DESIGN-TECHNOLOGY · IB Diploma Programme
DESIGN-TECHNOLOGY/21
(HL/SL Core)
Design technology · 2024 · 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
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 May 2024 Standard Level (SL) Paper 1 is rated as a 3 out of 5 in difficulty.
It represents a highly balanced and standard assessment that tests the core curriculum fairly without major surprises.
The paper relies heavily on clear visual aids, including diagrams of the human information processing system, product photographs (like the Pritt Stick and the Slice chair), and an engaging case study on the SafariSeat all-terrain wheelchair.
While many questions test direct recall of key terms, several questions require students to apply their knowledge to specific material properties and manufacturing contexts, creating a clear division between average and top-tier scorers.
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.
Knowledge and Understanding
Weight: 3100%Application and Analysis
Weight: 267%Synthesis and
Weight: 133%
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.
Give reasons and link mechanism to outcome; each point needs a because/so chain.
Match the expected response style for “Define” questions.
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)
7 marks this session
Innovation and design (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)
7 marks this session
Practise in RevuiInnovation and design (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 May 2024 Standard Level (SL) Paper 1 is rated as a 3 out of 5 in difficulty.
- 2Message
It represents a highly balanced and standard assessment that tests the core curriculum fairly without major surprises.
- 3Message
The paper relies heavily on clear visual aids, including diagrams of the human information processing system, product photographs (like the Pritt Stick and the Slice chair), and an engaging case study on the SafariSeat all-terrain wheelchair.
- 4Message
While many questions test direct recall of key terms, several questions require students to apply their knowledge to specific material properties and manufacturing contexts, creating a clear division between average and top-tier scorers.
- 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 Standard Level (SL) Paper 1 is rated as a 3 out of 5 in difficulty. It represents a highly balanced and standard assessment that tests the core curriculum fairly without major surprises. The paper relies heavily on clear visual aids, including diagrams of the human i
The May 2024 Standard Level (SL) Paper 1 is rated as a 3 out of 5 in difficulty.
It represents a highly balanced and standard assessment that tests the core curriculum fairly without major surprises.
The paper relies heavily on clear visual aids, including diagrams of the human information processing system, product photographs (like the Pritt Stick and the Slice chair), and an engaging case study on the SafariSeat all-terrain wheelchair.
- Total marks
- 30
- Duration
- 45 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.0 / 5
Session analysis
The May 2024 Standard Level (SL) Paper 1 is rated as a 3 out of 5 in difficulty. It represents a highly balanced and standard assessment that tests the core curriculum fairly without major surprises. The paper relies heavily on clear visual aids, including diagrams of the human information processing system, product photographs (like the Pritt Stick and the Slice chair), and an engaging case study on the SafariSeat all-terrain wheelchair. While many questions test direct recall of key terms, several questions require students to apply their knowledge to specific material properties and manufacturing contexts, creating a clear division between average and top-tier scorers.
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.
80% 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
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.
Classic Design (Core)
85%85%
Human factors and ergonomics (Core)
75%75%
Difficulty Verdict: Balanced and Comprehensive
The May 2024 Standard Level (SL) Paper 1 is rated as a 3 out of 5 in difficulty. It represents a highly balanced and standard assessment that tests the core curriculum fairly without major surprises. The paper relies heavily on clear visual aids, including diagrams of the human information processing system, product photographs (like the Pritt Stick and the Slice chair), and an engaging case study on the SafariSeat all-terrain wheelchair. While many questions test direct recall of key terms, several questions require students to apply their knowledge to specific material properties and manufacturing contexts, creating a clear division between average and top-tier scorers.
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.