IB Personal Project (MYP) External Assessment Exemplar

Clear description of self-management strategies, illustrating adaptability in adjusting timelines and deadlines.

Systematic use of the CARRDS evaluation framework to assess research sources and ensure credibility.

Digital organization lacks detail on folder hierarchy and naming conventions, limiting transparency of file management.

Research process examples are not linked to specific problem-solving instances (e.g., confirming photo dates through reverse image search).

CARRDS evaluation concludes without a concrete action plan to address identified source limitations.

Timeline adjustments are described qualitatively but not quantified (e.g., number of days shifted per deadline).

An extensive list of research questions dilutes focus—prioritization of the most critical five questions is needed.

Comprehensive success criteria table with thoughtful justification and clear alignment between function, aesthetics, user needs, and cost.

Coherent, chronological chapter structure that effectively guides readers through Skopje’s historical evolution.

Compelling connection between personal interest and the learning goal, grounded in family heritage and architectural evolution.

Success criteria lack measurable targets (e.g., specific number of chapters, photo pairs, or focus group participants).

Timeline omits details on required resources (archive access, photography equipment, software) for each task.

Material and environment criteria are incomplete or truncated, leading to ambiguity.

Learning goal is clear but lacks measurable criteria for skill development (e.g., number of sources vetted, photographic techniques mastered).

Tasks in the timeline are not explicitly mapped to individual success criteria, reducing the ability to monitor progress effectively.

Incorporation of focus group insights to gather user perspectives and inform revisions.

Development of a strengths-developments matrix as a structured reflective tool.

Use of a clear rubric table to organize the evaluation process.

Reflection acknowledges growth in organizational and self-management strategies.

Feedback suggestions from the focus group are not directly linked to specific success criteria, limiting targeted improvements.

Product evaluation lacks integration of user feedback to validate proposed changes against audience preferences.

Reflection does not systematically evaluate the product against each success criterion with examples.

Rubric table is missing entries for areas of development in some criteria, leaving gaps in planned growth.

Discussion of skill growth is general and does not cite measurable outcomes (e.g., number of sources authenticated).

Reflection on how self-management strategies will transfer to future projects is underdeveloped.