IB MYP Design – Product Design and Digital Design 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 is for IB MYP Design and follows the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014, which states that MYP design courses are assessed in one of three forms: product design, digital design, or combined digital and product design. It suits MYP years 4 and 5 (no SL/HL split). MYP has no prescribed content list – schools design their own units – so your teacher will share the task-specific clarifications.

Each question is labelled with the criterion it trains. Real MYP work is judged against criterion level descriptors (1–8, in four bands), so the [1] points here are a revision aid, not IB marks. All data in these questions is fictional.

Questions

1. (Course knowledge) State the three ways the MYP Design brief says design courses are formally assessed. [3]

2. (Criterion A) Design situation: new pupils get lost in a large school in their first week. One student plans a product solution (a fold-out paper and card map with colour-coded routes); another plans a digital solution (a phone web map).

(a) Identify two things the product designer should research that the digital designer need not. [2] (b) Identify two things the digital designer should research that the product designer need not. [2]

3. (Criterion B) Rewrite each vague specification point so it can be measured and tested.

(a) “The lunchbox must be light.” [2] (b) “The quiz app must be easy to use.” [2] (c) “The website must work on different devices.” [2]

4. (Criterion C) A student is building a small website for a local running club.

(a) Put these build steps in a sensible order: add photos and text; test every link on three devices; set up folders and file names; build the page template and menu. [2] (b) State three things a product-design plan for making a wooden bird box should record for each step, which a digital plan would not normally need. [3]

5. (Criterion C) For each test, say whether a low-fidelity or high-fidelity prototype is needed, and justify your choice.

(a) The client checks that a desk organiser is the right size for her desk. [2] (b) You test whether users understand the menu labels in an app. [2] (c) You test whether a shelf holds 8 kg. [2]

6. (Criterion D) A specification states: “The home page loads in under 3 seconds on the school wifi on each of five test devices.” Load times (s): 1.8, 2.4, 3.6, 2.1, 2.9.

(a) Calculate the mean load time. [2] (b) State how many devices passed, as a number and a percentage. [2] (c) State, with a reason, whether the specification is met. [1] (d) Suggest one change that could reduce load time. [1]

7. (Criterion D) A phone case must “survive five drops from 1.0 m onto a hard floor with no cracks”. Three identical prototypes (A, B, C) were dropped five times each. A and C never cracked; B cracked on its fourth and fifth drops.

(a) Calculate the percentage of the 15 drops that caused no new crack. [2] (b) A student writes: “87% of drops passed, so the case meets the specification.” Explain why this is wrong. [2] (c) Suggest two next steps. [2]

8. (Criterion B – ergonomics) A game for 8–10-year-olds will run on tablets. Fictional data for this age group gives a 95th-percentile fingertip width of 19 mm.

(a) The designer adds a 2 mm margin on each side of the fingertip width. Calculate the minimum width of each on-screen button. [2] (b) Explain why the 95th percentile, not the 50th, is used here. [2] (c) Give one way ergonomics would shape a product-design version of the same game (a physical board game). [1]

9. (Criteria A–D – extended, combined design) Design situation: a community library wants to start lending board games but keeps losing pieces. A student proposes a combined solution: a storage box with a labelled tray for every piece, and a short web page (reached by a code printed on the lid) that shows a photo of the full set so borrowers can check it on return.

Outline the evidence the student should produce for each of Criteria A, B, C and D, making sure both the physical and the digital parts are covered, and name a global context the project could sit in, with a reason. [10]

10. (Criterion D – extended) A digital recipe app for teenagers had this spec point: “At least 80% of first-time testers add a recipe to favourites in under 30 seconds.” Ten testers took (s): 22, 41, 18, 27, 35, 19, 25, 24, 38, 21. The student’s evaluation reads:

“The mean time was 27 seconds, which is under 30, so the app meets the specification. Everyone said they liked the colours. The app is a success.”

Evaluate this evaluation. Use the data, and explain what a stronger Criterion D evaluation would include. [8]

Answers

1. Product design [1]; digital design [1]; combined digital and product design [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “Combined” on its own is incomplete; name both parts, digital and product, as the brief does.

2. (a) Any two of: card that folds without tearing [1]; print and colour sizes readable while walking [1]; a pocket-sized folded format. [2] (b) Any two of: pupils’ phones and screen sizes [1]; whether wifi reaches every corridor [1]; zooming and scrolling on small screens. [2] Examiner insight: Research has to be specific to the type; “research existing maps” applies to both and would not earn either mark.

3. (a) Name a mass with a unit [1] and a pass condition, for example “The empty lunchbox has a mass of no more than 250 g, measured on kitchen scales” [1]. (b) Name a task and target [1], for example “At least 8 of 10 first-time users start a quiz within 15 seconds of opening the app, with no help” [1]. (c) Name the devices or sizes [1] and the test, for example “Every page displays with no sideways scrolling on a phone, a tablet and a laptop, checked on each” [1]. [6] Examiner insight: A spec point earns full credit only if it could be tested in Criterion D; a number with no stated test method is only half the job.

4. (a) Set up folders and file names; build the page template and menu [1]; add photos and text; test every link on three devices [1]. [2] (b) Any three of: the tools and equipment for the step [1]; the material and its size (cutting list) [1]; the safety precautions [1]; the time allowed for the step. [3] Examiner insight: Each plan step needs enough detail for someone else to repeat it.

5. (a) Low fidelity [1]: a card or foam model at full size shows the size and shape quickly and cheaply, and size is all that is being checked [1]. (b) Low fidelity [1]: paper screens or a static wireframe show the labels; understanding a label does not need working code [1]. (c) High fidelity [1]: strength depends on the real material, thickness and joints, so only a full-size prototype in the real material gives valid results [1]. [6] Examiner insight: The justification must link what the prototype has to what the test measures; “because it is quicker” alone does not earn the second mark.

6. (a) (1.8 + 2.4 + 3.6 + 2.1 + 2.9) ÷ 5 = 12.8 ÷ 5 [1] = 2.56 s [1] (b) 4 devices passed [1]; 4 ÷ 5 = 80% [1] (c) Not met: the spec says each of five devices, and one device took 3.6 s [1]. (d) Any one: compress or resize the images; load fewer images on the home page; remove unused scripts [1]. [6] Examiner insight: Always test against the exact wording of the spec point; a mean under 3 s says nothing about “each device”.

7. (a) No new crack on 5 + 3 + 5 = 13 of 15 drops [1]; 13 ÷ 15 × 100 = 86.7% (3 s.f.) [1] (b) The spec applies to each case, not to the pool of drops [1]; prototype B cracked before completing five drops, so the design is not shown to meet the spec [1]. (c) Any two: find where B cracked [1]; thicken the case or add a bumper there [1]; retest more prototypes; check B was made like A and C. [6] Examiner insight: A percentage can hide a failure; say what the result means for the client, not just the number.

8. (a) 19 + 2 + 2 [1] = 23 mm [1] (b) The 95th percentile means only about 5% of the target users have wider fingertips [1]; designing for the 50th percentile would leave about half the users with fingertips wider than the target, so more likely to press the wrong button [1]. (c) Any one: pieces sized for small hands to pick up; text large enough to read across a table [1]. [5] Examiner insight: Name the percentile and say which users it includes; “for bigger fingers” without the data link earns less.

9.

• A: interview the librarian about which pieces go missing [1]; analyse existing game storage and photo check-lists [1]; find out whether borrowers’ phones can scan a code [1].
• B: a design brief and measurable spec with physical points (tray holds every piece; box survives a 1.0 m drop) and digital points (page opens within 3 s of scanning) [1]; sketches and CAD of the tray, and a wireframe of the page [1].
• C: a two-strand plan, making the box and building the page [1]; a record of where they meet, such as placing the code so it scans with the lid closed [1].
• D: product test, time borrowers checking a returned set with and without the tray [1]; digital test, borrowers scan and use the page with no help, and success is recorded [1].
• Global context with a reason, for example Globalization and sustainability, because fewer lost pieces means fewer games thrown away [1]. [10] Examiner insight: In combined design, evidence for only the box or only the page leaves half of each criterion unsupported.

10.

• The mean is correct: 270 ÷ 10 = 27 s [1].
• But the spec asks for a percentage of testers, not a mean [1]. Only 7 of 10 were under 30 s = 70% [1], below the 80% target, so the spec point is not met [1].
• “Liked the colours” is an opinion about a feature not in this spec point, so it is not evidence for it [1].
• A stronger evaluation would study the three slow testers (41, 35 and 38 s) to find where they got stuck [1].
• It would propose a specific improvement, such as a favourites button on each recipe card, and plan a retest [1].
• It would explain the impact on teenage users [1]. [8] Examiner insight: Calling a solution “a success” without comparing each result with its spec point limits a Criterion D evaluation, however good the app is.

Where marks are usually lost

• Specification points with no unit, number or pass condition.
• Quoting a mean when the spec point is about a percentage of users or about “each” device.
• Research that is not specific to the type of solution.
• Using a card model or a wireframe to claim strength or speed.
• Combined projects with strong evidence for one part and almost none for the other.
• Evaluations built on “everyone liked it” rather than set tasks and measured results.

Next steps

• Product and digital design revision notes
• Product and digital design study guide
• Criteria in practice questions
• MYP Design hub
• Printable checklist
• All free 10-minute diagnostics
• Book a free trial class

Official syllabus

This practice set is aligned to the International Baccalaureate Organization, Middle Years Programme Subject Brief – Design, from 2014.