“To what extent do sustainable materials and production methods affect the durability and functional design of footwear brands like Nike and Adidas?”SL
Loading scores...
B
Official IB Result
24/34
General feedback
20/28
0
14
28
No overall summary is available for this report.
6.1·Suggestion
Page 13
It would strengthen engagement if the student explicitly reflected on why this mixed-methods approach was chosen over a purely technical test-based investigation. That would show more personal and intellectual initiative in the decision-making process.
6.2·Strength
Page 14
The student shows reflection by identifying the limits of the chosen approach instead of treating it as flawless. This is a useful first step toward evaluative reflection because it demonstrates awareness that research decisions affect the quality of the conclusions.
6.3·Weakness
Page 14
The reflection is still mostly descriptive because it lists limitations without explaining how the student would respond to them. The student should go one step further and explain what they would change in sampling, data collection, or source selection if the study were repeated.
Criteria A: Focus and Method
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Topic communication and explanation
Excellent
A.2Research question clarity and focus
Moderate
A.3Methodology appropriateness and completeness
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The student establishes a recognizable investigation into the sustainability-versus-performance trade-off in footwear.
- The student keeps the central question visible throughout the essay and connects it to relevant Nike and Adidas examples.
- The student shows some informed planning by combining case studies with primary and secondary research.
- The student's question is still broader than it should be because it combines several variables and several product types at once.
- The discussion sometimes drifts toward consumer awareness, price, and brand perception instead of staying tightly on the research focus.
- The methodology is not fully reproducible because key details about instruments, sample size, and the exact process are missing.
1.1·Weakness
Page 1
The question is still quite broad because it combines several variables at once: materials, production methods, durability, and functional design, across two brands. The student should narrow the scope to a smaller set of products or a specific performance measure so the investigation can be answered more precisely.
1.2·Strength
Page 1
The research question is clearly framed around a real Design Technology issue: the trade-off between sustainability and performance. This gives the essay a recognisable purpose and a strong line of inquiry that can be followed through the introduction, case studies, and conclusion.
1.3·Strength
Page 4
The methodology is purposefully designed and shows awareness of multiple forms of evidence. Linking case studies with primary and secondary research gives the investigation a sensible structure and shows that the student has thought about how to approach the topic from more than one angle.
1.4·Weakness
Page 13
This is written as a plan rather than a completed methodology, and it is not fully reproducible because the reader cannot see the exact instruments, sample size, or performance measures. The student should state what was actually done, not just what was intended, and include enough detail for another researcher to repeat the study.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
6/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Subject knowledge and source application
Moderate
B.2Use of terminology and concepts
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student demonstrates solid knowledge of sustainable footwear design and relevant industry concepts.
- The student uses a range of technical terms such as circular design, additive manufacturing, polymer degradation, and tensile strength.
- The student connects material-science ideas to the topic in a way that is generally understandable and relevant.
- Some technical claims rely too heavily on company statements without enough independent verification.
- A few examples and terms are used imprecisely, which weakens the accuracy of the comparison.
- Important distinctions such as recycled content versus recyclability and sustainability versus measurable performance are not always made clear.
2.1·Weakness
Page 5
This section relies heavily on company claims to support technical conclusions, but those claims are not consistently checked against independent evidence. The student should be careful to distinguish between promotional statements and verified performance data, especially when discussing durability and sustainability benefits.
2.2·Strength
Page 5
The student uses relevant background research to contextualise the topic and show awareness of broader industry trends. This helps ground the investigation in design technology rather than keeping it at a purely opinion-based level.
2.3·Strength
Page 6
The student demonstrates solid subject knowledge by connecting polymer degradation to mechanical performance. This is a strong example of applying material-science concepts to the investigation rather than simply naming materials.
2.4·Weakness
Page 7
Some terminology is used imprecisely here: Flyknit is a Nike technology, not Adidas. The student should verify brand-specific product knowledge carefully, because accuracy in examples is essential when comparing the two companies.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
6/12
0
6
12
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Research relevance and application
Moderate
C.2Analysis depth and conclusions
Poor
C.3Discussion and evaluation quality
Poor
Criteria Feedback
- The student chooses research that is broadly relevant to the question and uses product-specific examples to support their discussion.
- The student makes several useful analytical links between sustainability choices and possible effects on performance, fit, and material behavior.
- The student acknowledges limitations in their evidence and avoids presenting the research as more conclusive than it really is.
- A substantial part of the evidence focuses on awareness, price, and consumer perception rather than direct performance outcomes.
- The discussion often describes findings without fully testing competing interpretations or source reliability.
- Broad claims are sometimes drawn from limited or incomplete primary data, which weakens the strength of the conclusions.
3.1·Strength
Page 8
The product analysis is relevant and specific, using a named product and a concrete recycled-content figure to support the argument. This helps the reader see how the sustainability claim is being applied in a real case study.
3.2·Weakness
Page 9
The analysis would be stronger if it evaluated whether the waste reduction claimed here actually tells us anything about durability or functional design. The student should move from describing the technology to explaining what evidence shows about performance outcomes.
3.3·Question
Page 11
What evidence in the essay shows that these life-cycle claims translate into measurable performance or durability benefits for the shoe itself? The student could deepen the analysis by separating environmental advantages from functional outcomes.
3.4·Strength
Page 14
The student does well to acknowledge limitations rather than presenting the research as more conclusive than it is. Recognising bias and sample constraints is an important part of critical evaluation because it shows awareness of how evidence strength affects conclusions.
3.5·Weakness
Page 15
This sentence presents a claim but does not clearly explain how the evidence supports the conclusion being drawn. The student should unpack the link between recycled content and performance, rather than assuming that sustainability percentages automatically demonstrate durability or quality.
Criteria D: Presentation
2/4
0
2
4
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Structure appropriateness
Excellent
D.2Layout and formatting
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The student's report has a clear overall sequence from introduction through to conclusion.
- Headings, page numbering, and sectioning make the work easy to navigate.
- The inclusion of tables, references, and an appendix helps the reader locate key information.
- Some reproduced visuals are hard to read and are not integrated cleanly into the page design.
- There is uneven use of space and some sections feel repetitive rather than tightly organized.
- A few formatting choices reduce the overall professionalism of the document.
4.1·Strength
Page 2
The overall structure is well controlled, with a logical sequence from introduction to literature review, product analysis, methodology, findings, discussion, conclusion, and references. This makes the argument easy to follow and shows that the student understands the expected conventions of an extended essay.
4.2·Weakness
Page 9
This section begins to repeat product-description material rather than advancing the argument. The student should tighten the structure by ensuring that each section adds something new—especially by moving from description to analysis of why the material choice matters for the research question.
4.3·Suggestion
Page 18
The table summarising demographic themes is useful, but it would be stronger if the student added clearer labels, a brief explanation of how the themes were derived, and a direct link back to the research question. That would make the findings easier to interpret and more clearly integrated into the essay’s argument.