DESIGN-TECHNOLOGY · IB Diploma Programme
DESIGN-TECHNOLOGY/21
(HL/SL Core)
Design technology · 2023 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: International Baccalaureate Organization
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.0 / 5
30
45 min
Raw material to final product (Core)
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
30
Duration
45 min
Session difficulty
3.0 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
The Standard Level Paper 1 for May 2023 presented a well-balanced assessment of the Core syllabus.
With a total of 30 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 45 minutes, students had to maintain a brisk pace of 1.5 minutes per question.
The overall difficulty is rated as moderate (3 out of 5 stars).
While many questions assessed straightforward definitions, several required students to apply core concepts to novel design contexts, such as the 3D-printed prosthetic arm and the IKEA refugee shelter.
Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Syllabus
Weight: 8100%Recall & Understanding
Weight: 788%Conceptual Application Study Skills Skills Skills Analysis
Weight: 675%Data & Graphical Analysis
Weight: 225%Chart
Weight: 113%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
IB subject report — grade distributions, IA weighting, and HL/SL distinctions
Level 7
Excellent — top band for competitive university offers
Level 6
Very good — strong HL performance
Level 5
Good — solid pass at higher level
Level 4
Satisfactory — minimum for many university credits
Level 3
Mediocre
Level 2
Poor
Level 1
Very poor
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Name or point to the specific feature asked for — avoid extra explanation.
Match the expected response style for “Define” questions.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
Weigh arguments for and against with evidence; end with a supported judgement.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
No data available in official reports
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Raw material to final product (Core)
9 marks this session
Resource management and sustainable production (Core)
6 marks this session
Modelling (Core)
5 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
Raw material to final product (Core)
Resource management and sustainable production (Core)
Modelling (Core)
Innovation and design (Core)
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1 (Standard Level):
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
Raw material to final product (Core)
9 marks this session
Practise in RevuiResource management and sustainable production (Core)
6 marks this session
Practise in RevuiModelling (Core)
5 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
The Standard Level Paper 1 for May 2023 presented a well-balanced assessment of the Core syllabus.
- 2Message
With a total of 30 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 45 minutes, students had to maintain a brisk pace of 1.5 minutes per question.
- 3Message
The overall difficulty is rated as moderate (3 out of 5 stars).
- 4Message
While many questions assessed straightforward definitions, several required students to apply core concepts to novel design contexts, such as the 3D-printed prosthetic arm and the IKEA refugee shelter.
- 5Message
Compare difficulty across recent years. Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2023 2023
Design technology
The Standard Level Paper 1 for May 2023 presented a well-balanced assessment of the Core syllabus. With a total of 30 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 45 minutes, students had to maintain a brisk pace of 1.5 minutes per question. The overall difficulty is rated as mod
The Standard Level Paper 1 for May 2023 presented a well-balanced assessment of the Core syllabus.
With a total of 30 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 45 minutes, students had to maintain a brisk pace of 1.5 minutes per question.
The overall difficulty is rated as moderate (3 out of 5 stars).
- Total marks
- 30
- Duration
- 45 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.0 / 5
Session analysis
The Standard Level Paper 1 for May 2023 presented a well-balanced assessment of the Core syllabus. With a total of 30 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 45 minutes, students had to maintain a brisk pace of 1.5 minutes per question. The overall difficulty is rated as moderate (3 out of 5 stars). While many questions assessed straightforward definitions, several required students to apply core concepts to novel design contexts, such as the 3D-printed prosthetic arm and the IKEA refugee shelter.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1 (Standard Level):
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
83% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Multiple Choice Question
(MCQ)
30·30·100%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Human factors and ergonomics (Core)
85%85%
Classic design (Core)
80%80%
Modelling (Core)
75%75%
May 2023 SL Paper 1 Exam Analysis
The Standard Level Paper 1 for May 2023 presented a well-balanced assessment of the Core syllabus. With a total of 30 multiple-choice questions to be completed in 45 minutes, students had to maintain a brisk pace of 1.5 minutes per question. The overall difficulty is rated as moderate (3 out of 5 stars). While many questions assessed straightforward definitions, several required students to apply core concepts to novel design contexts, such as the 3D-printed prosthetic arm and the IKEA refugee shelter.
Examiner notes & key calculations
- Terminology Confusion: Many students struggle to differentiate between similar-sounding terms. For instance, distinguishing between reconditioning, re-using, and re-engineering in the smartphone rebuild question, or confusing resources with reserves.
- Measurement Scales: Human factors questions on nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales continue to be a frequent stumbling block. Labeling items by name is a nominal scale, but students often incorrectly guess ordinal or ratio.
- Material Classifications: Correctly identifying the characteristics of smart and modern materials, such as piezoelectricity vs. shape memory, requires highly precise recall of syllabus definitions.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 1h 30min
- Total marks
- 50
- Question types
- Data-Based / Case-Study Short Answer, Structured Essay
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.