IB Personal Project (MYP) External Assessment Exemplar

Effective use of audience survey data, with clear evidence linking preferences to design choices.

Strong application of peer feedback to improve language authenticity, showing responsiveness to critique.

Demonstrated efficient time management and realistic short-term planning, which helped avoid scheduling conflicts.

Insufficient explicit connection between selected photography techniques and how they enhanced the final images—detailed examples are needed.

Superficial discussion of feedback impact; highlighting one significant change would better illustrate the skill’s effect on product quality.

While multiple ATL skills are named, there is a lack of a deep, detailed example showing how one skill directly achieved the learning goal or improved the product.

Detailed, research-linked success criteria that clarify the project’s aims and focus effort on high-value features.

A clear learning goal tied to personal interest, demonstrating relevance and motivation.

Creative ideation shown in the mind map, indicating exploration of diverse concepts and approaches.

The action plan lacks contingency planning for resource constraints (e.g., utensil purchase), introducing risk of delays.

Success criteria and the learning goal are not fully measurable—concrete targets (such as number of recipes translated or design elements tested) are missing.

Product specifications omit practical details (print format dimensions, binding type), which hinders feasibility assessment and resource planning.

User-centered decision to use matte pages based on survey results, demonstrating audience awareness.

Inclusion of an index that enhances navigation and overall usability.

Reflective iteration on layout choices shows thoughtful development and responsiveness to design considerations.

Reflection on personal growth lacks concrete examples linking developments in design skills to learner profile attributes (e.g., ’knowledgeable’).

Key accessibility and polish elements are missing—no allergy warnings, front-matter blurb, consistent margins or an editorial checklist.

Limited evidence of user testing or prototype comparison to validate design choices before finalization; more structured feedback cycles are needed.