IB MYP Design – Global contexts and design situations 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 the six global contexts applied to design problems 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). MYP has no prescribed content list; schools design their own units. Your teacher will share the task-specific clarifications for any assessed work.

Each question is labelled with the criterion it trains. 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 people, places and data are fictional.

Study first with the global contexts study guide and revision notes. Also: course hub, checklist, design cycle practice.

Questions

1. (Criterion A) Name the six MYP global contexts. [3]

2. (Criterion A) For each term, state whether the brief gives it as a key concept, a related concept or a global context: (i) systems, (ii) ergonomics, (iii) Fairness and development, (iv) innovation. [2]

3. (Criterion A) Distinguish between a design situation and a problem statement. [2]

4. (Criterion A) Identify the main weakness in each problem statement.

(a) “Design a phone stand for the art room.” [1] (b) “Old people find things difficult.” [1] (c) “Students need less waste, more seating and faster queues at lunch.” [1]

5. (Criterion A) Design situation: “Cyclists arriving at Ferris Lane Sports Centre, a fictional centre, leave bikes against railings because the racks are always full, and several bikes have been knocked over.” Write a problem statement for this situation that names the target audience, the need, the evidence you would collect and one constraint. [3]

6. (Criterion A) The same Ferris Lane situation is explored through two different contexts: Orientation in space and time, and Fairness and development. For each context, suggest one research question it makes necessary and the kind of evidence you would collect. [4]

7. (Criterion A) A student surveys 60 residents of Alder Court, a fictional block of retirement flats, asking which daily task is hardest.

Hardest task	Residents
Opening jars and packaging	27
Reading small print on labels	18
Carrying shopping up stairs	9
Other	6

(a) Calculate the percentage of residents who chose each of the two most common tasks. [2] (b) State which problem the data best supports pursuing, and justify your choice with the data. [1] (c) Suggest a suitable global context for this project and explain how it would shape the research. [2]

8. (Criterion D) The student builds a jar-opening aid. A success criterion linked to Fairness and development is: “At least 80% of 20 testers open a standard jar within 15 seconds.” 17 of the 20 testers do so. The five testers with the weakest grip take 12, 14, 19, 11 and 16 seconds.

(a) Calculate the percentage of all testers who met the target, and state whether the success criterion is met. [2] (b) Calculate the mean time for the five weakest-grip testers. [1] (c) Explain why reporting only the overall percentage and this mean would be a weak evaluation for this context. [2]

9. (Criterion A and D) A student writes “Global context: Globalization and sustainability” on the first page of a folder for a desk lamp. Every test measures brightness and stability. Explain the weakness and describe two changes that would make the context do real work. [4]

10. (Criterion A and D) Extended. Design situation: “Wendmere Library, a fictional town library, says fewer young people visit. Its records show 40 visitors aged 11–16 per week last year and 22 per week now.”

(a) Calculate the percentage fall in weekly visitors aged 11–16. [1] (b) Choose one global context for a project on this situation and justify your choice using two of the four context checks. [3] (c) Write a problem statement for your chosen context. [2] (d) Write two research questions – one primary, one secondary – that your context makes necessary. [2] (e) Write two context-linked success criteria you could test. [2]

11. (Criterion A and D) Extended. A student’s folder for a digital noticeboard in a school entrance hall is summarised below.

Situation given: new students get lost in the first week. Context chosen: Identities and relationships. Problem statement: “Make a screen that shows a map.” Research: specifications of three screens; prices. Tests: screen brightness; loading time. Evaluation: “The screen works well and looks good.”

Evaluate how well the global context has been used across the folder, and recommend specific improvements. [8]

Answers

1. Identities and relationships; Orientation in space and time; Personal and cultural expression; Scientific and technical innovation; Globalization and sustainability; Fairness and development. Any two correct [1]; any four correct [1]; all six correct [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Near-misses such as “Science and innovation” do not match the brief; learn the exact names.

2. (i) key concept, (ii) related concept, (iii) global context, (iv) related concept. Two correct [1]; all four correct [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “Innovation” on its own is a related concept example; only the full phrase “Scientific and technical innovation” is the global context, so answering “global context” for (iv) loses the point.

3. A design situation is the open scenario you are given, which may contain several possible problems [1]. A problem statement is written by you and names one specific, evidenced need for a named audience, without naming a solution [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “Distinguish” needs both sides; describing only one earns at most half.

4. (a) It names the solution (a phone stand) before any inquiry, and gives no audience need or evidence [1]. (b) It is vague: no specific audience, no specific difficulty and no evidence [1]. (c) It contains three separate problems, so no single target can be tested [1]. [3] Examiner insight: Name the main weakness; a list of every possible fault adds no credit.

5. Model: “Cyclists at Ferris Lane Sports Centre need a safe place to leave their bikes, because the racks are full at peak times (evidence: hourly counts of bikes in racks and on railings for a week), within the space by the entrance.” Named audience [1]; specific need with no solution named [1]; evidence and a constraint [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “Design a bigger bike rack” names a solution and loses the need point.

6. Orientation in space and time: “At what times do the racks fill, and how long do bikes stay?” [1] Evidence: hourly counts over a week and a map of where bikes are left [1]. Fairness and development: “Which cyclists cannot use the current racks – for example those with cargo bikes, trailers or adapted cycles?” [1] Evidence: interviews with cyclists who use the railings, and rack spacing measured against their bikes [1]. [4] Examiner insight: The two research questions must be different because the contexts are different; the same question written twice earns credit only once.

7. (a) Opening jars and packaging: 27 ÷ 60 × 100 = 45% [1]. Reading small print: 18 ÷ 60 × 100 = 30% [1]. (b) Opening jars and packaging, because it is the most common choice at 45%, half as many again as the next task [1]. (c) Fairness and development: current packaging excludes people with weak grip [1], so research would focus on residents who cannot open jars unaided, measuring grip and timing attempts with existing products [1]. [5] Examiner insight: Show the division for each percentage; a bare “45%” with no working gives no evidence the data were used.

8. (a) 17 ÷ 20 × 100 = 85% [1]. 85% is at least 80%, so the criterion is met [1]. (b) (12 + 14 + 19 + 11 + 16) ÷ 5 = 72 ÷ 5 = 14.4 s [1]. (c) The mean (14.4 s) is under 15 s, yet two of the five weakest-grip testers (19 s and 16 s) failed, so only 3 of 5 (60%) of the users the context is about succeeded [1]. Fairness and development is about who is left out, so the evaluation should report these individual results and suggest an improvement for them [1]. [5] Examiner insight: An average can hide the users the context targets; (c) needs the named failures (19 s and 16 s), not “some were slow”.

9. The context is only a label: no research or test relates to resources or waste [1], so the folder cannot show the context shaped the design [1]. Change 1: add research on materials and energy use, for example comparing bulb types or the recyclability of the lamp body [1]. Change 2: add a context-linked test such as power drawn in watts, or the share of parts that can be separated for recycling [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Add more about sustainability” is too vague; each change must name specific research or a measurable test.

10. (a) (40 − 22) ÷ 40 × 100 = 45% fall [1]. (b) Model: Identities and relationships [1]. It changes who is researched – young people in groups, not the library alone [1] – and what is tested – whether visitors aged 11–16 feel the space is for them, measured by a short rating before and after [1]. (c) “Visitors aged 11–16 in Wendmere need a space in the library they see as their own, because weekly visits fell from 40 to 22 (45%), within the current floor area and budget.” Audience and need [1]; evidence and constraint, no solution named [1]. (d) Primary: “Where do 11–16-year-olds in Wendmere spend free time instead, and why?” (survey or interview) [1]. Secondary: “How have other libraries redesigned areas for teenagers, and what changed?” (published case studies) [1]. (e) “At least 70% of 20 teenage testers rate the new area 4 or 5 out of 5 for feeling welcome” [1]; “Weekly visitors aged 11–16 rise above 30 in the month after the change” [1]. [10] Examiner insight: Success criteria need a number and a group; “teenagers like it” cannot be tested and earns no credit.

11. Strengths: a context was chosen at the start [1], and Identities and relationships fits a situation about new students feeling lost [1]. Weaknesses: the problem statement names the solution (“a screen”) and gives no evidence [1]; the research is about hardware and prices, not about new students [1]; the tests measure the screen, not whether new students find their way or feel settled [1]; the evaluation is a claim with no data and no mention of the target audience [1]. Improvements: rewrite the statement around new students’ need with evidence, for example how many said they got lost [1]; add a test such as the share of new students who reach three named rooms unaided within a set time, and report their feedback in the evaluation [1]. [8] Examiner insight: “Evaluate” needs strengths and weaknesses weighed; a list of faults alone cannot reach the top.

Where marks are usually lost

• Misnaming a global context, or treating a related concept (innovation, sustainability) as one.
• Problem statements that name the product (“design a lamp”) instead of the need.
• Statements with no evidence – no count, measure or source.
• Research questions that would be identical under any context.
• Success criteria with no number or no named group of testers.
• Evaluations that quote an average and hide the users the context was chosen to serve.

Next steps

• Global contexts revision notes
• Global contexts study guide
• IB 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. The six global contexts, the concept examples and the criterion names come from the brief; all questions, scenarios and data are original to Marlbridge and fictional.