IB Personal Project (MYP) External Assessment Exemplar

Effective research application: You identify and apply both primary and secondary sources, demonstrating robust research methodologies to inform recipe selection.

Use of audience survey data: Incorporating quantitative and qualitative pie-chart feedback shows that you engage stakeholders and shape your product around real user needs.

Clear communication narrative: Your description of communication strategies is thorough and indicates thoughtful planning for viewer engagement.

Insufficient evidence of impact: While you describe using research and communication skills, you lack concrete examples of how these improved your product (e.g., time saved, nutrition enhanced, engagement metrics).

Irrelevant visual included: The general signal theory mind map distracts from your cooking focus; visuals should directly support your project content.

Generic critical/creative thinking descriptions: You outline thinking processes but don’t cite specific iterations or measurable outcomes (such as number of recipe trials or engagement increases after plating changes).

Clear, evidence-based personal connection: The description of the non-flame cooking competition is strongly tied to your own interests, demonstrating a convincing alignment with your learning goal (A3).

Well-defined product vision: Your intended product is articulated with clarity, showing that you understand what you aim to achieve and why it matters to you.

Framework for success criteria in place: You’ve established multiple criteria categories (nutrition, presentation, engagement), indicating a good grasp of what measures success, even if the metrics need refinement.

Lack of measurable targets: Most success criteria are qualitative; specify quantifiable goals (e.g., “achieve 80% viewer comprehension” or “receive feedback from two registered nutritionists”).

Tasks not linked to criteria or schedule: The task-planning table shows status but does not tie each task to a specific success criterion, deadline or required resource.

Absence of a detailed timeline and milestones: The plan would be more feasible if you sequenced key activities, set interim deadlines and identified resource needs explicitly.

Insightful self-reflection: You thoughtfully discuss the project’s impact on your learning and cultural understanding, indicating genuine engagement with the reflective process.

Awareness of personal growth: You recognize areas where you improved (editing, communication), showing that you are mindful of your development journey.

Lack of specific evidence: Your evaluation does not reference concrete data (viewer comments, analytics, expert feedback) to validate reflections against each success criterion.

No quantification of improvements: You note skill growth but omit metrics (e.g., editing time reduced by X%, production quality ratings increased by Y%).

Incomplete product evaluation: You do not thoroughly assess each success criterion with supporting examples, making it hard to judge how well the product met your own standards.