IB MYP Design – Criterion D: Evaluating Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – the IB holds copyright in its own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available through your school or the IB store.

This practice set covers criterion D (Evaluating) for IB MYP Design, aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014. It suits MYP years 4 and 5 (no SL/HL split) and applies to school-based projects and to the year 5 ePortfolio, which your teacher marks and the IB moderates on a sample basis each exam session. MYP has no prescribed content list – schools design their own units – and this set trains a skill the brief’s criteria name.

Real MYP work is judged against criterion level descriptors (achievement levels 1–8), so the [1] points in the answers are a revision aid, not IB marks. All data are fictional.

Study first with the criterion D study guide and revision notes. Also: MYP Design hub, checklist, criteria in practice questions, design cycle questions.

Questions

1. (Criterion D) State the four things the MYP Design subject brief says you do in criterion D. [4]

2. (Criterion D) Distinguish between quantitative and qualitative test data, giving one example of each from testing a desk lamp. [3]

3. (Criterion D, with Criterion B) A specification point reads: “The phone stand must hold a phone at a viewing angle between 55° and 70° from the horizontal.” Write a testing method for this point. [4]

4. (Criterion D) To test a lunch bag, a student asks five friends: “Don’t you love how stylish my bag is?” All five say yes. Identify two problems with this test and suggest how to fix each. [4]

5. (Criterion D) A revision-timetable web app has this specification point: “At least 80% of new users can create a weekly timetable in under 3 minutes.” Eight new users were timed (seconds): 150, 172, 205, 138, 165, 190, 158, 176.

(a) Calculate the mean time. [2] (b) Calculate the percentage of users who finished in under 3 minutes. [2] (c) Judge whether the specification point was met. Explain why the mean alone would mislead. [2]

6. (Criterion D, with Criterion B) A bicycle light has three specification points: (i) visible from 50 m on an unlit path at night; (ii) battery lasts at least 4 hours on constant mode; (iii) fits handlebars from 22 mm to 32 mm in diameter. For each, give a testing method and its success measure. [6]

7. (Criterion D) A plant-watering spike was designed for residents of a fictional care home. The client is the activities coordinator.

Spec point	Target	Result
1	A 500 ml bottle lasts at least 5 days, in every trial	Trials: 4.5, 5.5, 6.0 days
2	At least 90% of residents can fit the bottle into the spike unaided	9 of 12 residents
3	Material cost per unit no more than £3.00	£2.10

(a) Judge each specification point as met, partly met or not met. Show any calculations. [6] (b) Write an overall evaluation of the solution for the client, in two or three sentences. [2] (c) Suggest two improvements, each linked to the evidence. [4]

8. (Criterion D) A student’s evaluation of a school club’s events app says: “I would make my app better and more colourful.” In testing, 3 of 8 users could not find the save button, and two said the grey text was hard to read. Rewrite the improvement so it is evidence-based. [4]

9. (Criterion D) A volunteer-run community library receives your solution: a set of colour-coded, large-print shelf labels and matching storage boxes. Explain two positive impacts and one negative or limiting impact on the client or target audience. [6]

10. (Criterion D) Outline three tests you would use to evaluate a canteen pre-order web app for students, and state what each test measures. [5]

11. (Criterion D) A hiking club asked for a lightweight water-bottle carrier that clips to a rucksack strap. Outline a complete plan for criterion D: tests, how you would judge success, how you would find improvements, and how you would explain impact. [8]

Answers

1. Design tests to evaluate the solution [1]. Carry out the tests and objectively evaluate the solution’s success [1]. Identify areas where the solution could be improved [1]. Explain how the solution will impact on the client or target audience [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Evaluate it” alone blurs two parts; testing and judging success are separate pieces of evidence, so name both.

2. Quantitative data is numerical, for example the lamp’s surface temperature after 30 minutes in °C [1]. Qualitative data is descriptive, for example a user’s comment that the light glares on glossy paper [1]. Numbers show whether a target was met; comments help explain why [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Examples must come from the lamp; a generic “survey results” example does not show you can apply the distinction.

3. Equipment: a protractor or angle-finder app, and a flat level table [1]. Place each of three different phone models in the stand and measure the screen angle from the table surface [1]. Repeat each measurement three times and record the mean [1]. Success measure: every phone’s angle is between 55° and 70° [1]. [4] Examiner insight: A method someone else could repeat names equipment, steps and repeats; “check the angle” earns little.

4. Problem 1: a leading question invites agreement [1]. Fix: ask a neutral question, such as a 1–5 rating for appearance with a reason [1]. Problem 2: five friends are a small, biased sample, possibly not the target audience [1]. Fix: test with a larger group of real users, such as 15 students who bring packed lunches [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each problem needs its own matching fix.

5. (a) Sum = 150 + 172 + 205 + 138 + 165 + 190 + 158 + 176 = 1354 s [1]. Mean = 1354 / 8 = 169.25 s (about 2 min 49 s) [1]. (b) Under 180 s: 150, 172, 138, 165, 158, 176, so 6 users [1]. 6 / 8 × 100 = 75% [1]. (c) 75% is below the 80% target, so the point is not met [1]. The mean is under 3 minutes, but the specification set a proportion of users; two users took over 3 minutes, which the mean hides [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Compare like with like: a proportion target needs a proportion, so a correct mean with “met” loses the judgement point.

6. (i) At night on the unlit path, a helper stands at measured distances up to 50 m and records whether the light is clearly visible [1]; success: visible at 50 m to three different observers [1]. (ii) Fully charge, switch to constant mode, and time until the light goes out, repeated twice [1]; success: at least 4 hours in each run [1]. (iii) Fit the light to tubes or bars of 22 mm and 32 mm diameter measured with callipers, then shake each firmly [1]; success: the light fits both sizes and does not slip [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The success measure should copy the specification’s number exactly; changing 50 m to “far away” breaks the link to criterion B.

7. (a) Point 1: mean = (4.5 + 5.5 + 6.0) / 3 = 5.33 days, but one trial lasted only 4.5 days [1]; the target was 5 days in every trial, so not met [1]. Point 2: 9 / 12 = 75% [1]; below 90% (11 of 12 residents would be needed), so not met [1]. Point 3: £2.10 is below £3.00 [1], so met, with 90p to spare [1]. (b) The spike is cheap to make and usually waters for more than 5 days [1], but it is not yet reliable enough and a quarter of residents could not fit the bottle unaided, so it does not yet meet the client’s needs [1]. (c) Point 1 failed in one trial: narrow the drip hole slightly and re-test three times, so every trial lasts at least 5 days [1][1]. Point 2 failed: widen the spike’s opening and add a funnel-shaped collar so residents can guide the bottle in, then re-test with the same 12 residents [1][1]. [12] Examiner insight: A mean that passes cannot override a target set “in every trial”; read the wording of the specification before judging.

8. Evidence: 3 of 8 users (37.5%) could not find the save button, and two found grey text hard to read [1]. Change 1: move the save button to a fixed position at the bottom of each screen and give it a label, not just an icon [1]. Change 2: replace the grey text with a darker colour of higher contrast [1]. Re-test with new users, timing how long it takes to save and asking them to rate readability [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “More colourful” is a wish; credit goes to changes that answer a named result and a plan to re-test.

9. Positive: large print lets volunteers and borrowers with weaker eyesight find sections without help [1], which makes the library more accessible [1]. Positive: colour coding speeds up returning books to the right shelf [1], so volunteers spend less time sorting and more time helping visitors [1]. Limiting: colour coding does not help people with some forms of colour-vision deficiency unless labels also use text or symbols [1], so some users gain less benefit [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Each impact needs the effect on people, not just the feature; “it has large print” alone scores nothing.

10. Task-success trial: can a new user place an order unaided; measures the percentage who succeed [1][1]. Timed trial: measures how long ordering takes compared with the specification target [1]. Compatibility test: open the app on the phones and browsers students use [1]; measures whether every screen displays and works correctly [1]. [5] Examiner insight: Naming tests without saying what each measures earns only part of the credit.

11. Model plan with indicative points (real criterion D work is judged against level descriptors, not point by point):

• Test each specification point, for example: weigh the carrier against a mass target [1]; hang a full 1-litre bottle and shake it on a strap, repeated [1]; club members attach it on a real walk and rate ease of use 1–5 [1].
• Judge each point met, partly met or not met, using the same form as the target and showing the numbers [1].
• Write an honest overall judgement that includes any failed points [1].
• Base improvements on failed tests and user comments, stating the specific change and how it helps, and plan a re-test [1].
• Explain impact on the club members, for example easier access to water on a walk [1], plus at least one limitation or environmental effect, supported by evidence such as a leader’s interview [1]. [8] Examiner insight: Testing outdoors with real club members shows the method fits the real situation; a desk-only test cannot.

Where marks are usually lost

• Tests that do not match the specification, or specification points left untested.
• Methods with no equipment, no repeats or no units.
• Using a mean to judge a proportion target, or the reverse.
• Ignoring words such as “every trial” or “at least” in the target.
• Hiding failed results.
• Improvements that name no evidence and give no mechanism.
• Impact written as a feature list, or only positive.

Next steps

• Criterion D revision notes
• Criterion D study guide
• ePortfolio preparation
• MYP Design course hub
• Printable MYP Design checklist
• All free 10-minute diagnostics
• Book a free trial class

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014 (published by the IB, 2015). These questions follow the brief’s description of criterion D. Level descriptors and task-specific clarifications come from your school.