May 2023 Personal project

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2023

International Baccalaureate® | Baccalauréat International® | Bachillerato Internacional®
May 2023 subject report Personal project

Overall grade boundaries

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-2 3-5 6-10 11-14 15-17 18-20 21-24

The range and suitability of the work submitted

Personal projects from this session highlighted a remarkable collection of student creativity and
innovation. With submissions from schools around the world, students explored technological
undertakings, practical creations, well-being, and service-based projects in areas such as coding, sewing,
learning languages, photography, psychology, and more. A particularly popular topic area this session,
noted by many examiners, was fitness and nutrition.
The vast majority of schools demonstrated a thorough understanding of the personal project
requirements. While the overall quality of
areas for growth were identified. In some instances, the examining team noticed inconsistencies in
applying the content and command terms of the criteria descriptors in assessment, suggesting
opportunities for more precise alignment with student performance. The most successful schools adhered
closely to the personal project objectives and evidently guided students towards the criteria descriptors
in their reporting of the project. Nevertheless, the session served as an inspiring reflection of student
ingenuity, where they exhibited an engaging approach to learning.

Candidate performance against each criterion

Criterion A
Most students were able to base their projects on personal interests and define a clear learning goal.
However, it is important to remember that the focus for Ai should be explicitly on how their personal
interest led to their specific learning goal. Sometimes, students treated the goal and interest separately,
by providing a description of a personal interest and then stating a goal, without being clear about the
connection. Other times, the personal interest only connected to the topic in general. In the report, it
should be clear why the student came to the specifically stated learning goal, through using a personal
interest as the starting point. It is important to remember that the learning goal pertains to the
own learning through the project. Some mistakenly set learning goals centred on educating others or
raising awareness on a topic.
Some students used development of a specific ATL skill as their learning goal. However, application of ATL
skills is reported in section B in the report, and as mentioned above, the learning goal should be aligned
with a personal interest, rather than general development of ATL skills. Further, when presenting the
learning goal, some students reported irrelevant information, such as ideas not pursued, taking up space
within the report that could have been used more effectively.
While many students developed appropriate criteria for their product, considering both qualitative and
quantitative aspects, some areas of development were identified. Success criteria were sometimes vague
and lacking specificity, using terms such as "good" or "appealing" without defining them. This resulted in
students not reaching the requirement of success criteria being detailed. The most common mistake
observed for Aii in this session was students who failed to communicate how their success criteria were
appropriate for their product. Successful students explicitly addressed how and why each of their criteria

Page 2 / 5
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2023
May 2023 subject report Personal project

are appropriate to the intended product, often supported by referring to other sources. In a few instances,
the criteria were developed following a generic template that did not suit the products, highlighting the
need for success criteria that pertain to specific characteristics of the intended product. For example, when
the intended product is a piece of music composed by the student, criteria categories such as cost, safety,
material, and environment, are rarely relevant. Criteria set for the product should be specifically tailored
to the individual project, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. Schools are encouraged to guide
students in providing detailed and appropriate success criteria, and explaining why they are suitable for
their particular product.
Presenting a plan for achieving the product is an item of the project that students appeared to find
straightforward. Most students clearly presented their plan and understood that only the plan itself needs
to be included for Aiii in their report. Further, many included logical and detailed steps in their plan for
achieving the product. Most often, the plan also had some connection to the success criteria for the
product; sometimes clear and explicit, showing how each item in the plan allows the student to achieve
all aspects of their criteria; sometimes simply linked by indicating a criterion with a step; sometimes
implicitly, integrated into the details of steps in the plan. Successful students presented a plan where each
step was clearly connected to one or more criteria, and the details of each step included enough
information to show how the linked criteria would be achieved.

Criterion B
A commendable number of students adeptly addressed the ATL skills they applied during the project,
emphasizing how these contributed to either their learning goal or their product. In particular, students
excelled when focusing on fewer skills, with detailed explanations of how they helped in achieving either
the learning goal or the product, supported by illustrative examples. However, some students addressed
multiple skills without detailing how each directly contributed to their learning goal or product. The report
should clearly indicate whether the student is addressing how the skill helped in achieving the learning
goal or the product. The two strands of criterion B should be addressed separately and clarity in this
differentiation is important.
Overall, students demonstrated a strength in clearly identifying ATL skills that were particularly useful in
their project. Another frequent observation by the examining team was students merely listing or
outlining skills, without explaining how they were applied. It is important to note that a series of
statements or outlines is not equivalent to a detailed account. Rather, the definitions of the command
terms should be carefully considered for each ATL skill addressed. When applying the command terms in
the assessment process, the evidence in this section of the report should be in the student in
the body of the report. The command terms should not be applied on the evidence, since evidence cannot
describe, explain, etc. according to the definitions of the command terms. The purpose of the evidence is
to support the claims made by the student.
It was also noted that several students focused on development of ATL skills, which is not the intended
content in criterion B. Neither should the explanation be about how skills were applied in general, during
the process of completing the project as a whole. Instead, the objective is to explain how the skills were
applied to specifically achieve the learning goal and the product.

Criterion C
Most students successfully addressed the impact of their project on themselves or their learning. Several
reports included meaningful ways of how completing the project contributed with insights, underscoring
the project's significance in shaping their academic journey and career direction. However, while many

Page 3 / 5
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2023
May 2023 subject report Personal project

students touched on multiple ways the project impacted them, the depth of reflection varied. A common
observation was that students who provided a detailed account and explanation of one or two specific
impacts achieved a more substantial reflection than those who addressed numerous aspects with less
depth. Thus, even though some students mentioned multiple impacts, the depth of explanation was the
crucial determinant of their success in this strand.
Essentially, all students made a judgement of the product they created. It was evident that for Cii students
understand that they should address the quality of their product and make use of the success criteria they
presented earlier in the report. However, many students still faced challenges in systematically evaluating
the quality of their product against the established criteria. Two misconceptions in Cii were most
commonly observed either students survey data),
or they simply described their completed product. A number of students merely presented survey results
or third-party opinions as their evaluation method. While obtaining external feedback can be valuable,
this alone does not equate to a student's evaluation. If such methods are employed, students should, at a
minimum, interpret this data, weighing the strengths and limitations of their product in light of the
feedback received. Further, a mere description of various aspects of the product, even if aligned with the
stated success criteria, does not suffice as an evaluation. To qualify as an evaluation, students should
discuss the strengths and limitations of their product against each success criterion, supporting their
claims with concrete evidence or examples.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future candidates

Understanding the command terms is one of the areas that will benefit students the most in further
development, especially around the definition of each command term and how they should be applied in
different criteria strands. For example, often the highest levels include the command term explain . This
means in Ai that there needs to be a detailed account, including reasons or causes for why the personal
interest led to the specific learning goal, as stated by the student. It needs to be clear in the report what
the reason/cause was for why they came to that specific goal. A personal interest can lead to a great variety
of goals, so why their stated goal? Similarly, in criterion B there needs to be a detailed account, including
reasons or causes for why applying the skill, as described, helped in achieving the learning goal/product.
It should not be up to the reader to guess why, rather the reason/cause should be explicit.
Another area to address is the understanding of the command term describe , which is often
differentiating whether the work is reaching level 5 and above. To meet the definition of describe , the
student needs to provide a detailed account about an item. A series of statements or outlines of various
items does not make it a description. When marking students
considered by itself, whether it is described in a detailed account. This often affects criteria B and Ci, where
students sometimes list multiple items very briefly, without going into depth to provide a detailed account
about any of them.

Ensuring a collective understanding of command terms can significantly enhance the clarity and depth of
submissions. Providing students with exemplars can be particularly helpful, showing them the
distinct differences between stating, outlining, describing, explaining, and evaluating.

Further comments
Overall, students showcased a commendable grasp of the personal project, indicating that the majority of
schools offer guidance in alignment with the current guide and assessment criteria.

Page 4 / 5
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2023
May 2023 subject report Personal project

Students generally adhered to the report limits and structure well. However, the examining team did
observe some reports where the submitted material exceeded the permitted maximum. Please refer to
the Personal project guide, published February 2021, updated April 2023, p. 29 for information regarding
maximum submission limits. Evidence outside of limits is not considered by examiners, which may have
an impact on students
falls outside of the submission limits. Schools are reminded that a title page, table of content, etc., will
count as part of the 15 pages, and the use of these is therefore discouraged.
The use of hyperlinks and URLs was still observed within students These are not permitted in
students , and any links to content outside the report will not be attempted to be accessed
by examiners. All evidence for assessment must be included within the report itself.
All work submitted for moderation needs to be clear and legible. Some students
that were illegible because they used too small a font size. This was mostly common when presenting the
product success criteria and the plan for achieving the product. Schools are reminded to adhere to the
requirements of the minimum font size. Please refer to the Personal project guide, published February
2021, updated April 2023, p. 29.

Page 5 / 5
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2023