Bring your research and design decisions together for a proposal for a useful connected device, supported by your working LED prototype. Build on the work you have already completed.
Start with your connected-product research, working blink sketch and One LED three messages work and the two preparation worksheets. Keep useful evidence, improve weak sections and collect anything missing. This is one continuing project, not a fresh project or a demand to rewrite everything.
Final submission: 20 October at 20:00 China time. Your current project is the starting point.
Audit the A evidence against all four strands. Fill the most important research gaps and write the final brief.
Refine the requirements and alternatives. Explain your choice with evidence, not just preference.
Finish the short requirements, options, and choice notes. Check that they match your current project. No planning drawings are required.
Between meetings, finish the part you started and keep your evidence organised. If your last meeting is before 20 October, use the remaining time for your final check and upload.
Work independently, justify the problem and choices with evidence, analyse trade-offs, and make the plans detailed enough for another person to interpret.
Maximum 8 points
Explain the problem for a specific school user who needs a clear status message or useful information. Use your real user evidence to show why a proposal for a useful connected device, supported by your working LED prototype is needed.
Show your prioritised questions, sources and methods. Explain why you used them and identify what remains uncertain. Keep original dates when reusing earlier work.
Use your comparison of three existing connected products that address a related need or communicate status. Trace each product’s input, processing, output and network role. Compare usefulness, understandable feedback, offline behaviour and data privacy. Use manufacturer documentation where possible; distinguish advertised features from verified ones.
Bring your findings together into a brief that guides the project. Explain what the LED prototype proves and what it cannot prove. Use research to decide whether connectivity adds value and identify risks that still need investigation.
Maximum 8 points
Keep Part A unchanged. For Part B, reuse your research, working blink sketch, One LED three messages work, and previous worksheet. Use short bullet points or a small table. No new planning drawings, system diagrams, flowcharts, or technical drawings are required.
Write four things your solution must do: help the user, communicate a clear message, work safely with the available setup, and be honest about any proposed connection or offline state. For each, give one brief research reason and one simple way to check it. Reuse a user comment, product example, or technical fact from Part A; add only a missing fact and its source if needed. Mark the most important requirement. Example: the user can recognize the attention signal; ask them what it means.
Describe two feasible ways to meet the same user need. Reuse earlier ideas where useful. For each, write two or three bullets: what it does, how the LED message or interaction differs, and one advantage or limitation. Describe any connected feature as a proposal unless it actually works. Written descriptions are enough; you do not need sketches or a new prototype.
Choose one solution. In three to five bullets, explain why it fits at least two requirements better than the other option, identify one trade-off, and state what works now and what is still proposed. Name the existing parts or files you will use; one plain-language sentence about how they work together is enough. Include a brief change after feedback only if you actually made one. No planning drawing is required.
No planning drawings are required for this revised task. The existing B rubric still includes B.iv, which asks for planning drawings or diagrams. These short responses provide evidence mainly for B.i–iii; a written component description does not automatically demonstrate B.iv. Your teacher will clarify how any existing evidence is considered. Do not create extra drawings for this revision.
Use only the working ESP32, computer, LED and existing wires/setup for practical work. Keep any existing current-limiting resistor. Additional sensors, paid services and a working cloud connection are not required for this A/B assessment.
The working product or prototype supports your explanations. Technical polish and the amount of new equipment are not separate A/B marks. Assessment is based on the quality of the research and design decisions.
Your teacher awards one best-fit level from 0 to 8 for A and another for B. The strands guide the judgement; they are not four separate two-point summative marks. Worksheet totals are not averaged to calculate these levels. The rubrics are task-specific clarifications of the school’s MYP assessment approach, not a replacement for the applicable IB criteria.
| Level | What the evidence shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted evidence does not yet demonstrate the achievement described in the 1–2 band. |
| 1–2 | The work names a possible need for a proposal for a useful connected device, supported by your working LED prototype and records a small amount of research. The audience, research decisions and useful findings are still difficult to identify. |
| 3–4 | The need and audience are outlined. Some research questions or sources are identified with guidance. An existing example is described and some findings are recorded, but the connection to a useful project direction is incomplete. |
| 5–6 | The user need is explained. Research priorities and methods are mostly clear. The discussion of existing examples identifies useful features and their effects. Findings support a coherent direction for connected devices, although some evidence links or reasoning need more detail. |
| 7–8 | The connected-device need is justified for a specific user. An independent, detailed research plan prioritises user and technical questions. Product analysis explains information flow, benefits and risks. The detailed brief integrates findings and clearly distinguishes the working prototype from unverified proposals. |
No planning drawings are required for this revised task. The existing B rubric still includes B.iv, which asks for planning drawings or diagrams. These short responses provide evidence mainly for B.i–iii; a written component description does not automatically demonstrate B.iv. Your teacher will clarify how any existing evidence is considered. Do not create extra drawings for this revision.
| Level | What the evidence shows |
|---|---|
| 0 | The submitted evidence does not yet demonstrate the achievement described in the 1–2 band. |
| 1–2 | A few basic requirements and one understandable idea are present. Planning drawings contain limited information, so the intended solution is difficult for another person to interpret. |
| 3–4 | Some relevant requirements and possible ideas are shown. The chosen direction is identified with a simple reason. Drawings show part of the solution, but important labels, relationships or practical requirements are missing. |
| 5–6 | Requirements fit the user need. Different feasible ideas for connected devices are understandable. Reasons for the chosen design refer to requirements. Drawings and a resource list communicate the solution, with some details or justification still needing clarification. |
| 7–8 | Research supports detailed, checkable system requirements. Feasible concepts clearly communicate alternative approaches. The selected concept is critically justified against requirements and trade-offs. Accurate, detailed diagrams and resource requirements communicate the system, data flow, state behaviour and limits of the existing prototype. |
Submit one organized design folder with clearly labeled A and B sections, source references, and an AI-use record. Keep Part A unchanged. For B, include the four requirements, two possible solutions, and your justified choice. Attach the final available LED sketch and a short demonstration or teacher check as before. No planning drawings or diagrams are required. Put everything in the specific summative assignment in Toddle.
AI is allowed. Keep the actual prompts and follow-up or revision prompts you used, as text or screenshots, with brief notes on what you kept, changed, and checked. Keep your source list and never invent user comments, sources, or results. If you did not use AI, write "No AI used".
Keep the A and B sections easy to find. Check that your written choices and submitted project files show the same version. Your own decisions must be clear, including when AI helped.
Open Toddle →Summative: 8–20 October. Submit the A/B design folder and project files by 20 October at 20:00 China time. A and B are assessed separately, each out of 8.
Assignment on the calendar →Submit in Toddle. The assignment instructions above specify what to hand in.