Updated on
September 21, 2026
MYP Personal Project: A Complete Supervisor's Guide
A practical guide for MYP supervisors: the three criteria, process journal coaching, managing 20 projects at once and a realistic school timeline.
The MYP Personal Project is an independent project completed in MYP year 5. Learners define a learning goal, develop a product and explain their process in a report. They are expected to spend at least 25 hours across planning, creating, meeting their supervisor, documenting evidence and reporting (International Baccalaureate, 2021).
The project is the culminating independent inquiry in the Middle Years Programme and part of the wider International Baccalaureate continuum. It combines three connected elements: a process, a product and a report. The report is assessed against three equally weighted criteria. The product and process matter because they give the learner evidence to analyse and reflect on in that report.
The MYP Personal Project in One Minute
For example, a learner can investigate sustainable clothing and produce a repair guide, learn about accessible design and build a website prototype, or explore local history and create an audio walk. The product can take many forms. What matters is whether the learner can show purposeful planning, the application of relevant skills and honest reflection.
The supervisor keeps this independence productive. They clarify requirements, test whether the goal is manageable, monitor progress, discuss evidence, check academic integrity and give feedback within school rules. They do not choose the goal, conduct the research, make the product or rewrite the report.
Key takeaways
- The current project has three equally weighted criteria: A Planning, B Applying skills and C Reflecting. Each is marked out of eight.
- The process, product and report are connected, but the report is assessed against the criteria.
- Learners are expected to spend at least 25 hours on the complete project, rather than exactly 25 hours.
- At least three supervisor meetings must be recorded on the MYP projects academic honesty form.
- A process journal is optional. Documenting and curating evidence of the process is required, and that evidence can use several formats.
The current IB supervisor preparation page describes the school and supervisor responsibilities, including recorded meetings, internal standardisation and moderation (International Baccalaureate, 2026). Coordinators should use the current guide and local school documentation when turning these responsibilities into deadlines and routines.
The Three Current Assessment Criteria
The current Personal Project uses three criteria, not the retired four-criterion model. Criterion A is Planning, Criterion B is Applying skills and Criterion C is Reflecting. Each criterion is marked out of eight, so all three carry equal weight in the final assessment of the learner’s report.
| Criterion | Supervisor’s plain-language focus | Useful evidence to discuss |
|---|---|---|
| A: Planning 8 marks |
Is the learning goal clear, and has the learner created relevant product success criteria and a workable plan? | Goal revisions, research choices, success criteria, task sequence, milestones and justified changes to the plan. |
| B: Applying skills 8 marks |
Can the learner explain how they applied ATL skills to achieve the learning goal and create the product? | Research decisions, communication records, prototype changes, feedback, problem solving and self-management choices. |
| C: Reflecting 8 marks |
Can the learner evaluate the project’s impact on their learning and judge the product against its success criteria? | Product testing, feedback, comparison with success criteria, learning gains, limitations and specific next steps. |
This summary supports supervision, but it does not replace the official guide or reproduce its descriptors. Assessment is criterion-related, so supervisors must use the current school-provided materials when judging achievement. Structural Learning’s guide to IB assessment provides wider context for consistent criterion-related judgement.
The report is the assessed component. A sophisticated product cannot compensate for a report that offers little evidence or explanation. Equally, a modest product can support a strong report when the learner makes sound decisions, documents meaningful evidence, evaluates the result honestly and explains what they learned (International Baccalaureate, 2021).
Criterion A: Planning
Criterion A concerns the learner’s direction and preparation. Supervisors help learners make the learning goal precise, define relevant success criteria for the intended product and build a plan that is realistic within the available time, access, resources and level of independence.
Begin with the learning goal, not the product. “Make a podcast about anxiety” names an output and a broad topic. “Learn how secondary learners can recognise and use two evidence-informed strategies for managing everyday test anxiety, then communicate that learning through a short podcast series” gives the inquiry a clearer purpose.
A useful goal is specific enough to guide decisions but open enough to involve genuine learning. Ask the learner what they do not yet know, why that learning matters and what evidence would show progress. If their answer is mainly about completing an object, return the conversation to learning.
Test feasibility before approving the direction
Supervisors should test access and scope early. What sources, materials, skills and people will the learner need? Are those resources available ethically and safely? Can the learner complete meaningful work within at least 25 hours without depending on an adult to solve the difficult parts?
Topics involving vulnerable people, medical advice, dangerous processes, expensive equipment or inaccessible communities require particular care. Narrowing the project is not reducing ambition. It gives the learner enough space to investigate, apply skills and reflect with precision.
Make success criteria usable
Product success criteria should help the learner make and later evaluate the product. “It will be good” cannot guide decisions. A better set can address audience, function, accuracy, accessibility, dimensions, durability or communication quality, depending on the product.
Ask how each criterion will be tested and what evidence the learner will collect. A website can be checked for keyboard access, reading clarity and task completion by intended users. A physical prototype can be tested for stability, dimensions and repeated use. The learner remains responsible for choosing and justifying the criteria.
Turn the goal into a flexible plan
A plan should show tasks, priorities, dependencies and checkpoints. It need not predict every action perfectly. Its value lies in making the learner’s current thinking visible, so later changes can be explained rather than hidden.
Encourage learners to use an inquiry cycle: establish what they need to learn, gather and evaluate information, apply that learning, test the developing product and revise their decisions. A supervisor can challenge missing steps while leaving the final plan with the learner.
Criterion B: Applying Skills
Criterion B asks learners to explain how they applied Approaches to Learning skills during the project. The strongest evidence connects a specific skill to a purposeful action, a challenge or decision and an effect on either the learning goal or the product.
Simply naming “research skills” or “communication skills” is not enough. A learner needs to show what they did with the skill. They can compare the authority and relevance of two sources, adapt interview questions after a pilot, organise production tasks around a dependency, or revise language following audience feedback.
The relevant Approaches to Learning skills will vary by project. Supervisors should avoid forcing every learner through an identical checklist. Instead, ask which skills were essential, where the evidence sits and how applying the skill changed the learner’s next decision.
Use evidence that captures decisions
Useful evidence can include an annotated source comparison, screenshots of prototype versions, a photograph with a spoken commentary, planning changes, feedback notes, a short audio reflection or an extract from correspondence. The learner should select evidence that reveals their thinking, not submit every file they created.
Consider a learner designing an illustrated food-waste guide. They compare sources and notice that one measures household waste while another covers the whole supply chain. They decide to focus on choices available to teenagers. That record links research skill, source interpretation and a consequential product decision.
Ask prompts that transfer across projects
A small set of questions works across novels, performances, campaigns and engineered products: What problem did you face? Which skill helped you respond? What evidence shows that application?
What changed as a result? What would you do differently now?
These prompts support explanation without supplying it. They also help supervisors distinguish a learner’s genuine understanding from polished but vague prose. Encourage precise verbs such as compared, tested, prioritised, adapted and evaluated. Precision makes the connection between skill and action easier to assess.
Criterion C: Reflecting
Criterion C requires evaluation, not a chronological account of what happened. Learners consider how completing the project affected their learning, then evaluate the product against their own success criteria using relevant evidence and balanced judgement.
Reflection should connect claims to examples. “I became a better communicator” is weak until the learner identifies an initial difficulty, explains what they tried, shows what changed and considers where the skill would transfer next. Good reflection includes uncertainty and limitation as well as success.
Supervisors can support metacognition by asking learners to compare their early assumptions with what they now understand. Which decision had the greatest effect? What evidence changed their view?
Where did their strategy fail? What would they retain or alter in a future project?
Evaluate the product systematically
The learner should return to the success criteria established during planning. For each relevant criterion, they can present evidence, make a judgement and explain the judgement’s limits. Evidence can include testing results, audience feedback, measurements, expert comment or direct comparison with the intended specification.
Feedback is not automatically proof. Five friends saying that a video is “good” provides little information. Feedback becomes useful when the learner chose an appropriate audience, asked questions related to the success criteria and interpreted the responses critically.
Avoid forced positivity
A product may only partly meet its success criteria. That does not make reflection weak. Honest evaluation can show strong judgement when the learner identifies why an element failed, separates controllable decisions from external constraints and proposes a realistic improvement.
Supervisors should not give learners a ready-made reflective narrative. Use prompts to deepen their own analysis, then ask them to select evidence. Structural Learning’s guide on how to develop metacognition offers further reflection prompts that can be adapted without scripting the learner’s answer.
The Supervisor’s Role and Boundaries
A supervisor creates the conditions for independent work while protecting fairness, safety and academic integrity. They clarify expectations, monitor progress, conduct and record required meetings, give permitted feedback, assess the report and participate in internal standardisation. Project decisions and authorship remain with the learner.
| Supervisors can | Supervisors should not |
|---|---|
| Clarify the current criteria, required process and local deadlines. | Choose or substantially reshape the learning goal for the learner. |
| Ask questions about feasibility, evidence, safety and next actions. | Conduct research, design the product or solve its central problems. |
| Give feedback on a draft within current IB and school rules. | Rewrite passages, supply reflection or repeatedly edit the report. |
| Check sources, process evidence and declared tool use. | Assume ownership from writing style alone or ignore contradictory evidence. |
| Assess the report and join internal standardisation. | Invent local interpretations without consulting the coordinator and current guide. |
At least three meetings must be recorded on the MYP projects academic honesty form (International Baccalaureate, 2026). This is a minimum recording requirement, not a universal timetable. Schools may add short check-ins or local milestones, but they should label local arrangements clearly rather than presenting them as universal IB rules.
Good supervision uses questions, not solutions. “Which option best fits your goal, and what evidence supports that choice?” keeps responsibility with the learner. “Use this option because it will score better” transfers the decision to the adult and weakens the evidence of independence.
Supervisors also need a shared understanding of permitted feedback. Coordinators should brief the team before drafts arrive, use examples of acceptable prompting and resolve uncertain cases collectively. This protects learners from receiving very different levels of support.
A School Timeline That Works
There is no single calendar that suits every school. Build a phase-based timeline around the school year, reporting cycle and moderation dates. Work backwards from the final requirements, protect time for reflection and standardisation, and make dependencies visible to learners, supervisors and families.
| Phase | Learner focus | School and supervisor focus |
|---|---|---|
| Launch | Understand the project, explore interests and distinguish learning goal from product. | Explain current criteria, academic integrity, access arrangements, evidence expectations and local dates. |
| Goal and plan | Define the learning goal, product, success criteria, research route and workable plan. | Test scope, access, ethics and feasibility. Record the appropriate formal meeting. |
| Apply ATL skills | Research, create, test, seek feedback and document consequential decisions. | Use short check-ins, review process evidence and address emerging risks without taking control. |
| Reflect and report | Curate evidence, evaluate the product and explain learning and skill application. | Clarify report requirements, provide permitted feedback and complete required records. |
| Standardisation | Respond only to processes permitted by the school and current guidance. | Assess reports, compare judgements, resolve inconsistencies and retain evidence of decisions. |
| Moderation and celebration | Share learning and products through an appropriate exhibition or reflection event. | Complete required submission processes and celebrate learning without turning product polish into the assessment. |
The IB’s seven-step school journey gives coordinators a useful whole-school sequence from preparation through celebration (International Baccalaureate, 2022). Map that sequence to local terms and deadlines, then publish one version of the timeline for everyone.
Do not compress reflection and report writing into the final few days. Learners need time to find evidence, judge their product and explain changes in their thinking. Supervisors also need protected time for assessment and internal standardisation before the school’s moderation deadline.
Evidence of Process Without Diary Writing
A process journal is optional, but documenting and curating evidence of the process is required. Learners may use written, visual, audio or mixed formats. Supervisors should focus on whether the evidence reveals decisions, skill application and change, rather than enforcing one diary template.
A diary records activity: “Today I researched food waste.” Process evidence explains thinking: “I compared household and supply-chain data, then narrowed my audience because teenagers can influence consumption more directly than production.” The second example gives the learner material they can later analyse in the report.
| Format | Useful example | Quality check |
|---|---|---|
| Written | A dated note comparing two options and justifying the selected approach. | Does it explain the reasoning and consequence, not only the activity? |
| Visual | Annotated sketches or photographs showing prototype changes. | Do the annotations explain why each change was made? |
| Audio | A short recording after testing, describing unexpected results and next steps. | Can the learner retrieve and cite the relevant extract later? |
| Mixed | A screenshot, brief voice note and linked feedback response. | Is authorship clear, and does the combination support one meaningful decision? |
Evidence should be selective and retrievable. Hundreds of screenshots without explanation create workload but little insight. Ask learners to label significant evidence with a date, context, related skill or decision and a short note about why it matters.
Model the distinction more than once. Learners often return to diary writing under pressure because it feels safe and familiar. A side-by-side example, revisited during the making phase, is more useful than repeatedly asking for “deeper reflection”.
Managing a Supervisor Caseload
A large caseload becomes manageable when every supervisor uses the same light-touch routine. Combine a small RAG tracker, prepared learner updates, brief check-ins and at least three formally recorded meetings. Increase support in response to evidence of risk rather than scheduling long meetings for everyone.
A basic tracker needs only the learner’s name, current phase, last contact, next formal requirement, RAG status and one concise note. Green means progressing independently, amber means a barrier needs attention and red means the project or required evidence is at immediate risk.
RAG is a prompt for action, not a judgement of ability. Define the colours as a team so supervisors use them consistently. An amber learner may need help locating an accessible source, while a red learner may have no viable goal, no recent process evidence or an unresolved safeguarding concern.
Make short check-ins purposeful
Before an informal check-in, ask each learner to prepare three points: what has changed, what they will do next and where they are uncertain. The supervisor can then ask one or two focused questions and record the next action. This is more useful than spending the meeting reconstructing recent activity.
Short check-ins can sit between formal meetings, but they do not replace the required records. Avoid inventing a universal weekly or fortnightly schedule. Schools should choose a frequency that fits staffing and learner needs, then direct scarce time towards emerging barriers.
Protect consistency across supervisors
Use a short common agenda for formal meetings and a shared location for records. Hold brief supervisor clinics for uncertain cases. Sample process evidence before the report stage so differences in expectations are found early, not during final assessment.
Caseload planning is also a leadership issue. Coordinators should estimate meeting, feedback, assessment and standardisation time, then make that workload visible. A clean tracker cannot compensate for an allocation that gives supervisors no protected capacity.
Supporting SEND and EAL Learners
Inclusive supervision removes unnecessary barriers while preserving the same assessed strands. Schools can use alternative evidence formats, chunked milestones, accessible prompts and predictable check-ins, provided support follows current school and IB access rules and does not transfer the learner’s decisions or authorship to an adult.
A learner with executive-function difficulties may benefit from a visual sequence, one visible next action and shorter review points. A learner using English as an additional language may need key terms explained, questions supplied before a meeting or permission to rehearse an oral explanation before writing.
These adjustments reduce working memory and language demands that are not central to the intended assessment. They should not simplify the required thinking, supply the content of reflection or lower the expectation that the learner connects evidence to claims.
Use scaffolds that can fade
Early prompts can separate goal, product, success criteria and next action. Later, remove parts of the prompt as the learner gains control. This approach to scaffolding supports independence instead of creating permanent adult dependence.
Offer genuine format choice for process evidence. A learner who struggles with sustained handwriting can use labelled photographs and short audio notes. Another can use a simple written grid. Agree how files will be dated, stored and retrieved so accessibility does not create an organisational barrier later.
Record the support provided and discuss uncertain adjustments with the coordinator or appropriate inclusion lead. Local access decisions should be consistent, current and transparent. Never promise that a particular adjustment is permitted without checking the rules that apply to that learner and assessment session.
Academic Integrity and AI
Academic integrity in the Personal Project depends on visible authorship. Learners should acknowledge sources, disclose and reference any permitted AI use, retain evidence of their process and be able to explain important decisions orally. Schools should apply their current policy rather than claiming a universal ban.
At launch, explain what must be attributed and how learners should record assistance from people, digital tools and generative systems. Make the school’s permitted and prohibited uses concrete. Revisit the expectations before product creation and report drafting because tools and temptations differ across phases.
Use process evidence to support authorship
A credible record shows development over time: early questions, source choices, rejected ideas, drafts, test results and revisions. No single item proves authorship, but a coherent sequence lets the learner connect their report to decisions they can explain.
Short oral questions can clarify that connection. Ask why a source was trusted, what changed after testing or which evidence supports a reflective claim. The purpose is to understand authorship and learning, not to stage an adversarial interrogation.
Respond proportionately to concerns
A sudden change in writing style may prompt a conversation, but it is not a conclusion. Compare the report with process evidence, source records, declared tool use and the learner’s explanation. Follow the school’s established academic integrity process where concerns remain.
Supervisors should not introduce unofficial AI rules during individual meetings. A shared policy, common disclosure method and agreed response route protect fairness. Coordinators should update examples as tools change while preserving the central expectation that the submitted explanation represents the learner’s own understanding.
What to Tell Parents
Parents can provide encouragement, routines, transport and reasonable access to materials. They should not choose the learning goal, conduct the research, produce the product or write and edit the report. Clear boundaries protect the learner’s independence and the validity of the evidence.
Send one concise explanation near the launch and repeat the key points before report writing. Include the local timeline, the supervisor’s role, where questions should go and what support is appropriate. Avoid presenting the project as a high-stakes family production.
Useful parent questions include: “What is your next step?”, “When will you work on it?” and “What do you need to ask your supervisor?” Less helpful questions supply the direction: “Why don’t you change the goal?”, “Use this source” or “Let me rewrite that section.”
If practical help affects the product, the learner should record it transparently. A parent may drive a learner to an interview or supervise safe tool use, but the learner must make the intellectual and creative decisions. Where the boundary is unclear, families should ask the supervisor before acting.
Explain that product polish is not the sole aim. The report is assessed, and setbacks can produce valuable evidence when the learner responds thoughtfully. This message reduces pressure for adults to rescue an imperfect product at the expense of authentic learning.
Common Supervisor Questions
Most supervisor questions concern scope, meeting frequency, evidence, feedback and uneven progress. The safest answer is to return to the current guide, the school’s agreed timeline and the boundary between prompting and directing. The following responses provide a practical starting point.
Does every learner need a process journal?
No. A process journal is optional, while documenting and curating evidence of the process is required (International Baccalaureate, 2021). Learners can use written, visual, audio or mixed formats. Agree a manageable system that lets them retrieve evidence when writing the report.
Are exactly 25 hours required?
No. Learners are expected to spend at least 25 hours across the project. Avoid turning this into a stopwatch exercise. A simple record can help with planning, but evidence of purposeful decisions matters more than an inflated activity log.
How often should supervisors meet learners?
At least three meetings must be recorded on the MYP projects academic honesty form (International Baccalaureate, 2026). Schools can add shorter contacts according to local need and capacity. Do not present one school’s preferred schedule as a universal requirement.
Can I tell a learner that their topic is too broad?
Yes. Identifying a feasibility problem is part of responsible supervision. Use questions to help the learner narrow it: Which part matters most? What can you access safely?
What can you investigate properly in the available time? The learner should make and justify the final choice.
Can I edit the report?
Supervisors may give feedback only within current IB and school rules. Clarify the permitted number and type of draft feedback before reports arrive. Pointing out an unclear connection is different from rewriting the explanation or supplying the missing reflection.
What if the product fails?
A failed or partly successful product does not automatically mean a failed project. The learner still needs evidence of planning and skill application, then an honest evaluation against the success criteria. Do not repair the product for them solely to create a more impressive display.
How does this prepare learners for later IB work?
The project develops independence, source judgement, planning and reflection that can support later study. However, it is not a miniature Extended Essay. Schools looking ahead can compare the changing supervision demands with guidance on Extended Essay supervision.
Limitations and Safeguards
This guide translates current requirements into practical routines, but it cannot replace the official guide, school policies or session-specific instructions. Coordinators must confirm current rules, access arrangements, submission processes and deadlines before briefing supervisors or making assessment decisions.
The examples illustrate supervision choices; they are not criterion descriptors or guaranteed routes to a mark. Product types, learner needs and school calendars vary. A routine that works for a small cohort may need different staffing and record keeping for a large one.
Safety, ethics and safeguarding take priority over project ambition. Supervisors should intervene when a proposal involves unsuitable contact, dangerous activity, sensitive personal data or inaccessible specialist processes. Intervention should make the project safe and feasible without supplying the learner’s core decisions.
Accessibility support must preserve the assessed thinking. Alternative formats, chunked deadlines and predictable prompts can remove barriers, but an adult should not create the plan, select the evidence or compose the reflection. Check uncertain cases through the school’s current access and inclusion procedures.
AI practices and local policies will continue to change. Require transparent disclosure, traceable evidence and an explanation of decisions, then apply the rules in force at the school. Do not infer misconduct from one automated indicator or one stylistic feature.
The immediate coordinator action is simple: check the current Personal Project guide, confirm the local timeline and brief every supervisor on the three criteria and support boundaries.
References
These are the three sources used for the current assessment model, school journey and supervisor preparation requirements. Coordinators should consult the latest official materials available to their school before implementing or changing local procedures.
- International Baccalaureate. (2021). Personal project guide.
- International Baccalaureate. (2022). Seven steps to a successful MYP personal project school journey.
- International Baccalaureate. (2026). Preparing for the personal project.
