IB MYP Design – Criterion D: Evaluating Revision Notes

For full explanations and worked examples, read the criterion D study guide first.

These notes cover criterion D (Evaluating) for IB MYP Design, aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014. They suit MYP years 4 and 5 (no SL/HL split) and apply 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 page covers a skill the brief’s criteria name. Your teacher will share the task-specific clarifications for each achievement level.

Course links: MYP Design hub, printable checklist, criterion D practice questions, design cycle revision notes, criteria in practice revision notes.

What the brief says criterion D involves

The brief’s description of criterion D has four parts:

1. Design tests to evaluate the solution.
2. Carry out those tests and objectively evaluate its success.
3. Identify areas where the solution could be improved.
4. Explain the impact of the solution on the client or target audience.

Facts from the brief you can rely on:

• Four criteria, equally weighted; each has eight achievement levels (1–8) in four bands.
• The ePortfolio is a complete design folder containing a design brief and specification.
• Courses are formally assessed as product design, digital design, or combined.
• The specification is written in criterion B and “drives the development of a solution” – it is also what you test against in criterion D.

Key definitions

Term	Meaning
Specification	A list of measurable requirements the solution must meet
Testing method	The step-by-step procedure used to check one specification point
Success measure	The value or outcome that counts as “met”, taken from the specification
Quantitative data	Numbers: mass, time, count, rating
Qualitative data	Words: comments, observations, interview answers
Objective evaluation	A judgement that follows the evidence, including results that fall short
Improvement	A specific change, linked to a test result, with an explanation of how it helps
Impact	The effect of the solution on the client, target audience, and wider world

Method in steps: a test plan

1. List every specification point.
2. For each, choose a test type (performance, user trial, questionnaire, interview, expert appraisal, comparison).
3. Write the method so someone else could repeat it: equipment, steps, repeats.
4. Copy the success measure from the specification.
5. Say what data you will record and in what units.
6. Say who tests it (the real target audience) and where (real conditions).

Test types at a glance

Test type	Best for	Watch out for
Performance test	Strength, mass, size, speed, loading time	Too few repeats
User trial	Ease of use, time to complete a task	Helping the user during the trial
Questionnaire / rating	Opinions from many users	Leading questions, tiny samples
Interview	The client’s detailed view	Only asking yes/no questions
Expert appraisal	Safety, construction quality, code quality	Treating it as a replacement for user testing
Comparison test	Showing improvement over an existing product	Unequal conditions

Method in steps: judging a result

1. State the specification target.
2. State the result with units (show the mean if you repeated).
3. Compare in the same form: proportion with proportion, mean with mean.
4. Decide: met, partly met or not met.
5. Give a one-line reason, using a comment or observation where it explains the number.

Worked reminder. Target: at least 80% of users finish in under 20 s. Ten users: 7 under 20 s. 7 / 10 = 70%, so not met – even if the mean time (say 18 s) is under 20 s. The specification set a proportion, so judge the proportion.

Worked reminder. Target mass ≤ 400 g. Result 436 g. Over by 36 g = 36 / 400 × 100 = 9% over. Not met. Stating the size of the shortfall shows how big the fix needs to be.

Method in steps: an improvement

1. Name the result that fell short (or the comment that raised a problem).
2. Say the cause, if your observations show it.
3. State the specific change (material, dimension, feature, screen, layout).
4. Explain how the change fixes the cause.
5. Check it will not break a point that passed.
6. Say how you would re-test.

Worked reminder. Weak: “I would make it lighter.” Strong: “The stand was 0.15 kg over its 1.20 kg target. The steel hinge is the heaviest part, so a lighter hinge of the same length would cut the mass without weakening the desk, which passed its sag test. I would weigh it again to confirm.”

A results table that works

Spec point	Target	Result	Judgement	Reason or comment
Mass	≤ 1.20 kg	1.35 kg	Not met	12.5% over; steel hinge is heavy
Folding	≥ 80% under 20 s	7 of 10 (70%)	Not met	Slow players paused at the catch
Cost	≤ £12	£9.40	Met	£2.60 under budget

One row per specification point keeps the evaluation complete and makes gaps obvious.

Impact checklist

• Use – quicker, safer, easier task?
• Wellbeing and ergonomics – comfort, strain, accessibility.
• Cost and resources – for the client, over the product’s life.
• Environment – materials, energy, repair, end of life.
• Wider community – who else is affected?
• Balance – at least one negative or limiting impact.
• Evidence – link to ratings, interviews or trials; label predictions as predictions.
• Context – link to the global context set for your unit (the brief lists six, such as “Fairness and development”).

Must-know distinctions

• Testing vs evaluating. Testing collects data. Evaluating judges the data against the specification.
• Quantitative vs qualitative. Numbers show whether; comments show why. Use both.
• Mean vs proportion. A good mean can hide a failing proportion, and the reverse.
• Improvement vs wish. An improvement cites evidence and explains how; a wish does neither.
• Features vs impact. “It folds flat” is a feature. “Players can carry it in one hand between rooms” is impact.
• Product improvements vs test improvements. You can also improve the testing: bigger sample, real setting, more repeats.
• Product design vs digital design tests. Product: strength, mass, dimensions, durability. Digital: task success, time on task, compatibility across devices, loading time. Both use user trials.

Quick self-test

1. What are the four parts of criterion D, as the brief describes them?
2. Which criterion’s work do you test against in criterion D?
3. Give one quantitative and one qualitative piece of data from a trial of a school bag.
4. A target says at least 75% of testers must succeed. 7 of 9 succeed. Met or not? Show the percentage.
5. Three readings of a shelf’s sag are 12.1, 11.8 and 12.4 mm. What is the mean?
6. A lamp must weigh no more than 400 g. It weighs 436 g. By what percentage is it over?
7. 11 of 15 users rate an app 4 or 5. The target is 80%. Met or not?
8. A web page must load in a mean time under 3 s. Readings: 2.4, 2.9, 3.4 s. Met or not?
9. Rewrite as a neutral question: “Don’t you think my handle is comfortable?”
10. Why is “It folds flat” not an impact statement?

Answers

1. Design tests; carry them out and objectively evaluate success; identify where the solution could be improved; explain the impact on the client or target audience.
2. Criterion B – the design specification.
3. For example, quantitative: time to pack the bag, or a 1–5 comfort rating; qualitative: “the strap slips off my shoulder”.
4. 7 / 9 = 77.8% (3 s.f.), which is at least 75%, so met.
5. (12.1 + 11.8 + 12.4) / 3 = 12.1 mm.
6. 36 / 400 × 100 = 9% over.
7. 11 / 15 = 73.3%, below 80%, so not met.
8. Mean = 8.7 / 3 = 2.9 s, under 3 s, so met – but note one reading was over 3 s, which is worth mentioning.
9. “How comfortable was the handle? Rate it 1–5 and say why.”
10. It describes a feature of the product. Impact describes the effect on people, for example being able to store it in a small cupboard.

Where marks are usually lost

• Tests that do not match specification points, or specification points left untested.
• Methods too vague to repeat: no equipment, no number of repeats, no units.
• Testing only on yourself or a few friends rather than the target audience.
• Judging a proportion target with a mean, or a mean target with a single reading.
• Leaving out failed results, which removes the evidence of objective evaluation.
• Conclusions such as “it worked well” with no data behind them.
• Improvements with no link to a result and no explanation of how they would work.
• Impact written as a feature list, or only positive, or with no evidence.
• No reference to the client’s own feedback when explaining impact.

Official syllabus

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