IB Design Technology (DT) SL Extended Essay Example

This research question is directly relevant to the topic and frames the investigation around a meaningful design problem. The phrase “to what extent” opens space for evaluation rather than simple description, which is a strong starting point.

The question is still too broad because it does not define what counts as “catered to” or which ergonomic criteria will be used to judge insoles. The student should narrow the scope by specifying measurable features such as arch support, pressure distribution, comfort, fit, or durability.

The title clearly signals the Design Technology focus and gives the reader an immediate sense of the investigation’s topic. This helps establish purpose from the outset and makes the report easy to situate within ergonomics and human factors.

The student identifies a sensible mixed-method approach and shows informed selection by combining literature review, client interview, CAD development, prototyping, and testing. That combination suits a client-centred Design Technology investigation because it links research directly to design decisions.

The method is not yet complete as an investigation of the research question because the testing stage is not defined in a measurable way. The student should explain what was measured, how the insole was tested, and what evidence would count as success so the evaluation is more than a single subjective trial.

The logical plan is a useful planning tool, but it would be stronger if each stage included success criteria or decision points. Adding what evidence would show each task was completed well would make the methodology more clearly informed and easier to evaluate later.

The student begins with a clear and accurate definition of ergonomics, which grounds the investigation in relevant subject knowledge. This makes the later discussion of insoles, comfort, and human factors more coherent and credible.

This is a well-chosen contextual statistic because it helps show why flat feet is a significant design issue rather than a niche concern. The student is using source material to justify relevance, which strengthens subject knowledge application.

This claim is too sweeping and is not supported by systematic evidence. The student should distinguish between what the cited products actually demonstrate and what is being inferred about the whole market, otherwise the source application becomes overstated.

This product claim is presented as fact, but no evidence is shown to justify it. The student should verify such statements with manufacturer data, certifications, or independent evidence rather than repeating retailer marketing language.

The terminology here becomes imprecise because “silicon” and “silicone” are different materials, and the material choice is presented without clear technical justification. The student should use the correct term consistently and explain why that specific material is appropriate for comfort, durability, and safety.

The material specification would be stronger if the student named the exact material and linked it to measurable properties such as hardness, flexibility, skin safety, and abrasion resistance. That would make the knowledge base more precise and easier to assess against the final prototype.

The research base is narrow because it relies on one peer’s experience, which limits how far the findings can be generalised. The student should acknowledge this limitation and support broader claims with more independent evidence or additional users.

The student has chosen a relevant primary method that fits a client-centred design investigation. A semi-structured interview is appropriate here because it can capture lived experience and also allow follow-up questions about comfort, activity, and footwear needs.

This conclusion is broader than the evidence currently supports. The student should be more cautious and explain exactly which product features were compared and how the sample justifies a market-wide claim about need.

This is a useful application of the secondary research because it identifies a clear design gap that the student’s prototype can address. The reasoning connects market limitations to a client need, which shows purposeful analysis rather than simple product description.

The specification is sensible, but it is still generic because “adequate” is not defined. The student should turn this into a measurable design criterion, for example by stating the required thickness, density, or performance during walking and stair climbing.

The student is making a good analytical move by linking measurements to design decisions. Using anthropometric data is exactly the kind of evidence-based thinking that strengthens Design Technology work because it makes the prototype responsive to the user rather than generic.

This claim is not supported by the method described, because only one client is tested and no broader sample is collected. The student should either remove the generalisation or explain how the data could genuinely support wider testing.

The evaluation is stronger because the student tests the insole in realistic use situations rather than in isolation. This makes the feedback more meaningful, since comfort and support can be judged in the contexts where the product is actually intended to work.

The evaluation remains mostly subjective because no criteria, scale, or baseline comparison is used. The student should collect structured feedback, such as a rating scale for comfort, fit, and support, so the conclusions are more defensible.

The conclusion overreaches the evidence because the report only evaluates a small set of products and one client prototype. The student should narrow the conclusion to what the investigation actually showed and avoid making population-wide claims that are not fully demonstrated.

Including a distinct design-opportunity section helps bridge the gap between research and the prototype. That transition is effective because it shows how the student moved from identifying a need to proposing a design response.

The sectioning becomes somewhat portfolio-like here, with many fabrication stages taking prominence over sustained analysis. The student should keep the report’s structure more tightly aligned to the research question so that development evidence serves the investigation rather than replacing it.

The report is organised logically, and the table of contents shows a clear progression from research to design, making the document easy to follow. This structure supports the reader’s understanding because each stage of the investigation is signposted.

The logical plan would be even more effective if it showed dependencies between tasks and included checkpoints for revision. That would make the workflow easier to track and would better demonstrate how the student adapted the plan in response to testing or setbacks.

The references section is useful, but citation consistency needs attention because several entries are formatted unevenly and some source details are incomplete. The student should standardise referencing so that sources are easier to verify and the report appears more academically controlled.