IB MYP Design – Criterion D: Evaluating Study Guide

This study guide teaches criterion D (Evaluating) for IB MYP Design. It is aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014, and suits MYP years 4 and 5 (MYP has no SL/HL split). It applies to your school-based design projects and to the year 5 ePortfolio, which your teacher marks and the IB moderates on a sample basis in each exam session.

MYP has no prescribed content list – schools design their own units. This page covers a skill that the brief’s assessment criteria name: evaluating your own solution. The brief gives each criterion eight achievement levels (1–8) in four bands. The exact wording of the level descriptors, and what your task expects at each band, comes from your teacher: they will share the task-specific clarifications.

Use this guide with the criterion D revision notes and the criterion D practice questions. For where criterion D sits in the whole project, see the design cycle guide and the four criteria in practice. Course links: MYP Design hub and printable checklist.

What this unit covers

The brief describes criterion D in four parts. This guide takes each in turn.

Part of criterion D (from the brief)	What you must be able to do	Level
Design tests to evaluate the solution	Plan a test for each specification point, with a method, a success measure and the data to record	MYP years 4–5
Carry out tests and objectively evaluate success	Run the tests fairly, record results, and judge each specification point as met, partly met or not met, with evidence	MYP years 4–5
Identify where the solution could be improved	Explain specific, evidence-based changes and how they would work	MYP years 4–5
Explain the impact on the client or target audience	Explain how the solution affects the people it was made for, positively and negatively	MYP years 4–5

Criterion D is the last stage of the design cycle, but it depends on criterion B. The brief says your specification “drives the development of a solution”. It also drives the evaluation. A vague specification makes a strong evaluation almost impossible, because you have nothing precise to test against. See the criterion B study guide for writing measurable specification points.

Running example: a folding music stand

A fictional client, Ms Harker, runs a junior school band. Her players carry music stands between rooms and the old metal ones are heavy and fiddly. You designed and built a folding plywood stand. Five points from your specification:

1. Holds a 2 kg folder with the desk sagging no more than 5 mm.
2. Total mass no more than 1.20 kg.
3. At least 80% of Year 7 players can fold it in under 20 seconds.
4. Material cost no more than £12.
5. Most players rate it 4 or 5 out of 5 for ease of carrying.

Each point is measurable. That is what makes the tests below possible.

Part 1: Designing tests

A test plan links every specification point to a method. For each point, decide:

• Method – what you will do, step by step, so someone else could repeat it.
• Success measure – the number or outcome that counts as “met”. Take it straight from the specification.
• Data to record – the readings, times, counts or comments you will collect.
• Who and where – the target audience in real conditions where possible, not just you at home.

Types of test

Test type	What it is	Data it gives	Example
Performance test	Measure the product doing its job	Quantitative	Load the desk and measure sag
User trial	Target users try the solution while you observe	Both	Players fold the stand, timed
Questionnaire or rating	Users answer set questions	Mostly quantitative	1–5 rating for ease of carrying
Interview	Open questions to the client	Qualitative	Ms Harker’s view on appearance
Expert appraisal	Someone with specialist knowledge reviews it	Qualitative	A technician checks joint strength
Comparison test	Test your solution beside an existing product	Both	Your stand vs the old metal stand

Quantitative data is numbers: masses, times, counts, ratings. Qualitative data is descriptions and opinions. Strong evaluations use both. Numbers show whether a target was met; comments explain why.

Making tests fair

• Repeat measurements (three readings is a sensible minimum) and use the mean.
• Keep conditions the same: same load, same surface, same instructions.
• Test with enough people from the real target audience. Five friends is not a band.
• Ask neutral questions. “How easy was it to fold?” not “Wasn’t that easy to fold?”
• Record results as you go, in a table, with units.

Worked example: a test plan

Spec point	Method	Success measure	Data
1. Sag	Place a 2 kg mass at the centre of the desk; measure the drop of the front edge with a steel rule; repeat 3 times	Mean sag ≤ 5 mm	Three readings in mm
2. Mass	Weigh the folded stand on digital kitchen scales	≤ 1.20 kg	Mass in kg
3. Folding	Show each player once; time 10 Year 7 players folding it from open	≥ 80% under 20 s	Time for each player
4. Cost	Add up material costs from receipts	≤ £12	Cost list
5. Carrying	12 band members carry it between rooms, then rate 1–5	Most (over half) rate 4 or 5	Ratings and comments

Part 2: Carrying out tests and evaluating success

“Objectively” means your judgement follows the data, not your hopes. Report results that fall short. An honest “not met” with a clear reason is stronger evaluation than a claim of success with no evidence.

Worked example: results and judgements

Results from the music stand tests (fictional data):

• Sag: readings 3.8, 4.2 and 4.0 mm. Mean = (3.8 + 4.2 + 4.0) / 3 = 4.0 mm. Target ≤ 5 mm. Met.
• Mass: 1.35 kg. Target 1.20 kg. Over by 0.15 kg, which is 0.15 / 1.20 × 100 = 12.5% over. Not met.
• Folding: times (s) 14, 18, 22, 16, 15, 25, 17, 19, 13, 21. Mean = 180 / 10 = 18.0 s. But only 7 of 10 players were under 20 s, which is 70%. Target 80%. Not met, though close. Note the trap: the mean is under 20 s, yet the specification asked about the proportion of players, not the mean.
• Cost: £9.40. Target £12. Met, with £2.60 to spare.
• Carrying: ratings – four 5s, five 4s, two 3s, one 2. Mean = 48 / 12 = 4.0. Players rating 4 or 5: 9 of 12 = 75%. Met. Two comments said the corners dug into their hands.

A clear way to present this is a table with four columns: spec point, result, met / partly met / not met, and a one-line reason. Then write an overall judgement: the stand is strong enough and affordable, and users like carrying it, but it is too heavy and slightly too hard to fold for some players. Link the two failures if the data allow: the heavy hinge that pushed the mass up is also the part players struggled with.

Using “partly met”

Use “partly met” when a result meets some of the target but not all of it, or when results are mixed across trials. Say exactly which part was met. Don’t use it to soften a clear failure.

Part 3: Explaining improvements

An improvement must come from your test evidence, say what you would change, and explain how the change would fix the problem.

Weak: “I would make it lighter and easier to fold.”

Strong: “The stand was 0.15 kg over its mass target. Most of the extra mass is the steel hinge (0.22 kg). Replacing it with a lighter hinge of the same length, or cutting lightening holes in the lower leg, would bring the mass under 1.20 kg without changing the desk, which passed its sag test. The three slowest players all paused at the hinge catch, so a larger thumb catch should also reduce folding time. I would re-test both points with the same method.”

That paragraph:

• names the evidence (mass result, observation of slow players);
• gives a specific change;
• explains why it would work;
• checks it would not undo a point that passed;
• plans a re-test.

Also consider improvements to your testing – for example, testing with more players or in the real band room.

Part 4: Explaining the impact on the client or target audience

The brief asks you to explain how your solution “will impact on the client or target audience”. Impact is the difference the solution makes to their lives, work or environment. Think in categories:

• Use: does it make a task quicker, safer or easier? (Players set up faster; fewer trips carrying stands.)
• Wellbeing and ergonomics: comfort, strain, accessibility. (Lighter to carry, but the corners need rounding.)
• Cost and resources: for the client and over the product’s life.
• Environment: materials, repair, end of life. (Plywood from a certified source can be recycled or reused; the steel hinge can be removed and reused.)
• Wider community: who else is affected – other staff, families, other schools.

Include negative or uncertain impacts. If the stand is too heavy for the youngest players, some may still need help, which limits the benefit. Base claims on evidence where you have it (the ratings, Ms Harker’s interview) and say where an impact is a prediction.

Connect impact to the global context your teacher set for the unit. The brief lists six, for example “Identities and relationships” and “Globalization and sustainability”.

Digital design: the same four parts

The brief says MYP design courses are assessed as product design, digital design, or both. For a digital solution – say a revision-timetable web app for Year 7 students – the four parts still apply. Typical tests:

• Task success: can a new user complete a key task unaided? (6 of 8 testers = 75%.)
• Time on task: how long each user takes.
• Think-aloud trial: users say what they are doing; you note where they hesitate.
• Compatibility: does it work on the phones, tablets and browsers your audience uses?
• Performance: loading time on a school connection, measured several times.

Improvements then target the screens where users hesitated or failed, and impact covers things such as study habits, screen time and data privacy.

Common errors

• Writing tests that check something the specification never mentioned, while leaving specification points untested.
• Testing only on yourself, or only on friends, instead of the target audience.
• Reporting a mean when the specification set a proportion (or the reverse).
• Using “it worked well” or “people liked it” with no figures.
• Hiding a failed test. An honest “not met” is evidence of objective evaluation.
• Improvements that are wishes (“make it better”) with no link to a result.
• Treating impact as a list of the product’s features rather than its effect on people.
• Writing the evaluation after memory has faded. Record results on the day.

Next steps

Condense this with the revision notes, then try the practice questions. For the whole folder, read ePortfolio preparation and how MYP Design is assessed. Tick progress on the MYP Design checklist.

Official syllabus

International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014 (published by the IB, 2015). This guide follows the brief’s description of criterion D, its statement that each criterion has eight achievement levels in four bands, and its ePortfolio details. Task-specific level descriptors come from your school.