IB Personal Project (MYP) External Assessment Exemplar

Rigorous evidence evaluation through the use of OPVL and reliability checklists strengthens the credibility of the research process and shows critical thinking.

Effective transfer of skills by collaborating with a professional illustrator demonstrates thoughtful application of ATL skills to enhance the visual quality of the product.

Superficial linkage of ATL skills to outcomes – examples of inquiry and trend-analysis skills are described but not tied to specific learning goal improvements or product changes.

Lack of measurable impact evidence – the narrative does not include metrics (e.g., engagement ratings, feedback summaries) to show how ATL skills improved product quality.

Underutilization of interview data – expert insights are discussed broadly without direct quotes or paraphrases that would illustrate their concrete influence on design decisions.

Heavy presentation of OPVL findings in the main text creates cognitive overload; summarizing key points in an appendix would streamline the narrative.

Clear articulation of personal interest demonstrates a genuine connection between the student’s background and the learning goal, providing a strong motivational foundation.

Detailed intended product description outlines the scope and purpose of the project, showing the student understands what they aim to create.

Thorough rubric engagement through an expanded set of criteria indicates deep reflection on how success will be measured, highlighting commitment to quality.

Undefined resources and tools – the plan references scheduling software without specifying which platform or how it will be implemented, undermining feasibility.

Vague success criteria – indicators such as “entertaining” or “professional” lack measurable benchmarks (e.g., number of interviews, engagement metrics).

Incomplete timeline entries – some tasks in the schedule are missing descriptions or clear links to evaluation criteria, which weakens project management.

Insufficient research planning details – the intended expert interviews lack specifics on question design, participant sample size and selection, risking the depth and reliability of insights.

Grammatical inaccuracy in title – the verb agreement error (“How Colors Affects”) detracts from the professionalism of the report.

Mature self-evaluation – the reflection on emotional impact and resilience shows a sophisticated understanding of how personal growth drives learning.

Critical appraisal of rubric alignment – recognizing mismatches between rubric criteria and the product demonstrates high-level evaluative thinking.

Insightful time-management reflection – articulating specific improvements in scheduling and organization highlights proactive learning and sets the stage for future efficiency.

Lack of concrete adaptation examples – the reflection mentions adjusting to unexpected research findings but does not describe a specific instance or its outcome.

Overly verbose self-evaluation – the detailed product evaluation is comprehensive but unfocused; prioritizing key criteria would make the analysis more impactful.

Limited evidence linking outcomes to success criteria – the product evaluation needs direct examples or data points that show how each success criterion was met or missed.