DESIGN-TECHNOLOGY · IB Diploma Programme
DESIGN-TECHNOLOGY/12
(SL)
Design technology · 2024 · Variant 2
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: International Baccalaureate Organization
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.5 / 5
80
135 min
Raw material to final product (Core)
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
80
Duration
135 min
Session difficulty
3.5 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
The May 2024 IB Design Technology Standard Level examinations presented a balanced yet rigorous assessment of the core curriculum.
Paper 1 (Multiple Choice) offered a fair distribution of questions across the six core topics, testing fundamental definitions and conceptual relationships.
Paper 2, on the other hand, demanded a higher degree of integration and applied knowledge, particularly through the structured case studies of the Husqvarna battery-powered lawnmower and the eco-friendly can rings.
Overall, the papers rate as a 3.5 out of 5 in terms of difficulty, providing an accessible baseline while challenging students to write precise, multi-part explanations in the high-tariff 9-mark questions.
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.
Technical Knowledge
Weight: 5100%Application &
Weight: 360%Synthesis & Physiological Explanation
Weight: 240%Evaluation
Weight: 120%
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
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
Match the expected response style for “Outline” questions.
State features in sequence or list observable properties — do not explain causes unless asked.
Match the expected response style for “State” questions.
Match the expected response style for “List” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 2
Min per mark: 1.7
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
Raw material to final product (Core)
27 marks this session
Resource management and sustainable production (Core)
18 marks this session
Innovation and design (Core)
13 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:
Paper 2:
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)
27 marks this session
Practise in RevuiResource management and sustainable production (Core)
18 marks this session
Practise in RevuiInnovation and design (Core)
13 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
The May 2024 IB Design Technology Standard Level examinations presented a balanced yet rigorous assessment of the core curriculum.
- 2Message
Paper 1 (Multiple Choice) offered a fair distribution of questions across the six core topics, testing fundamental definitions and conceptual relationships.
- 3Message
Paper 2, on the other hand, demanded a higher degree of integration and applied knowledge, particularly through the structured case studies of the Husqvarna battery-powered lawnmower and the eco-friendly can rings.
- 4Message
Overall, the papers rate as a 3.5 out of 5 in terms of difficulty, providing an accessible baseline while challenging students to write precise, multi-part explanations in the high-tariff 9-mark questions.
- 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
2024 2024
Design technology
The May 2024 IB Design Technology Standard Level examinations presented a balanced yet rigorous assessment of the core curriculum. Paper 1 (Multiple Choice) offered a fair distribution of questions across the six core topics, testing fundamental definitions and conceptual relatio
The May 2024 IB Design Technology Standard Level examinations presented a balanced yet rigorous assessment of the core curriculum.
Paper 1 (Multiple Choice) offered a fair distribution of questions across the six core topics, testing fundamental definitions and conceptual relationships.
Paper 2, on the other hand, demanded a higher degree of integration and applied knowledge, particularly through the structured case studies of the Husqvarna battery-powered lawnmower and the eco-friendly can rings.
- Total marks
- 80
- Duration
- 135 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.5 / 5
Session analysis
The May 2024 IB Design Technology Standard Level examinations presented a balanced yet rigorous assessment of the core curriculum. Paper 1 (Multiple Choice) offered a fair distribution of questions across the six core topics, testing fundamental definitions and conceptual relationships. Paper 2, on the other hand, demanded a higher degree of integration and applied knowledge, particularly through the structured case studies of the Husqvarna battery-powered lawnmower and the eco-friendly can rings. Overall, the papers rate as a 3.5 out of 5 in terms of difficulty, providing an accessible baseline while challenging students to write precise, multi-part explanations in the high-tariff 9-mark questions.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1:
Paper 2:
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.
75% 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.
Short Response
35·16·44%
Multiple Choice
30·30·38%
Extended Response
15·2·19%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 (SL)
0.60 m/minPaper 2 Section A
0.50 m/minTotal marks
50
Total time
90 min
Avg pace
0.56
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
User-centred design (UCD)
90%90%
Classic design
85%85%
Overview & Difficulty Verdict
The May 2024 IB Design Technology Standard Level examinations presented a balanced yet rigorous assessment of the core curriculum. Paper 1 (Multiple Choice) offered a fair distribution of questions across the six core topics, testing fundamental definitions and conceptual relationships. Paper 2, on the other hand, demanded a higher degree of integration and applied knowledge, particularly through the structured case studies of the Husqvarna battery-powered lawnmower and the eco-friendly can rings. Overall, the papers rate as a 3.5 out of 5 in terms of difficulty, providing an accessible baseline while challenging students to write precise, multi-part explanations in the high-tariff 9-mark questions.
Examiner notes & key calculations
- Thermal and Electrical Confusion: Many students struggle to differentiate between material properties under thermal stress versus mechanical stress (such as selecting thermosetting plastics for hot battery casings).
- Ergonomic Terminology: Confusing static anthropometric data (such as static body measurements when stationary) with dynamic data (measurements during movement or functional clearance) continues to be a common pitfall.
- Superficial Explanation: In Paper 2, 'Explain' questions require a point-by-point development. For example, when explaining lamination or casting, simply naming the steps without explaining the physical changes or reasons behind them prevents students from reaching the top mark bands.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 45min
- Total marks
- 30
- Question types
- Multiple Choice
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.