IB Design Technology (DT) SL Extended Essay Example

The research question is clearly visible at the start and it identifies both the product focus and the design approach. That gives the investigation a recognisable direction, which is a strong foundation for the report.

This introduction is too broad. The student should narrow the context to footwear and to the specific contamination pathway being investigated, because the current wording jumps from general surfaces to many microorganisms and weakens the precision of the topic.

Consider specifying the exact distance, the number of repeats, and the way results will be recorded. That would make the method more reproducible and show stronger control of variables.

The target user is described as ‘quite wide,’ which makes the methodology less focused. The student should define who the product is primarily for, because the choice of sample and tests should match a clearly identified user group.

How will the student decide whether each of the four pleasures has been achieved? A clearer success criterion or coding scheme would make the evaluation of this framework much more convincing.

The conclusion restates the question using different wording from the opening research question and shifts from ‘shoe sanitation products’ to ‘indoor shoe cleaning products’ and from bacteria-only to ‘virus and bacteria.’ The student should keep the wording consistent throughout so the argument reads as one coherent investigation.

The student demonstrates relevant subject knowledge by connecting footwear contamination to a specific bacterium and explaining why it matters. This helps the report move beyond general claims and shows some informed use of science content.

This claim needs stronger and more authoritative sourcing. The student should identify the exact study or database that supports the statement, because a broad claim like ‘most common bacteria’ needs evidence rather than assumption.

The student repeats a commercial effectiveness claim without showing independent evaluation of the evidence behind it. A stronger comparison would explain what the figure measures, how it was tested, and whether it is comparable to the student’s own prototype.

It would strengthen the source application to explain what this market data means for the design decision. The student could link the size and growth rate directly to the product’s feasibility, price point, or likely audience.

Does the study actually show a decrease in the student’s specific setup, or only in the cited source? The student should separate secondary evidence from their own experiment so the knowledge base remains clear and credible.

The terminology is mostly accurate, but the claim is too general as written. The student should distinguish between UV-C as a broad category and the specific wavelength or dose used in the prototype, because effectiveness depends on exposure conditions.

The bibliography would be much stronger if each source were checked for accuracy and formatted consistently. This entry appears to contain a mismatched URL, so the student should verify it against the original source before submission.

This result is useful, but the student overstates it later as proof that a sub-$50 product is viable. A willingness-to-pay figure is not the same as a production-cost or feasibility analysis, so the conclusion should be made more cautiously.

The student treats a perception survey as if it proves real effectiveness. The answer shows what respondents believe, not what the technology can actually do, so the report should avoid converting opinion data into scientific evidence.

The student uses the survey data to make a market-based inference, which shows an attempt to move from raw results to a design decision. This is effective because it links evidence from respondents to a concrete product direction.

It is a strength that the student recognises a failed trial and offers a plausible explanation for the result. That reflective move shows real analytical thinking rather than ignoring inconvenient evidence.

The analysis of the second trial remains descriptive. The student should explain exactly how the arrangement helped interpret the results and ideally support the claim with counts, averages, or another quantitative measure.

The design change is logically linked to the test result, but the conclusion is still stronger than the evidence shown. The student should support this claim with repeat trials or quantitative microbial counts before presenting it as a confirmed improvement.

Consider grouping the feedback into themes such as convenience, fit, and speed. That would make the analysis sharper and would help show patterns rather than just listing comments.

This conclusion is not fully supported because the report does not show a clear method for judging each pleasure category. The student should explain how the framework was measured, otherwise the claim that all requirements were met is not convincing.

If the product still has major unresolved concerns such as bulk, shoe fit, and UV leakage earlier in the report, how strong is the claim that it is already highly feasible? The student should weigh positive feedback against the remaining limitations more carefully.

The report has a clear structure and the contents page shows a logical sequence from introduction through testing and evaluation. That makes the investigation easy to follow and reflects good planning.

Some sentences are overloaded and difficult to follow. The student should split long design explanations into shorter sentences so the steps and purpose of each feature are clearer to the reader.

The student presents interview evidence in a table rather than burying it in prose, which makes the data easier to compare. This is a good presentation choice because it supports transparency and organisation.

Consider adding a brief note in the prose that points readers to the most important features in the CAD drawing, such as the shoe placement area, light panel, and safety enclosure. That would help the figure support the argument more directly.

The technical drawing is included appropriately, but the report would be stronger if the drawing conventions were explained more clearly in the accompanying text. The student should describe what dimensions or views the drawing is intended to communicate.

This explanation would be clearer if the student defined how the sensor interacts with the build and when the light activates. The current wording is understandable, but it does not yet read as a precise technical description.

The references page is present and appropriately placed at the end, which is essential for a well-structured report. The student could further improve presentation by ensuring every entry follows one consistent citation style.