Upload your Design Technology IA draft and get instant feedback aligned with official IB criteria.
Follow the same rubric-first flow students use to move from a raw draft to a submission-ready version.
Start by dropping in your coursework PDF. We built this flow to mirror how students prepare final submission drafts.
Drag and drop to upload
Limit 10 MB per file. Supported files: PDF
Sign in to start your first grading run.
Marksy maps your draft against the rubric so you can see where marks are gained or lost in each criterion.
Every important scoring decision is anchored to your writing so revision is evidence-based, not guesswork.
Get structured next actions so you can move from draft to stronger markband performance in the right order.
For class-wide workflows, the same logic extends to batch marking so feedback stays consistent across submissions.
Keep one grading system across IA, EE, TOK, and subject variants so your preparation process stays consistent.
Use this guide to sharpen your brief, justify concept choices, build a manufacturable proposal, and evaluate the final prototype with evidence.
Recommended Length
2,000 words plus design documentation
Build Timeline
5-7 weeks: brief, concept, development, test, evaluate
Anchor Question
Does each design decision make the prototype more fit for purpose?
Want a full playbook format? Read Design Technology IA Guide.
Use each criterion as a checklist for revision. Strong drafts make the scoring evidence obvious, not implied.
Examiner focus: Investigating a problem to develop a design brief and specification
Top-band move: The student: • describes an appropriate problem that leads to a design opportunity • develops a detailed brief that identifies the relevant parameters of the problem • develops a design specification that justifies the requirements, based on the outcomes of the research.
Common penalty: The student: • identifies a problem • develops a simple brief that identifies few relevant parameters of the problem • develops a design specification that states the requirements, with no reference to the outcomes of the research.
Examiner focus: Developing and justifying design concepts through modeling
Top-band move: The student: • develops feasible ideas to meet appropriate specifications that explore solutions to the problem • uses concept modeling and analyses the outcomes to guide design development • justifies an appropriate idea for detailed development.
Common penalty: The student: • demonstrates limited development of few ideas that explore solutions to the problem • presents concept models • selects an appropriate idea for detailed development with no justification.
Examiner focus: Creating a detailed design proposal and manufacturing plan
Top-band move: The student: • justifies the choice of appropriate materials, components and manufacturing techniques to make the prototype • develops an accurate design proposal in sufficient detail for a third party to manufacture the prototype • produces a detailed plan for the manufacture of the prototype.
Common penalty: The student: • lists some appropriate materials, components and manufacturing techniques to make the prototype • develops a design proposal that includes few details and is not sufficient for a third party to manufacture the prototype • produces an incomplete plan that contains some production details.
Examiner focus: Evaluating the prototype against specifications and suggesting improvements
Top-band move: The student: • justifies a testing strategy to measure the success of the prototype • evaluates the success of the prototype against the design specification • demonstrates how the prototype could be improved, considering how individual improvements affect the design as a whole.
Common penalty: The student: • states a testing strategy to measure the success of the prototype • evaluates the success of the prototype against few aspects of the design specification with no evidence of testing • lists how the prototype could be improved.
Match your draft to the descriptors below to identify the smallest edits that can move you into a higher band.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
The student: • identifies a problem • develops a simple brief that identifies few relevant parameters of the problem • develops a design specification that states the requirements, with no reference to the outcomes of the research.
Points 4-6
The student: • identifies an appropriate problem that leads to a design opportunity • develops a brief that identifies some of the relevant parameters of the problem • develops a design specification that outlines the requirements, with limited reference to the outcomes of the research.
Points 7-9
The student: • describes an appropriate problem that leads to a design opportunity • develops a detailed brief that identifies the relevant parameters of the problem • develops a design specification that justifies the requirements, based on the outcomes of the research.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
The student: • demonstrates limited development of few ideas that explore solutions to the problem • presents concept models • selects an appropriate idea for detailed development with no justification.
Points 4-6
The student: • develops ideas with reference to the specifications that explore solutions to the problem • uses concept modeling with limited analysis of the outcomes to guide design development • selects an appropriate idea for detailed development with limited justification.
Points 7-9
The student: • develops feasible ideas to meet appropriate specifications that explore solutions to the problem • uses concept modeling and analyses the outcomes to guide design development • justifies an appropriate idea for detailed development.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
The student: • lists some appropriate materials, components and manufacturing techniques to make the prototype • develops a design proposal that includes few details and is not sufficient for a third party to manufacture the prototype • produces an incomplete plan that contains some production details.
Points 4-6
The student: • describes some appropriate materials, components and manufacturing techniques to make the prototype • develops a design proposal that includes most details necessary for a third party to manufacture the prototype • produces a plan for the manufacture of the prototype.
Points 7-9
The student: • justifies the choice of appropriate materials, components and manufacturing techniques to make the prototype • develops an accurate design proposal in sufficient detail for a third party to manufacture the prototype • produces a detailed plan for the manufacture of the prototype.
Points 0
The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.
Points 1-3
The student: • states a testing strategy to measure the success of the prototype • evaluates the success of the prototype against few aspects of the design specification with no evidence of testing • lists how the prototype could be improved.
Points 4-6
The student: • describes a testing strategy to measure the success of the prototype • evaluates the success of the prototype against some aspects of the design specification • outlines how the prototype could be improved.
Points 7-9
The student: • justifies a testing strategy to measure the success of the prototype • evaluates the success of the prototype against the design specification • demonstrates how the prototype could be improved, considering how individual improvements affect the design as a whole.
Step 1
Identify a real problem, then turn it into a focused brief and specification that are clearly justified by research.
Step 2
Generate more than one feasible solution and use concept modelling to show why the chosen direction is strongest.
Step 3
Document materials, components, dimensions, and manufacturing steps so another person could reproduce the prototype.
Step 4
Evaluate the prototype against the specification, then explain improvements with clear cause-and-effect reasoning.
The brief and specification are justified by the research, not copied from it.
Concept selection is explained, not just presented.
The final design proposal is detailed enough for third-party manufacture.
Testing evidence is tied directly back to the original specification.
Use the specification as a checklist for every development decision.
Include comparison language when explaining why one concept won over another.
Tie each proposed improvement to a specific limitation observed during testing.
The grader evaluates your submission against the active IB criteria for Design Technology and returns criterion-level marks with actionable feedback.
Yes. Most students use draft grading to identify weak criteria, revise, and re-check before final submission.
Yes. Teachers can upload multiple files in one batch from the bulk grading route for faster class-wide feedback.
Absolutely. By default, nobody other than you can access your uploaded files, however you may make them shareable to others. Even then, you have full control to delete your files at any moment, and your files are not used to train AI models. More information here.
Upload a single submission and get criterion-by-criterion feedback aligned to IB descriptors.
Open Single GradingProcess up to 15 files in one run and keep feedback consistent across your class.
View Bulk Plan