Design Technology (DT) IA Example: I am aiming to create an… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Design Technology (DT) SL Internal Assessment Example

I am aiming to create an age-appropriate incremental redesign of a fidget toy to help teenage girls stop nail-biting. Target audience are 16-19 years old. The fidget should comply with the specific requirements of texture of the hands, nails and mechanism of the habit.SL

Official IB Result

26/36

Criteria A: Criterion A: Analysis of a Design Opportunity

7/9

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Problem Description and Design Opportunity

Good

A.2Design Brief Development

Good

A.3Design Specification Development

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student identifies a clear and relevant design opportunity and supports it with a strong mix of research, user evidence, and market analysis.
The student's brief is focused and practical, with clear attention to the target user, purpose, safety, portability, and ergonomic needs.
The student's requirements are mostly measurable and show that they are thinking about the design in a realistic, evidence-based way.

Some of the student's claims are broader than the evidence fully supports, so a few points need tighter wording and more precise sourcing.
A few specifications remain slightly vague, which makes them harder to test or use later when comparing concepts.
Some requirements would be stronger if essential needs and desirable features were separated more clearly.

1.1·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

This claim is too broad and reads as a sweeping generalisation. The student should qualify it with more precise evidence or narrower wording, because an overextended statement weakens the credibility of the problem analysis.

1.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

The student clearly identifies a design gap by linking market products to the specific sensory needs of nail-biting. This works well because it turns a general problem into a focused opportunity for design development, which is exactly what a strong analysis should do.

1.3·Suggestion

Page 3• Click to view

Consider sharpening this into a more concise design intention and separating essential needs from desirable features. That would make the brief easier to use later when judging concepts against the specification.

1.4·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

The brief is focused and purposeful, with a clear target user, purpose and design direction. This is effective because it establishes a realistic design opportunity and keeps later development anchored to a specific user need.

1.5·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

Good justification links portability to the behaviour being addressed. The student shows that the design specification is being built from user context and not just from generic product qualities.

1.6·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

This specification is incomplete, so the requirement cannot be judged properly. The student should name the exact safety standard or guideline and state the measurable criterion it must satisfy.

Criteria B: Criterion B: Conceptual Design

8/9

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Development of Ideas

Excellent

B.2Concept Modeling

Good

B.3Selection and Justification

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student develops a wide range of distinct and feasible concepts rather than settling too early on one idea.
The student's concept models and user feedback are used productively to refine the direction of the design.
The student justifies the chosen solution with a clear design lineage that shows how testing and feedback shaped the final outcome.

Several concept comparisons are descriptive rather than fully analytical, so the relative strengths of the final options are not always made completely explicit.
Some feedback is discussed well but not always translated into a precise design decision.
A more systematic comparison of all final ideas against the full set of priorities would make the selection more convincing.

2.1·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

The student develops a broad set of ideas rather than relying on one early solution. This is strong conceptual work because it creates meaningful design choices and gives room for user feedback to shape the final direction.

2.2·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

This concept explores a distinct interaction mode and shows the student is varying form, wearability and user experience. That variety strengthens the design process because it tests multiple ways of addressing the same problem.

2.3·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

This drawback is identified, but it is not analysed in enough depth. The student should explain how this affects the teenage user specifically, because that would make the concept critique more evidence-based and useful for selection.

2.4·Question

Page 8• Click to view

What would happen to the concept's effectiveness if every user needs a different method to understand it? The student should think about whether flexibility is helping or undermining intuitiveness.

2.5·Strength

Page 8• Click to view

The student uses direct user feedback effectively to refine the concept. This works well because it shows that the design decisions are responding to actual user reaction rather than personal preference alone.

2.6·Weakness

Page 9• Click to view

This feedback exposes a usability problem, but the analysis stops short of explaining how it should change the concept. The student should convert comments like this into a specific design decision, such as reducing mass or simplifying movement.

2.7·Strength

Page 13• Click to view

The student synthesises the testing findings into a clear design insight. This is strong because it shows the concept modelling is actively guiding development, especially through ergonomic and interaction-based conclusions.

2.8·Suggestion

Page 18• Click to view

Consider adding a more explicit comparison table weighting the final candidates against the prioritized specifications. That would make the justification more rigorous and show why this option is stronger than the alternatives.

2.9·Strength

Page 18• Click to view

The selection is justified through a clear design lineage, which helps the reader see how the final proposal emerged from testing and refinement. This is effective because the decision is not arbitrary and is tied to earlier concept outcomes.

Criteria C: Criterion C: Development of a Detailed Design

5/9

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Materials and Manufacturing Choices

Moderate

C.2Design Proposal Development

Good

C.3Manufacturing Plan

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student presents a substantial and carefully assembled design proposal with drawings, exploded views, an assembly sequence, a parts schedule, and a costed bill of materials.
The student's proposal gives most of the information needed to understand how the prototype should be made.
The student's manufacturing plan is logical and includes practical steps, quality checks, and risk awareness.

Some manufacturing details are still not fully precise, especially around tolerances, interfaces, fastening, and component fit.
There are a few inconsistencies in material and process information that reduce clarity and trust in the build instructions.
Some material and adhesive justifications would be stronger if they explained technical compatibility more clearly.

3.1·Strength

Page 19• Click to view

This shows a sensible manufacturing method choice because the process is matched to the need for detail and repeatability. The student is demonstrating awareness of how process selection affects the quality of the final component.

3.2·Weakness

Page 19• Click to view

The material justification is not fully reliable here because the terminology and property claims are unclear. The student should verify the data and explain why this specific property range makes PLA the best choice for the part's function.

3.3·Weakness

Page 20• Click to view

This justification is unclear and technically awkward, so it does not convincingly explain the adhesive choice. The student should state the material compatibility, curing behaviour and mechanical reason for the selection much more precisely.

3.4·Strength

Page 21• Click to view

The costed bill of materials adds useful production realism and supports third-party manufacture. This is effective because the design is not only conceptual but also being translated into a buildable, budget-aware proposal.

3.5·Suggestion

Page 24• Click to view

Consider adding tolerances, fastening details and material thicknesses for the moving interface. Those details would make the proposal much easier for another maker to reproduce accurately.

3.6·Strength

Page 31• Click to view

A quality-control check is included and linked back to the specification, which is good practice. That connection helps show that manufacture is being monitored against design intent rather than being treated as a separate stage.

3.7·Weakness

Page 31• Click to view

This introduces an inconsistency because the detailed design elsewhere specifies PLA. The student should align the manufacturing plan with the material proposal, since conflicting process information makes the build less trustworthy.

Criteria D: Criterion D: Testing and Evaluation

6/9

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Testing Strategy

Good

D.2Prototype Evaluation

Good

D.3Improvement Recommendations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student uses a broad range of relevant tests that combine user feedback, field use, comparison, and material performance.
The student's evaluation is evidence-based and includes both successes and problems rather than only positive results.
The student's improvement ideas are clearly linked to what the testing revealed, which shows genuine design iteration.

Some testing thresholds and success criteria need to be stated more clearly so the results are easier to interpret.
A few tests are limited by small samples or lack of quantitative depth, which makes some conclusions less robust.
Some recommendations would benefit from a fuller discussion of trade-offs such as safety, durability, cost, and manufacturing complexity.

4.1·Strength

Page 33• Click to view

The testing strategy is appropriately broad and user-centred. This is effective because it combines behavioural observation with functional evaluation, which suits a product meant to change a repetitive habit.

4.2·Suggestion

Page 33• Click to view

Consider stating the scale direction and success threshold more clearly, because the current wording is ambiguous. Clearer thresholds would make the testing criteria easier to interpret and more defensible.

4.3·Strength

Page 34• Click to view

The field test is well chosen because it checks whether the product can fit naturally into real routine use. This matters for a habit aid, since short laboratory tests would miss gradual adoption and sustained engagement.

4.4·Weakness

Page 35• Click to view

This is a useful finding, but the conclusion should be tied more directly to the specification and the comparison method. The student should explain what the test result means quantitatively, not only descriptively.

4.5·Strength

Page 36• Click to view

The durability test is concrete and gives the evaluation real evidence. It is a strength that the student uses a defined test method with observable outcomes instead of making unsupported claims about robustness.

4.6·Weakness

Page 36• Click to view

This result is important, but the evaluation should go further by relating the failure to the specification and to likely everyday use. The student should also consider whether the test is overly severe or still appropriate for the intended use case.

4.7·Strength

Page 37• Click to view

The improvement is clearly responsive to the evaluation evidence and shows a meaningful design iteration. This is effective because the recommendation addresses the actual usability issue rather than offering a vague redesign.

4.8·Weakness

Page 38• Click to view

The recommendation is promising, but the student should explain the trade-offs of epoxy more fully, especially safety, repairability and assembly complexity. Without that, the improvement is practical but not yet fully evaluated for holistic impact.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

26/36

Criteria A: Criterion A: Analysis of a Design Opportunity

7/9

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Problem Description and Design Opportunity

Good

A.2Design Brief Development

Good

A.3Design Specification Development

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student identifies a clear and relevant design opportunity and supports it with a strong mix of research, user evidence, and market analysis.
The student's brief is focused and practical, with clear attention to the target user, purpose, safety, portability, and ergonomic needs.
The student's requirements are mostly measurable and show that they are thinking about the design in a realistic, evidence-based way.

Some of the student's claims are broader than the evidence fully supports, so a few points need tighter wording and more precise sourcing.
A few specifications remain slightly vague, which makes them harder to test or use later when comparing concepts.
Some requirements would be stronger if essential needs and desirable features were separated more clearly.

1.1·Weakness

Page 1• Click to view

1.2·Strength

Page 2• Click to view

1.3·Suggestion

Page 3• Click to view

1.4·Strength

Page 3• Click to view

1.5·Strength

Page 4• Click to view

Good justification links portability to the behaviour being addressed. The student shows that the design specification is being built from user context and not just from generic product qualities.

1.6·Weakness

Page 5• Click to view

This specification is incomplete, so the requirement cannot be judged properly. The student should name the exact safety standard or guideline and state the measurable criterion it must satisfy.

Criteria B: Criterion B: Conceptual Design

8/9

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Development of Ideas

Excellent

B.2Concept Modeling

Good

B.3Selection and Justification

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student develops a wide range of distinct and feasible concepts rather than settling too early on one idea.
The student's concept models and user feedback are used productively to refine the direction of the design.
The student justifies the chosen solution with a clear design lineage that shows how testing and feedback shaped the final outcome.

Several concept comparisons are descriptive rather than fully analytical, so the relative strengths of the final options are not always made completely explicit.
Some feedback is discussed well but not always translated into a precise design decision.
A more systematic comparison of all final ideas against the full set of priorities would make the selection more convincing.

2.1·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

2.2·Strength

Page 7• Click to view

2.3·Weakness

Page 7• Click to view

2.4·Question

Page 8• Click to view

What would happen to the concept's effectiveness if every user needs a different method to understand it? The student should think about whether flexibility is helping or undermining intuitiveness.

2.5·Strength

Page 8• Click to view

2.6·Weakness

Page 9• Click to view

2.7·Strength

Page 13• Click to view

2.8·Suggestion

Page 18• Click to view

2.9·Strength

Page 18• Click to view

Criteria C: Criterion C: Development of a Detailed Design

5/9

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Materials and Manufacturing Choices

Moderate

C.2Design Proposal Development

Good

C.3Manufacturing Plan

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student presents a substantial and carefully assembled design proposal with drawings, exploded views, an assembly sequence, a parts schedule, and a costed bill of materials.
The student's proposal gives most of the information needed to understand how the prototype should be made.
The student's manufacturing plan is logical and includes practical steps, quality checks, and risk awareness.

Some manufacturing details are still not fully precise, especially around tolerances, interfaces, fastening, and component fit.
There are a few inconsistencies in material and process information that reduce clarity and trust in the build instructions.
Some material and adhesive justifications would be stronger if they explained technical compatibility more clearly.

3.1·Strength

Page 19• Click to view

3.2·Weakness

Page 19• Click to view

3.3·Weakness

Page 20• Click to view

3.4·Strength

Page 21• Click to view

3.5·Suggestion

Page 24• Click to view

Consider adding tolerances, fastening details and material thicknesses for the moving interface. Those details would make the proposal much easier for another maker to reproduce accurately.

3.6·Strength

Page 31• Click to view

3.7·Weakness

Page 31• Click to view

Criteria D: Criterion D: Testing and Evaluation

6/9

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Testing Strategy

Good

D.2Prototype Evaluation

Good

D.3Improvement Recommendations

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student uses a broad range of relevant tests that combine user feedback, field use, comparison, and material performance.
The student's evaluation is evidence-based and includes both successes and problems rather than only positive results.
The student's improvement ideas are clearly linked to what the testing revealed, which shows genuine design iteration.

Some testing thresholds and success criteria need to be stated more clearly so the results are easier to interpret.
A few tests are limited by small samples or lack of quantitative depth, which makes some conclusions less robust.
Some recommendations would benefit from a fuller discussion of trade-offs such as safety, durability, cost, and manufacturing complexity.

4.1·Strength

Page 33• Click to view

4.2·Suggestion

Page 33• Click to view

4.3·Strength

Page 34• Click to view

4.4·Weakness

Page 35• Click to view

4.5·Strength

Page 36• Click to view

4.6·Weakness

Page 36• Click to view

4.7·Strength

Page 37• Click to view

4.8·Weakness

Page 38• Click to view