections; little evidence of personal involvement.
3–4	Adequate reflection showing some personal engagement.	Clear reflections; evidence of personal involvement and learning.
5–6	Insightful reflection demonstrating intellectual initiative.	Deep reflections; strong evidence of personal growth and critical thinking.

How to Interpret Your Grade from the Tool

The embedded grader calculates your total score out of 28 marks across all criteria except E, your reflections.
Here's how to interpret your results:
1. 24-28 marks (Grade A territory): Excellent work with sophisticated design research. Minor refinements needed.
2. 19-23 marks (Grade B range): Strong project with good design analysis. Focus on critical evaluation and design theory application.
3. 14-18 marks (Grade C level): Competent work meeting basic requirements. Strengthen design methodology and technical analysis.
4. 9-13 marks (Grade D range): Adequate foundation but needs significant improvement. Review research focus and design process application.
5. Below 9 marks (Grade E): Major revision required across most criteria. Restructure approach and strengthen design fundamentals.

Tip

If you're between bands, focus on Criterion C (Critical Thinking) - it offers the biggest impact for improvement.

Grade Boundaries & Converting Your Mark

IB Extended Essay grade boundaries are consistent across subjects but can vary slightly by session:

IB Grade	Mark Range (out of 34)	Percentage	Description
A	27-34	79-100%	Excellent
B	21-26	62-76%	Good
C	14-20	41-59%	Satisfactory
D	7-13	21-38%

Tip

Grades D or E in your EE mean you cannot receive the IB Diploma, regardless of other grades

Hint

Your EE grade combines with TOK to contribute up to 3 bonus points to your total IB score.

Subject-Specific Tips

Problem-Solution EE Type:
1. Follow format: Problem identification → Design development → Prototype creation → Testing and evaluation.
2. Include user group testing and quantitative performance data.
Analysis-Evaluation EE Type:
1. Focus on material properties, design strategies, or product performance with comparative analysis.
2. Use standardized testing methods and measurable criteria.
Historical-Comparative EE Type:
1. Analyze design evolution with clear evaluation criteria and contemporary relevance.
2. Connect past designs to current applications and future implications.
Primary Research Methods:
1. User surveys and interviews with target demographics.
2. Prototype testing with controlled variables and measurable outcomes.
3. Material testing using standard protocols and quantified results.
Secondary Research Sources:
1. Academic journals on design, engineering, and materials science.
2. Industry standards (ISO, ASTM) and technical specifications.
3. Design case studies and professional design publications.

Common Mistake

And fast fixes:

Too broad research question → Focus on specific design problem with clear scope and measurable outcomes
Lack of primary research → Include user testing, prototype evaluation, or material testing with quantitative data
Purely descriptive analysis → Include critical evaluation, design trade-offs, and improvement suggestions
Weak design theory application → Use ergonomic principles, design methodologies, and technical standards
Poor methodology explanation → Clearly explain data collection methods, testing protocols, and analysis approaches
Missing design process → Show evidence of design cycle thinking and iterative development
Inadequate visual communication → Include technical drawings, test results graphs, and

FAQs

Can I build a physical prototype for my EE?
1. Yes, prototyping is excellent for Design Tech EEs and provides strong primary research evidence.
How much technical detail should I include?
1. Include enough technical specifications to demonstrate design knowledge without overwhelming non-expert readers.
Should my EE connect to my IA topic?
1. No, avoid overlap - choose a different design problem or approach for your EE.
What software should I use for technical drawings?
1. CAD software like Fusion 360 or SolidWorks produces professional visuals that enhance presentation.
How important is user testing?
1. Very important - user testing provides primary research data and demonstrates human-centered design approach.
Can I focus on sustainable design?
1. Yes, sustainability analysis is excellent for Design Tech EEs - include lifecycle assessment and environmental impact data.
Should I include cost analysis?
1. Brief cost considerations show commercial awareness but shouldn't dominate design analysis.
How detailed should my methodology be?
1. Explain data collection methods, testing procedures, and analysis approaches clearly enough for replication.
Can I use industry case studies?
1. Yes, professional case studies provide excellent secondary research and real-world context.

Use the Free Design Technology Extended Essay Grader Now

Stop guessing about your grade.
The comprehensive grading tool evaluates your EE against all five official criteria, giving instant feedback on strengths and improvement areas.
Input your project details and get a preliminary grade calculation that helps you focus revision efforts where they matter most.
Design-specific analysis helps you master the technical communication and design methodology that separate excellent from average Design Technology EEs.

Mark Band

What it means

Evidence you must show

No clear research question or methodology.

Absent or unclear research question; no evident methodology.

1–2

Research question is present but lacks focus; methodology is inappropriate or poorly explained.

Vague research question; methodology not suited to the question or inadequately described.

3–4

Research question is clear and focused; methodology is appropriate but not fully justified.

Well-defined research question; suitable methodology with partial justification.

5–6

Research question is sharply focused; methodology is appropriate and well-justified.

Precisely defined research question; methodology aligns well with the question and is thoroughly justified.

Mark Band

What it means

Evidence you must show

No relevant knowledge or understanding demonstrated.

Content unrelated to the topic; absence of subject-specific terminology.

1–2

Limited knowledge with minimal use of appropriate terminology.

Basic understanding; occasional use of technical terms.

3–4

Good knowledge and understanding with appropriate use of terminology.

Clear understanding; consistent use of relevant technical terms.

5–6

Excellent knowledge and understanding with precise use of terminology.

In-depth understanding; accurate and consistent use of subject-specific terminology.

Mark Band

What it means

Evidence you must show

No evidence of critical thinking.

Purely descriptive content; no analysis or evaluation.

1–4

Limited analysis with minimal evaluation.

Some attempt at analysis; little to no evaluation of sources.

5–8

Good analysis with some evaluation; argument is coherent.

Clear argument with supporting analysis; some critical evaluation of sources.

9–12

Excellent analysis and evaluation; argument is logical and well-structured.

Sophisticated argument with thorough analysis and critical evaluation of sources.

Mark Band

What it means

Evidence you must show

No attention to presentation.

Disorganized content; absence of citations.

1–2

Some organization with several formatting errors.

Basic structure; inconsistent citation style.

3–4

Well-organized with consistent formatting and accurate citations.

Clear structure; consistent and accurate use of citation style.

Mark Band

What it means

Evidence you must show

No reflection or engagement evident.

Absence of reflection notes; no personal insights.

1–2

Limited reflection with minimal personal engagement.

Basic reflections; little evidence of personal involvement.

3–4

Adequate reflection showing some personal engagement.

Clear reflections; evidence of personal involvement and learning.

5–6

Insightful reflection demonstrating intellectual initiative.

Deep reflections; strong evidence of personal growth and critical thinking.

IB Grade

Mark Range (out of 34)

Percentage

Description

27-34

79-100%

Excellent

21-26

62-76%

Good

14-20

41-59%

Satisfactory

7-13

21-38%

How could shoe sanitation products be improved in order to reduce risks of bacteria induced illnesses through the use of the design cycle and four pleasure framework?

To what extent has ergonomics in shoe insoles catered to people suffering from flat feet?

“To what extent do sustainable materials and production methods affect the durability and functional design of footwear brands like Nike and Adidas?”

How can ergonomic factors influence the design of a multipurpose makeup handle to improve inclusivity for consumers with physical disabilities in their hands?

How can the application of Design Thinking principles enhance the user experience and usability of ManageBac's interface for IB students?

To what extent do the tactile and visual properties of a pillow cover influence consumers’ comfort, sleep quality, and overall well-being?

To what extent are GWSs a sustainable alternative to traditional wastewater disposal?

How can human factors, ergonomics and green design be integrated into the development of a literacy tool that enhances cognitive learning in early childhood?

What characteristics make the Eames Lounge Chair and Ottoman to be considered a classic design?

How does the integration of biomimicry in the design of an airplane impact its sustainability and efficiency levels?

To what extent does the use of 3D printing technology contribute to the advancement and accessibility of prosthetic limb design in India?

Could comfort be further improved upon in economy-class airplane seats while maintaining required passenger numbers and legal/economic requirements?