IB Personal Project (MYP) External Assessment Exemplar

Your research process is documented with a well-organized Q&A table, demonstrating a structured approach to gathering information.

You provide a detailed description of your research strategies, showing thorough engagement with source materials.

You rely heavily on secondary sources; integrating primary accounts (e.g., letters or diaries) would deepen authenticity.

ATL skills are named but not aligned with IB frameworks; you need to explicitly reference categories such as communication, self-management, or research.

Examples of how each ATL skill impacted your work are superficial; tie specific actions (e.g., validating a fact on page X) to skill application.

Your discussion of navigation elements and multimedia lacks analysis of how these design choices improve usability and user engagement.

Accessibility features like alt text are overly verbose; refine descriptions to focus on key visual information.

Time-management reflections are general; link timeline checkpoints to deliverables to evidence self-management.

Design skill reflections do not name specific choices (e.g., carousel placement) nor explain their impact on user experience.

Your project timetable provides clear sequencing of tasks with deadlines, enhancing the feasibility and structure of your plan.

The learning goal narrative lacks measurable targets and specific personal experiences that connect your interest to the project focus.

The product goal is vivid but does not specify which interactive features and multimedia elements will be implemented or how their usability will be assessed.

Success criteria are stated in broad terms and lack specific, measurable standards for content accuracy, user engagement, and accessibility.

Phases marked “Done” lack notes on challenges or adjustments, limiting your ability to review and refine future planning.

A generic website rubric is used instead of tailored criteria that align directly with your unique project objectives and metrics.

Your self-reflection is comprehensive, indicating thoughtful consideration of the project’s outcomes.

You include user ratings, providing an empirical basis for evaluating aspects of your site.

The reflection lacks a systematic evaluation of the product against each success criterion; structure feedback under those headings for clarity.

You include unrelated personal anecdotes (e.g., cooking skills) that dilute the focus on project-relevant learning.

User ratings are presented but not linked back to specific criteria such as layout, accessibility, or engagement.