Personal Project: Outcomes of the IB Middle Years
Programme’s capstone experience
Co-Principal Investigators
Ewan Wright, Assistant Professor
Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The Education University of Hong Kong
Darren A. Bryant, Associate Professor
Head, Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The Education University of Hong Kong
Co-Investigators
Chrysa Keung, Assistant Professor
Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The Education University of Hong Kong
Allan Walker, Adjunct Chair Professor
Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The Education University of Hong Kong
Research Assistants
Kanwal Syeda Hassan
Leo Wong Yiu Lun
Department of Education Policy and Leadership
The Education University of Hong Kong
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research team appreciates the funding from the International Baccalaureate to support this
research. The team are extremely grateful to everyone who contributed to the project. Michael Thier
provided sustained engagement and constructive feedback throughout. Also, a special thank you to
all the interview participants for sharing their experiences with and perspectives on the Personal
Project. The views expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the research team and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the International Baccalaureate.
3
GLOSSARY
ATL
Approaches to Learning
CAS
Creativity, Activity, Service
CP
Career-related Programme
DP
Diploma Programme
EE
Extended Essay
HL
Higher Level
IB
International Baccalaureate
IBEN
International Baccalaureate Educator Network
MYP
Middle Years Programme
PP
Personal Project
PYP
Primary Years Programme
SL
Standard Level
4
CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. i
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Research Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Method ............................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Phase One - Quantitative .............................................................................................................. 7
2.2. Phase Two - Qualitative ............................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Phase Three - Data Convergence ................................................................................................ 18
3. Quantitative Findings ........................................................................................................................ 19
3.1. Results of Z Scores, ANOVA, and T-tests ..................................................................................... 19
3.2. Personal Project, DP Exam, and Extended Essay Scores ............................................................. 19
3.3. Personal Project Participation and DP Outcomes ....................................................................... 22
3.4. United States Case ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.5. Follow-up Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................................... 26
3.6 . Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 27
4. Qualitative Findings .......................................................................................................................... 29
4.1. Students ...................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2. School Faculty .............................................................................................................................. 40
4.3. The Community ........................................................................................................................... 46
4.4. Summary...................................................................................................................................... 53
5. Convergence of the Findings ............................................................................................................. 55
5.1. Converged Quantitative and Qualitative Findings ..................................................................... 55
5.2. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 60
6. Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 62
6.1. Key Themes ................................................................................................................................ 62
6.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 66
7. Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................................................... 72
8. References ........................................................................................................................................ 73
9. Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 78
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Models and Analytical Samples ............................................................................................ 12
Table 2.2. Case School Information ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 2.3. Interview Participants and Topics ........................................................................................ 17
Table 3.1. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam and Extended Essay Scores: Full DP Students .... 22
Table 3.2. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam and Extended Essay Scores: CP Students ........... 22
Table 3.3. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam and Extended Essay Scores: United States Subset
Data ....................................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 3.4. Summary of Quantitative Findings (Part 1) .......................................................................... 27
Table 3.5. Summary of Quantitative Findings (Part 2) .......................................................................... 28
Table 3.6. Summary of Quantitative Findings from the United States Subset Data ............................ 28
Table 4.1. Personal Project Topics ........................................................................................................ 30
Table 4.2. Summary of Qualitative Findings ......................................................................................... 54
Table 5.1. Converged Findings on Overall Student Outcomes ............................................................. 56
Table 5.2. Converged Findings on Student Characteristics ................................................................... 57
Table 5.3. Converged Findings on School Characteristics ..................................................................... 58
Table 5.4. Converged Findings on Personal Project Participation and DP Outcomes .......................... 59
Table 5.5. Converged Findings on the Personal Project at United States Schools ............................... 60
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Overview of the Research ..................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4.1. Increasing Positive Outcomes for Students ........................................................................ 39
Figure 4.2. Increasing Positive Outcomes for School Faculty ............................................................... 45
Figure 4.3. Increasing Positive Outcomes for the Community ............................................................. 53
Figure 6.1. Key Themes ......................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 6.2. Schools with Students ......................................................................................................... 67
Figure 6.3. Schools with Faculty ............................................................................................................ 68
Figure 6.4. Schools with the Community .............................................................................................. 69
Figure 6.5. IB with Schools .................................................................................................................... 71
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The International Baccalaureate (IB) launched the Middle Years Programme (MYP) in 1994 for
students between 11- and 16-years old. By November 2022, 1,817 IB World Schools had adopted the
MYP, including 444 in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, 1,040 in the Americas, and 333 in the Asia
Pacific (IB, 2022a). The MYP’s educational approach aims to promote concept-driven, inquiry-
based, and interdisciplinary learning (Perry et al., 2018), as part of a ‘holistic’ education that
encompasses abilities, attitudes, and skills beyond individual subjects (Hare, 2010). One of the MYP’s
purposes is to build on the learning experiences of the Primary Years Programme (PYP) and prepare
students to ‘step up’ to the Diploma Programme (DP) or Career-related Programme (CP).
A central feature of the MYP is an externally moderated Personal Project that serves as a
capstone learning opportunity for students in their final MYP year. From the MYP’s beginnings, the IB
envisaged the Personal Project as pivotal to the programme’s philosophical underpinnings (Harrison
et al., 2015). Guided by a supervisor, students develop a self-selected project over an extended period
of time through a process of inquiry, action, and reflection. In the May 2021 assessment session, more
than 83,000 MYP students submitted Personal Projects worldwide (IB, 2021a). However, research on
the Personal Project is limited. The existing findings have emerged from small-scale or single-country
research only, with few studies focusing exclusively on the Personal Project.
The objective of the current research study was to investigate the experiences and outcomes
of the Personal Project at IB World Schools globally. On the one hand, it provided empirical evidence
on the extent to which students’ Personal Project scores predict subsequent academic performance
in the DP. After controlling for school characteristics (e.g., private school status, number of years since
authorisation, and number of students registered in the DP) and student characteristics (e.g., gender,
rigour of DP coursework, match between students’ home language and that of MYP and/or DP
instruction), we found Personal Project scores in the MYP to be a meaningful predictor of DP exam
scores and, to a lesser extent, the Extended Essay. For Personal Project scores and DP exam scores,
we found statistically significant links among scores from CP students and course candidates, but those
links were not as strong as those we found among scores from full DP students (see Appendix I).
1
1
Importantly, the amounts of variance explained in our final hierarchical linear models—upon which many of
our interpretations are based—range from 4-20%. Per Ozili (2022), unlike single-level regression models,
hierarchical linear models of social science data can be acceptable with such low proportions of variance
explained (e.g., R
2
values) if they include several statistically significant covariates, which our models all do. In
Appendix I, we summarise each final model’s proportion of variance explained and the amount of statistically
significant school-level and student-level covariates. Still, we caution against over-ascribing predictive power to
models that do not exceed 10% variance explained and have less than half of the covariates demonstrating
statistical significance (i.e., the links between Personal Project scores and DP exam scores among CP students
and course candidates).
ii
On the other hand, the research’s scope extended beyond scores to consider the potential of the
Personal Project to have more comprehensive outcomes for students, school faculty, and
communities that surround schools. The findings illuminated the benefits of the Personal Project, as
well as the challenges and promising practices that can inform IB World Schools.
METHOD
The research team adopted a triangulation convergence mixed method design (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011), which involved the concurrent analysis of extant IB quantitative data and newly collected
qualitative data followed by a converged analysis.
In the quantitative phase, the research team analysed multiple waves of extant IB data from
66,698 students worldwide. The goal was to identify how students’ Personal Project scores are
associated with their subsequent academic performance in the DP. We conducted quantitative
analyses to examine associations among students’ scores in the Personal Project, DP exams, and the
Extended Essay. Further analyses examined contextual nuances in the data (see Chapter 3 of the main
report).
In the qualitative phase, the research team gathered interview data from six IB World Schools
across six jurisdictions: Hong Kong, Peru, Qatar, South Korea, the United States, and Zambia. Overall,
we interviewed 107 participants, including heads of schools, coordinators, supervisors, and students.
Supplementary qualitative data were gathered from the Personal Project exhibition, MYP alumni/ae,
and awardees of the Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators’ Grant. Thematic analyses explored the
broad outcomes of the Personal Project on students, school faculty, and communities beyond schools
(see Chapter 4 of the main report).
Finally, the data convergence phase involved interweaving the quantitative and qualitative
findings. Specifically, we converged quantitative analysis of the global IB dataset and qualitative
analysis of interviews at the six IB World Schools. This process permitted interpretations that offset
the limitations of one source of data, are more compelling, and yield additional insights (see Chapter
5 of the main report). Figure 1 on the next page presents an overview of the research.
iii
Figure 1.1. Overview of the Research
Phase 1: Quantitative
Focus:
• Explore the Personal Project’s outcomes
for students, school faculty, and
communities that surround schools
Data:
•
Interviews with 107 participants at six IB
World Schools
• One-to-one interviews with heads of
schools, MYP and DP coordinators, and
Personal Project and Extended Essay
coordinators
• Focus groups with Personal Project and
Extended Essay supervisors
•
Focus groups with MYP and DP students
• Ethnographic data from a Personal
Project exhibition
• One-to-one interviews with MYP
alumni/ae
• Written responses from Dr Siva Kumari
MYP Student Innovators' Grant
awardees
Analysis:
• Thematic analyses of the Personal
Project’s overall and contextual
outcomes
Phase 3: Data Convergence
Focus:
• Converge quantitative and qualitative data to investigate (a)
the generalisability or transferability of the findings and (b)
context-specific nuances in Personal Project experiences and
outcomes
Analysis:
• ‘Joint displays’ to illustrate converged findings
Phase 2: Qualitative
Focus:
• Examine if Personal Project scores
predict DP exam and Extended Essay
scores
• Analyse variations in associations by
student and school characteristics
• Investigate group variances in DP exam
and Extended Essay scores
• Assess if associations deviate under the
condition of mandatory external
moderation
• Further examine the United States case
Data:
• Extant IB data from 66,698 students
• Three cohort years (Personal Project in
2016, 2017 and 2018; DP exams and/or
Extended Essay in 2018, 2019 and 2020)
Analysis:
• Descriptive analyses
• Multilevel analyses
• Matching samples analyses
• Invariance test analyses
iv
SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
Table 1. Personal Project’s Associations
Domain
Associations
Personal
Project, DP
exam, Extended
Essay scores
• DP outcomes: Students’ Personal Project scores predicted both DP exam
and Extended Essay scores.
• DP exams and Extended Essay: Among full DP students, Personal Project
scores had a stronger association with DP exam scores than with Extended
Essay scores: a one-unit increase in Personal Project score associated with a
0.42-unit increase in DP exam score and a 0.25-unit increase in Extended
Essay score.
• Variance: Student-level variance explained 52-67% of associations between
Personal Project and DP exam scores, with 33-48% explained by school-level
variance. Student-level variance explained around 80% of the Personal
Project’s association with Extended Essay scores, whereas school-level
variance explained 20%.
Student
characteristics
• Gender: Female Personal Project participants averaged higher scores on DP
exams (+0.12) and Extended Essay (+0.13) than their male peers.
• Language: There were mixed findings regarding associations among
language match (i.e., students’ primary/secondary languages and school’s
language of instruction), DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores.
• DP rigour: Students who took more than three DP Higher Level (HL) courses
scored higher on DP exams (+0.37) and the Extended Essay (+0.21).
• Cohort: Students who took Personal Project in 2017 and DP exams by 2019
had lower scores on DP exams (-1.08) and Extended Essay (-0.59) than their
peers in the 2018-2020 cohort.
School
characteristics
• Legal status: Private school status associated with higher scores on DP
exams (+0.13) and Extended Essay (+0.12).
• Authorisation: More time since MYP authorisation associated with slightly
higher scores on DP exams and Extended Essay (+0.01 each).
• Number of students: Higher numbers of registered DP students associated
with very slightly higher DP exam scores (+0.001).
Personal Project
participation
and DP
outcomes
• Personal Project participation: Personal Project participants attained higher
scores on DP exams (+0.18) and Extended Essay (+2.21) than their DP peers
who did not participate in Personal Project.
• Mandatory external moderation: Positive associations among Personal
Project participation, DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores were
identified for cohorts before and after mandatory external moderation.
United States
case
• DP outcomes: Personal Project scores predicted DP exam and Extended
Essay scores but had a stronger association with DP exam scores.
• Full DP: Full DP students’ Personal Project scores had a stronger association
with DP exam scores than among students who took 1-5 DP courses.
• Gender: Female Personal Project participants outscored their male peers on
the Extended Essay.
• DP rigour: Students who took three or more HL courses scored higher on DP
exams and the Extended Essay than those who took fewer HL courses.
• Federal program: DP exam (-0.21) and Extended Essay (-0.08) scores for
students who participated in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-
Priced Meals were lower than students who were not part of the
programme.
v
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
Table 2. Outcomes of the Personal Project for Students
Domain
Student Outcomes
Positive
outcomes for
students
• A milestone in the IB school career: Typically, the participants described the
Personal Project as a ‘passion project’ that enabled students to complete a
long-term independent project according to their interests. It can be a
platform to apply a well-rounded education and a ‘refreshing’ experience
that stands out in the IB school career.
• Opportunity to develop Approaches to Learning (ATL) skills: The Personal
Project presents ample opportunities for students to build ATL skills,
especially self-management, communication, and social skills.
• Bridge gaps between the MYP and DP: The learning experience can prepare
students for the ‘jump’ in workload, difficulty, and high-stakes assessments
in the transition from MYP to DP.
• Potential Extended Essay preparation: For some participants, planning,
carrying out, and report writing during the Personal Project was beneficial
for the Extended Essay. Others saw the Extended Essay as a more
academically rigorous research project aligned with university-level work.
Challenges to
positive
outcomes for
students
• Assessment misaligned with what matters to students: The students were
primarily interested in the process of carrying out the project and the
‘product or outcome’. Yet the Personal Project is assessed by the ‘report’ as
an account of the project and its impact, potentially leading to frustration.
• Workload exceeds IB guidelines: The IB states an expectation for students
to spend around 25 hours to complete the Personal Project. The participants
often shared that process requires considerably more time, potentially
resulting in students feeling anxious or stressed.
• Unequal access to resources: Family, school, and community resources
played a crucial role in the Personal Project. This included advice,
connections, and financial backing. There is potential inequality of
opportunity, as students may not have equal access to these resources.
Promising
practices for
positive student
outcomes
• Promoting and structuring peer learning: Peer learning can help students
understand the Personal Project’s scope, learn tips and strategies, and instil
confidence. Effective approaches included inviting younger students to
attend the Personal Project exhibition and facilitating peer study groups.
• Formalised guidance: Oral and written guidance for students at the start of
the process can promote a clear understanding of the task, reduce
dependency on supervisors, and make the process less daunting.
‘Light-touch’ supervision: A ‘light-touch’ approach to supervision
encourages independent learning, which is likely beneficial for developing
ATL skills.
vi
Table 3. Outcomes of the Personal Project for School Faculty
Domain
School Faculty Outcomes
Positive
outcomes for
school faculty
• Appreciation of an IB education: Most participants considered the Personal
Project well-aligned with IB values of cultivating inquiring, knowledgeable,
and caring students. The experience was sometimes contrasted with the
DP’s more academic and high-stakes learning environment.
• Enhancing collaboration among school faculty: The Personal Project can
enhance opportunities for faculty collaboration, primarily through
interactions between coordinators and supervisors. This collaboration can
help build a closer professional community in schools.
• Getting to know students better: The Personal Project can enrich student-
faculty relations by opening lines of communication, fostering an
appreciation of students’ interests and talents, and making faculty more
informed to advise and mentor students.
Challenges to
positive
outcomes for
school faculty
• High supervisor workload: Supervision responsibilities varied across
schools in our qualitative sample. A high supervision workload can be
demanding. The task was amplified for faculty supervising projects outside
their expertise. If unresolved, the workload can contribute to work-based
stress.
• Contrasting views over IB professional learning: Heads of schools believed
the Personal Project provided IB professional learning opportunities through
supervision, grade moderation, and workshops. However, supervisors more
often discussed how the benefits were mainly accrued by students,
suggesting a need for more dialogue about professional learning.
Promising
practices for
positive school
faculty
outcomes
• Leveraging institutional knowledge: Leveraging institutional knowledge
held by coordinators was crucial to the Personal Project’s successful
implementation through interpreting guidelines, sharing learning materials,
and ongoing support for supervisors. The finding underscores the
importance of the IB providing support for coordinators, especially those
relatively inexperienced in the role or working at schools new to the MYP.
• Nuanced pairing of supervisors with students: Coordinators can work
closely with supervisors when pairing with students. Supervisors with high
workloads can be given reduced responsibilities, inexperienced supervisors
can take co-supervisor roles, and supervisors can be matched with students
according to prior relationships, interests, or expertise.
• Crafting supervisor groups: Supervisor groups can promote mutual support
and professional learning opportunities by sharing experiences, strategies
for supporting students, and how to overcome challenges.
vii
Table 4. Outcomes of the Personal Project for Communities that Surround Schools
Domain
Community Outcomes
Positive
outcomes for
the community
• Community engagement: A high proportion of projects involve students
‘being out and about’ in the local community, which the schools
encouraged. Examples included consulting experts at universities, gathering
advice from business leaders, and working with non-government
organisations.
• Apply ATL skills beyond the school: Community interactions were
opportunities to develop ATL skills, especially social and communication
skills. Although COVID-19 limited community engagement in some cases, it
presented opportunities to develop ATL skills by thinking outside the box
and communicating online.
• Learning about the local community: The Personal Project experience could
promote a deeper understanding of local communities. Service projects
exposed students to ‘lives of local people’. Other projects enabled students
to become more aware of local businesses, institutions, and organisations.
• Positive outcomes for the local community: The Personal Project provided
a platform for positive social change. The most noted pathway was service
work. Further examples of positive outcomes included public information
campaigns on health/lifestyle, raising awareness of cultural heritage, and
bringing attention to social issues.
Challenges to
positive
outcomes for
the community
• Students benefit more than the community: Community engagement can
be more beneficial for students than local communities due to students’
motivation to complete the project, relative inexperience and limited
resources, and projects being discontinued upon completion. The Dr Siva
Kumari MYP Student Innovators’ Grant highlighted how financial backing
and mentorship can help students to expand their projects’ social impact in
the community.
• Trends towards overreliance on digital technology: The Personal Project’s
pathways to positive community outcomes were increasingly through digital
technology, such as apps, social media, and websites. Some school faculty
were sceptical about the community contribution of such projects if they did
not engage an audience beyond the students’ personal network, neglected
opportunities to make a difference closer to home, or made unrealistic
claims over a ‘global impact’.
Promising
practices for
positive
community
outcomes
• Guide initial community contact: Support from schools with identifying who
to contact, how to make initial contact, and managing expectations were
valuable for getting community engagement started.
• Empower student community engagement: Supervisors can ‘step back’
after students have made initial contact and let them take the lead with
community engagement.
• Stress ongoing community relations: Ensuring students end community
interactions on favourable terms is vital to teach students how to maintain
good relations with stakeholders and uphold the school’s reputation.
viii
SUMMARY OF DATA CONVERGENCE
Table 5. Summary of the Converged Findings
Domain
Converged Findings
Potentially
generalisable or
transferable
findings in the
Personal Project
experiences and
outcomes
• Overall outcomes: The Personal Project prepares students to ‘step up’ to
the DP. Personal Project scores predicted DP exam and Extended Essay
scores. The experience can have the greatest contribution as preparation for
the whole DP, rather than the Extended Essay in particular. Yet DP scores do
not fully capture learning outcomes. Students can develop personal
interests, forge connections with school faculty, and learn about the
community. Also, the Personal Project can have positive outcomes for
school faculty and communities that surround schools.
Contextual
nuances in the
Personal Project
experiences and
outcomes
• Student characteristics: Female Personal Project participants were
associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores than male
students, but they can face more contextual challenges with community
engagement. Although there were mixed findings regarding associations
between language match and DP scores, some students faced language
barriers with the Personal Project.
• School characteristics: Private schools and schools authorised to offer the
MYP for a longer period of time were associated with higher DP exam and
Extended Essay scores. These schools may have more resources to maximise
the benefits of the Personal Project.
• Personal Project participation: Personal Project participants had higher DP
exam and Extended Essay scores than their DP peers who did not participate
in Personal Project. All students can benefit from the Personal Project
experience as a ‘low-stakes’ exercise that provides opportunities to learn
from mistakes. The findings underscore the Personal Project’s role in
preparing students for the DP.
• Mandatory external moderation: Positive associations among Personal
Project participation, DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores were
identified for cohorts before and after mandatory external moderation.
Coordinators play a vital role in interpreting and communicating Personal
Project guidelines, such as mandatory external moderation.
• United States case: The United States case reinforced the global findings.
Personal Project scores predicted DP exam and Extended Essay scores,
although experience encompassed broader learning outcomes. The United
States case also identified the potential of inequality of opportunity, as
students who completed the Personal Project and participated in Federal
Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals scored lower on DP exams and
the Extended Essay than their peers from more affluent families.
ix
KEY RESEARCH THEMES
Six key interrelated themes emerged from the research. We present these themes in Figure 2 below
and discuss them in greater detail in the report.
Figure 2. Key Themes
RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations emerged from the data. These are outlined below and discussed further in
the report. We present the recommendations in four categories: (1) what schools can do to support
students’ Personal Project experience, (2) what schools can do to support faculty involved in the
Personal Project, (3) what schools can do with their communities to maximise Personal Project
experiences and outcomes, and (4) what the IB can do through working with schools to support the
Personal Project. The recommendations for the IB may be used to inform future policy.
Key
Themes
1. There are strong
positive linkages
between the
Personal Project
and students'
academic
performance and
development.
2. Faculty
engagement in the
Personal Project
process provides a
range of rich
professional
learning
opportunities.
3. The Personal
Project provides a
unique opportunity
for students to
engage with and
learn from their
broader
community.
4. The
Personal Project's
assessment
structure may gear
student attention
more toward the
final report than
the process.
5. Multiple student
and school factors
shape students'
success in the DP.
6. The context of
the school and
community can
accentuate
inequities which
may influence the
Personal Project.
x
Schools with Students
• Provide face-to-face and written guidance for students from the beginning of the Personal
Project process. Such advice can ensure students have a clear understanding of the Personal
Project’s purpose, requirements, and expectations while lessening potential for student anxiety.
• Offer a range of supervisory approaches in line with context and student needs. Different
students may respond best to different supervisory systems, ranging from directive to
independent. A less directive approach as the project progresses may encourage independence
and support the development of ATL skills.
• Design structures that get students working together on the Personal Project. Peer learning can
help students understand the purpose and scope of the Personal Project, draw on others’ practical
experiences, and build confidence and a feeling of togetherness. Peer structures can be instituted
before the formal Personal Project period begins.
Schools with Faculty
• Empower coordinators to lead the Personal Project experience. Coordinators are ideally
positioned to leverage their expertise and institutional knowledge to support supervisors and
students. To do this, coordinators require the trust of senior leadership, the discretion to match
topics and supervisors, and sufficient time and other resources as necessary in context. The backing
may include opportunities to join Personal Project-specific professional development. Additionally,
schools may institute systems where coordinators formally record important knowledge, perhaps
in the form of a cumulative portfolio, to inform their successors when they leave the school.
• Nurture structures that allow supervisors to share and support each other. Supervisor groups can
promote mutual support and learning by sharing experiences and strategies to help students
overcome challenges. These may be especially beneficial for first-time supervisors. Distributing
leadership holds the potential to add to the supervision experience.
• Design suitable criteria and processes for pairing students and supervisors. Project supervision
and partner matching is demanding. To aid effective matching, coordinators can discuss supervisor
preferences and prior relationships with students, as well as expertise, interests, and supervisory
style. Other criteria may include workload, familiarity with the process and expectations, and
students’ knowledge levels.
Schools with the Community
• Position robust and ongoing community relations at the heart of the Personal Project
experience. Schools and students need the community to ensure project relevance and
contribution. They must, therefore, work closely with their communities to garner
xi
support. Schools can develop and sustain interactions with the community by, for example,
encouraging students to share projects with their community partners when completed.
• Provide ‘start-up’ support to Personal Project students. Schools can provide students with
support and advice about contacting community stakeholders and managing student and
community expectations. Schools can also provide the community with information about the
Personal Project, including its purpose, expectations, and records of previous beneficial projects.
• Empower students to engage the community and for the community to support students. After
establishing initial contact, the school and supervisors can consider stepping back and allowing
students to drive and shape the engagement. Likewise, involved community members and groups
can be trusted to provide meaningful student support.
IB with Schools
• Reinforce the purposes and holistic benefits of the Personal Project process beyond formal
assessment. Students must see the Personal Project as an opportunity to systematically explore
an area of personal passion that can benefit themselves and their community – not only as a
pathway to higher DP scores. The IB may reinforce this message to schools and the communities
they serve.
• Provide targeted support to build Personal Project infrastructure for newly authorised schools
and those seeking IB authorisation. Schools authorised to offer the MYP for a longer period of
time tend to produce higher DP scores. The IB may consider instituting mechanisms to give newly
authorised schools a ‘jump start’ in the Personal Project. Such support may target coordinators
who play a vital role in the Personal Project implementation through professional development,
networking opportunities, and written guidelines. Relatedly, the IB may extend support to less
experienced coordinators at more established schools. The IB may also explore ways of sharing
promising practices from well-established, successful schools.
• Review the Personal Project’s assessment structure. A perceived over-emphasis on the final
report can distract students from the learning process accompanying the Personal Project
experience. The IB may review the grading structure and assess the relative weight allocated to
the process journal, product or outcome, and final report. In addition, the IB may also wish to
consider how it communicates its expectations for the Personal Project, given that it is pass/fail.
• Enhance the role of the International Baccalaureate Educator Network (IBEN) in spreading
Personal Project practices and supporting schools in less advantaged circumstances. Given the
rich knowledge accumulated about the Personal Project in individual schools and the unevenness
of school contexts, the IB may consider constructing a data bank of promising practices and make
xii
this accessible to all schools, perhaps through the IBEN or other internal mechanisms. Also, the IB
may utilise IBEN for sustained coordinator and supervisor professional learning around the
Personal Project. Further, IBEN can incorporate clusters to provide peer-to-peer support specific
to the Personal Project. The IBEN clusters can be supported by experienced MYP coordinators and
IB Field Representatives with specialised expertise. IBEN clusters have the potential to provide
ongoing, informal, and needs-responsive support that enhances the impact of formal workshops.
• Help schools explore supervision models based on promising practices in different
circumstances. Given differences in supervisor-to-student ratios across schools, the IB may work
with school leaders to explore cross-school supervisory structures. These may include advice
about mentoring, peer coaching, and understanding of ATL skills related to the Personal Project.
• Take stock of a school’s contextual factors on the Personal Project journey. Contextual factors
shape students’ Personal Project experience. The IB may consider exploring resource structures
to bring more and less advantaged schools together to help students. Arrangements may include
cross-school clusters, sister school schemes, staff exchange, and further expanding IBEN.
• Maximise the ongoing and collective contribution to the community. Personal Projects benefit
individual students’ academic and personal development. However, the IB may consider the
potential of their collective contribution to support schools’ broader communities. The IB can help
schools explore ways to leverage the Personal Project to build community connections.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The IB MYP’s capstone Personal Project is an integral part of the IB’s mission to educate the ‘whole
child’ and marks the MYP as a unique programme for middle school-aged students. In this study, we
investigated the experiences and outcomes of the Personal Project for students, school faculty, and
communities surrounding schools. The findings point to clear and considerable benefits of the
Personal Project for various stakeholders. We found that participation in the Personal Project provides
a clear benefit to students as a ‘step up’ to the DP and supports broader their development across a
range of learning outcomes. The benefits of Personal Project engagement can extend to providing a
platform for individual and collective professional learning by faculty and sustaining vibrant
connections with various communities. At the same time, we identified a few areas concerning school
context and assessment practices that the IB may wish to discuss; these touch upon issues around
equity and social impact. Future research may include detailed ethnographic studies of the experience
of completing a Personal Project, focus on community stakeholders and their perspectives from the
‘other side’ of projects, and compare the complementary facets of Creativity, Activity, Service (CAS) in
the DP or the Reflective Project in the CP and the potential for sustaining positive outcomes.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The International Baccalaureate’s (IB) expansion is leaving an impression on increasing numbers of
students, school faculty, and community members worldwide. Since 2014, the number of schools
offering at least one IB programme has more than doubled. By November 2022, 5,664 schools across
over 150 countries offered at least one programme among the Primary Years Programme (PYP),
Middle Years Programme (MYP), Diploma Programme (DP), and Career-Related Programme (CP) (IB,
2022a). These IB World Schools aim to combine educational approaches aimed at whole-person
development, student-centred pedagogy, and a global outlook. The philosophy is aligned with a
‘holistic’ education that encompasses abilities, attitudes, and skills beyond subject disciplines (Hare,
2010). The IB’s Learner Profile articulates related student attributes that guide programme
implementation: balanced, caring, communicators, inquirers, knowledgeable, principled, open-
minded, reflective, risk-takers, and thinkers (IB, 2022b). These attributes address cognitive, conative,
affective, and social learning domains to prepare young people to thrive in globally integrated and
technologically advanced societies (Bullock, 2011; Lee et al., 2017; Wright & Lee, 2014a).
The IB launched the MYP – for 11- to 16-year-olds – in 1994. At the time of writing, 1,817 IB
World Schools were offering the MYP, including 444 in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, 1,040 in
the Americas, and 333 in the Asia Pacific (IB, 2022a). The MYP’s educational approach aims to promote
concept-driven, inquiry-based, and interdisciplinary learning (Perry et al., 2018). One purpose of the
MYP is to build on the learning experiences of the PYP and prepare students to ‘step up’ to the DP or
CP. Three concepts underpin the MYP: (1) ‘Approaches to Learning’ (ATL) that help students learn how
to learn by developing skills for research, critical and creative thinking, communication, collaboration,
and self-management; (2) ‘Key and Related Concepts’ help students explore big ideas that matter; and
(3) ‘Global Contexts’ that connect their studies to understanding a common humanity and shared
guardianship of the planet (IB, 2022c). Global surveys of MYP coordinators have identified these
features (e.g., holistic learning, pedagogy, and philosophy) as the most important reasons why schools
offer the programme (Sperandio, 2010; Wright et al., 2016).
A central feature of the MYP is an externally moderated
2
Personal Project that serves as a
capstone learning opportunity for students in their final MYP year. From the MYP’s beginnings, the IB
envisaged the Personal Project as pivotal to the programme’s philosophical underpinnings (Harrison,
et al., 2015). The Personal Project allows students to consolidate, integrate, and apply learning from
the MYP. The experience is designed to impart the skills to succeed in ‘further education and life
2
From 2017, external moderation of the Personal Project was made mandatory. Moderation is a process in which an external
examiner examines a sample of teacher-assessed marks (IB, 2022d).
2
beyond the classroom’ and help students ‘develop the confidence to become principled, lifelong
learners’ (IB, 2022c n.p.). Under the guidance of a supervisor, students develop a self-selected project
over an extended time period through a process of inquiry, action, and reflection. First, students
document their progress in a ‘process journal’ where they reflect and report on ideas, criteria,
developments, challenges, plans, research, solutions, and progress. Second, students complete a
‘product or outcome’ as evidence of results showcasing what they were aiming to achieve or create.
Third, students write a ‘report’ as an account of the project and its outcomes, which is the only
assessed component (IB, 2022c). The Personal Project typically culminates in an exhibition where
students share their experiences with an audience that may consist of peers, school faculty, and
community members from outside the school. In the May 2021 assessment session, more than 83,000
MYP students submitted Personal Projects worldwide (IB, 2021a).
There is a lack of research on the Personal Project, and more generally on the MYP, especially
with a global scope (Bunnell, 2011). Research has examined the outcomes of MYP graduates taking
the DP (e.g., ACER, 2015, Bryant et al., 2016; Wade & Wolanin, 2015), MYP implementation and its
influence on teaching and learning in schools across different contexts (e.g., Perry et al., 2018; Ryan
et al., 2018), and similarities between the MYP and other curricula (e.g., UK NARIC, 2019; Valle et al.,
2017). Recent research has found that MYP students outperform their counterparts in assessments
that cover mathematic literacy, reading, scientific literacy, and writing (Tan, 2021). Yet, despite its
centrality to the MYP, research on the Personal Project is limited. The existing findings have emerged
from small-scale or single-country research only, with few studies focusing exclusively on the Personal
Project. Consequently, a research gap remained in in-depth and multi-country studies exploring the
Personal Project at IB World Schools.
1.1. Research Objectives
The objective of this research was to investigate the experiences and outcomes of the Personal Project
at IB World Schools globally. On the one hand, it provided empirical evidence on the extent to which
students’ Personal Project scores predict subsequent academic performance in the DP. On the other
hand, the research’s scope extended to consider the potential of the Personal Project to have a more
comprehensive impression on students, school faculty, and communities that surround schools. The
findings illuminated the benefits of Personal Project, as well as challenges and promising practices
that can inform IB World Schools. The research had three phases:
• Phase One - Quantitative: The research team analysed multiple waves of extant IB data from
66,698 students worldwide. The goal was to examine how students’ Personal Project scores are
associated with subsequent academic performance in the DP. We conducted quantitative
3
analyses to identify associations among students’ scores in the Personal Project, DP exams, and
the Extended Essay. Further analyses examined contextual nuances in the data (see Section 3.6).
• Phase Two - Qualitative: The research team gathered interview data from six IB World Schools
across six jurisdictions: Hong Kong, Peru, Qatar, South Korea, the United States, and Zambia.
Overall, 107 participants were interviewed, including school leaders, coordinators, supervisors,
and students at MYP and DP levels. We gathered supplementary qualitative data from a Personal
Project exhibition, MYP alumni/ae, and awardees of the Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators’
Grant. Thematic analyses explored the broad outcomes of the Personal Project for students,
school faculty, and communities beyond schools.
• Phase Three - Data Convergence: The research team converged the datasets to investigate (a) the
extent to which the findings are generalisable or transferrable,
3
and (b) context-specific nuances
that may shape the Personal Project’s outcomes for students, educators, and school communities.
1.2. Literature Review
4
Personal Projects, or similar capstone projects, are relatively rare for 15- to 16-year-olds, making the
MYP pedagogically uncommon compared to other curricula for this age range. Capstone projects have
been defined as a ‘rite of passage’ (Durel, 1993) or a culminating experience requiring students to
synthesise prior learning and demonstrate their readiness to complete a programme. They can be a
‘high risk’ activity for schools and students, given the complexity of planning and carrying out a project
(Lee & Loton, 2019), which may be exacerbated for young adolescents. Students, under supervision,
need to: ‘Consolidate, interrogate and apply prior and new learning, develop skills in decision-making
and interpersonal management, and develop maturity as independent learners’ (Hammer et al., 2018
p. 732). At the same time, conducting a project can provide considerable educational benefits through
learning experiences that supplement classroom learning and support the development of multiple
skills (Bell, 2010).
For MYP students, the Personal Project can provide opportunities to build on and apply
knowledge, skills, and attributes developed throughout the programme. The experience may position
students well for transitioning to the DP. A ‘smooth transition between 11–16 learning and the DP’
constitutes a major rationale for MYP adoption (Wright et al., 2016 p. 8). There are, however, mixed
3
Both terms refer to the application of findings from one study to other settings. Generalisability is the extent to which
findings can be applied to a larger population. Transferability, more closely associated with qualitative research, refers to
the extent to which findings can be applied to another context.
4
The literature search process involved two phases. First, the research team searched electronic databases: Education
Resources Information Center and Google Scholar. Keywords were applied to identify relevant literature published between
2000 and 2022, including ‘capstone project’, ‘International Baccalaureate’, ‘Middle Years Programme’, and ‘Personal Project’.
Second, the research team reviewed all IB-commissioned research published on the IB Research website:
(https://www.ibo.org/research/).
4
findings on MYP-DP alignment. Research by ACER (2015) and Wade and Wolanin (2015) found that
students who completed the MYP outperformed their non-MYP peers in DP exam scores. Conversely,
research in Asian international schools found that continuous experience across IB programmes did
not contribute to higher DP exam scores, although it did contribute to metacognitive, self-assessment,
and inquiry-related skills (Bryant et al., 2016). Nonetheless, these studies did not specifically focus on
the Personal Project. Among the few studies that considered the Personal Project’s outcomes for
students, the experience has been described as enabling students to take ownership over learning
(Dickson et al., 2020) and demonstrate aspects of the Learner Profile and ATL skills (Jarvis et al., 2013).
In another study, school leaders and faculty attributed the Personal Project to better time
management skills needed for the DP (Walker, Bryant & Lee, 2014 p. 91). Nonetheless, these findings
were from single-country studies or where the Personal Project was only a part of broader
investigations. The current research provided a more comprehensive investigation of the Personal
Project and presents promising practices to maximise the learning outcomes.
Apart from students, the Personal Project’s outcomes may extend to school faculty. MYP
schools task a coordinator to ensure IB requirements are met, develop resources for students and
faculty, and monitor students’ progress. Also, faculty are tasked with supervising students by, for
example, offering guidance, sharing learning materials, and conducting internal grade moderation.
The experience has the potential to support professional development and distribute leadership
opportunities (Bryant et al., 2018). Research suggests that the MYP helps teachers hone skills and
incorporate new techniques into their practices (Ateşkan et al., 2016). In these ways, the Personal
Project may enhance teacher professionalism by integrating creativity with situated learning and
opportunities to lead (Fairman & Mackenzie, 2012; Wenner & Campbell, 2017). However, there is
evidence that some schools may ‘under-value’ the Personal Project (Walker & Lee, 2018 p. 476).
Further, coordinating and supervising the Personal Project can be resource-intensive, sometimes
contributing to decisions to discontinue the MYP (Dickson et al., 2020). These findings chime with Lee
et al.’s (2022) study that compared the professional characteristics of IB and non-IB teachers. IB
teachers reported greater engagement in student-centred and constructivist pedagogy, more diverse
assessment practices, and higher professional satisfaction. But they also reported higher levels of
work-based stress than their counterparts in non-IB schools. The current research built on these
findings by exploring the opportunities and challenges the Personal Project presents for school faculty.
It identified a series of promising practices that can inform efforts to build the capacity of coordinators
and supervisors.
The Personal Project potentially builds school-community engagement by providing
opportunities for students to understand their communities better while also ‘giving back’ through
5
engagement with businesses, charities, and non-government organisations. Perry et al. (2018) found
the Personal Project in Australian schools facilitated connections with local communities and offered
‘real world’ learning opportunities for students (p. 34). The findings are noteworthy given research
showing that socioeconomically privileged students at private and international IB schools can be
disconnected from local communities surrounding schools (Wright & Lee, 2019). Further research on
DP schools in China found that students’ community engagement in the Creativity, Activity, Service
(CAS) course was often superficial and took a backseat relative to other parts of the programme
(Wright & Lee, 2014b). These studies support findings that with progression to the DP, teachers and
students tend to narrow their focus on Learner Profile attributes perceived to predict examination
success, e.g., ‘knowledgeable’ in the cognitive domain over ‘caring’ in the affective (Bryant et al.,
2016). Additional relevant studies have highlighted how the benefits of community engagement in the
DP for developing skills, trying new experiences, and realising potential are accrued primarily by
individual students, with less clear benefits for others (Hayden et al., 2020). Building on this DP
research, the current research explored the outcomes of the Personal Project for the communities
that surround schools. In so doing, the current study illuminated promising practices that can support
school-community engagement.
1.3. Research Questions
Phase One - Quantitative
• 1. Do Personal Project scores predict DP exam and/or Extended Essay scores for Personal Project
participants who continue into the DP?
o a. If such associations exist, do they vary by student characteristics?
o b. If such associations exist, do they vary by school characteristics?
• 2. Do Personal Project participants have higher DP exam and/or Extended Essay scores than their
DP peers who were not Personal Project participants?
o a. Do any associations demonstrated deviate for a subset of data from students who
attempted the Personal Project under the condition of mandatory external moderation
5
when compared to other available data years?
Phase Two - Qualitative
• 1. How do MYP school community stakeholders perceive the outcomes of the Personal Project
experience for students who have attempted it?
5
This refers to testing invariance of student data from the first full mandatory external moderation year [Personal Project in
Spring 2017 and DP external exams in May 2019].
6
• 2. How do MYP school leaders, coordinators, and classroom educators perceive the outcomes of
the Personal Project experience for school faculty who support its implementation?
• 3. How do MYP school community stakeholders perceive the outcomes of the Personal Project
experience for the broader community that surrounds the school?
Phase Three - Data Convergence
• 1. To what extent are findings regarding Personal Project experiences and outcomes generalisable
or transferrable?
• 2. To what extent do the data reveal contextual nuances
6
in Personal Project experiences and
outcomes?
6
Examples of contextual nuances include student characteristics (e.g., gender, language, number of DP courses, cohort year)
and school characteristics (e.g., private school legal status, years since MYP and DP authorisation, number of registered
students).
7
2. METHOD
The research team adopted a triangulation convergence mixed method design (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2011), which involved the concurrent analysis of extant IB quantitative data and newly collected
qualitative data followed by a converged analysis (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Overview of the Research
2.1. Phase One - Quantitative
2.1.1. The Present Study
The quantitative phase of the research investigated the associations among students’ scores in the
Personal Project, DP exams, and the Extended Essay, taking account of student-level and school-level
Phase 1: Quantitative
Focus:
• Examine if Personal Project scores predict DP
exam and Extended Essay scores
• Analyse variations in associations by student
and school characteristics
• Investigate group variances in DP exam and
Extended Essay scores
• Assess if associations deviate under the
condition of mandatory external moderation
• Further examine the United States case
Data:
• Extant IB data from 66,698 students
• Three cohort years (i.e., Personal Project in
2016, 2017 and 2018; DP exams and/or
Extended Essay in 2018, 2019 and 2020)
Analysis:
• Descriptive analysis
• Multilevel analysis
• Matching samples analysis
• Invariance tests analysis
Focus:
• Explore perspective on the Personal Project’s
outcomes for students, school faculty, and
communities surrounding schools
Data:
• Interviews with 107 participants at six IB
World Schools
• One-to-one interviews with heads of schools,
MYP and DP coordinators, and Personal
Project and Extended Essay coordinators
• Focus groups with Personal Project and
Extended Essay supervisors
• Focus groups with MYP and DP students
• Ethnographic data from a Personal Project
exhibition
• One-to-one interviews with MYP alumni/ae
• Written responses from Dr Siva Kumari MYP
Student Innovators' Grant awardees
Analysis:
• Thematic analysis of the Personal Project’s
overall and contextual outcomes
Phase 3: Data Convergence
Focus:
• Converge quantitative and qualitative data to investigate (a) the
generalisability or transferability of the findings and (b) context-
specific nuances in Personal Project experiences and outcomes
Analysis:
• ‘Joint displays’ to illustrate converged findings
Phase 2: Qualitative
8
characteristics. The Personal Project is assessed by a report, within which the product or outcome is
evident and a selection of reflective journal entries are included as appendices. The report assessment
has four criteria:
7
investigating, planning, taking action, and reflecting. For investigating, students are
expected to state a learning goal and global context, identify relevant prior learning and subject-
specific knowledge, and demonstrate research skills. Planning involves developing criteria for the
product or outcome, planning and recording the project’s development, and demonstrating self-
management skills. For taking action, students are tasked with creating a product or outcome and
demonstrating thinking, communication, and social skills. Reflecting covers students evaluating their
product or outcome, reflecting on how it extended their knowledge in a global context, and reflecting
on their development as an ‘IB learner’. For each criterion, reports are marked between 1 and 8, with
a maximum score of 32, which is translated into an IB grade of 1-7. However, students are formally
graded on a pass/fail basis with a score of 4 or higher attaining a pass (IB, 2018).
Our rationale for including DP exam scores in the analysis was that they hold the greatest weight
in overall DP scores: exams at the end of the DP form the primary basis of assessment for most Higher
Level (HL) and Standard Level (SL) subject courses. Students may attain a score from 1-7 for each HL
or SL courses, whereas an additional three points in the DP may be attained from the Extended Essay
and Theory of Knowledge course. The assessment of DP exams considers the extent to which students
have developed academic mastery in analysing and presenting information, evaluating and
constructing arguments, and solving problems creatively (IB, 2022e), which students have the
potential to develop during the Personal Project experience.
We further included Extended Essay scores in the analysis, given the potential for alignment
with the Personal Project. Similar to the Personal Project, the Extended Essay presents students with
an opportunity to conduct independent research on a topic of their personal interest under the
guidance of a supervisor. Nevertheless, there are differences between the two. Extended Essay
students are assessed by a formal piece of academic writing comprising a 4,000-word essay and a 500-
word reflection. There are five assessment criteria with a maximum score of 34: focus and method,
knowledge and understanding, critical thinking, presentation, and engagement (IB, 2017).
2.1.2. Data Sampling
The number of raw student cases in the extant IB data was 69,100 from 108 countries. The research
team conducted data treatment procedures to ensure integrity and comparability. The number of
remaining cases was 66,698 (96.5%), referring to the whole sample for the quantitative analysis. More
7
The IB revised the Personal Project assessment criteria in 2021 (IB, 2021b). This description is based on the Personal Project
assessment criteria prior to the revision to align with the period covered in the IB datasets in the current research.
9
details of the steps for data cleaning are presented in Appendix II. In the current section, we outline
the criteria and conditions for selecting the samples with regard to the research questions.
Programme samples. The research team distinguished three types of IB student: full DP
students, CP students, and course candidates (Table 1 in Appendix III). First, full DP students (n =
45,938) took a combination of six or more HL or SL courses. Second, CP students (n = 2,303)
participated in the CP and took a combination of fewer than six HL or SL courses. Third, course
candidates (n = 18,440) participated in the DP and took a combination of fewer than six HL or SL
courses. By excluding students coded as participating in both DP and CP (n = 27), the total sample size
of the three groups accounted for 99.9% of the population of the IB-provided data (n = 66,698).
Cohort samples. Based on the whole sample (n = 66,698), we drew upon three data cohorts
8
of
students who attempted the Personal Project (Table 2 in Appendix III). For each cohort, we assumed
students took the Personal Project in 10
th
grade and DP assessments in 11
th
and/or 12
th
grade. The
number of students in the three cohorts was as follows: 19,922 (2016-2018), 21,692 (2017-2019), and
24,768 (2018-2020). We excluded students who took more than two years to complete the DP (n =
316). Overall, the cohort sample size was 66,382 (99.5% of n).
2.1.3. Database for Analysis
Analytical samples. Our research team used three types of analytical samples in addressing the
different research questions. For Research Question 1, we drew four analytical samples from the
whole sample based on the conditions used for the Hierarchical Linear Modelling
9
(HLM) analyses (see
Table 1 in Appendix IV). The sample of full DP students who took DP exams comprised students who
took the full DP. We examined if Personal Project scores predicted DP exam scores, conditioned on
student and school characteristics (n = 41,866). Based on the sample of full DP students who took the
Extended Essay, we examined if Personal Project scores predicted Extended Essay scores, conditioned
on student and school characteristics (n = 40,497). The sample of CP students who took DP exams
included students who took the CP. We examined if their Personal Project scores predicted DP exam
scores, conditioned on student and school characteristics (n = 1,578). Based on the sample of course
candidate students who took DP exams, we examined how Personal Project scores predicted DP exam
scores, conditioned on student and school characteristics (n = 13,122).
In addressing Research Question 2, two subsets of analytical samples were drawn from the
whole sample based on DP students who did and did not participate in the Personal Project.
8
Three data cohorts refer to students who have taken Personal Project in 2016, DP exam and/or Extended Essay in 2018;
Personal Project in 2017, DP exam and/or Extended Essay in 2019; Personal Project in 2018 DP exam and/or Extended Essay
in 2020, respectively.
9
HLM refers to a regression approach to examine the hierarchical or nested structure of the data.
10
Descriptive statistics from the IB-provided data showed that a total of 57,644 DP students attained a
Personal Project score (ranging from 1 to 32). We also had access to data from DP students who had
no Personal Project score (n = 8,970). These samples were further used in the matching samples
analysis. Finally, we matched two groups: DP students who participated in the Personal Project (n =
18,212) and DP students who did not participate in the Personal Project (n = 5,886) (Table 2 of
Appendix IV).
We extracted a subset of Personal Project participants from the United States for two additional
analyses (Table 3 of Appendix IV). For the first additional analysis, we selected students who had taken
both the MYP and DP at schools in the United States. The total sample size was 24,932. Then, we
separated the students into two groups: Students who took 1-5 HL or SL courses (n = 9,555) and full
DP course students (i.e., more than 5 HL or SL courses; n = 15,377). For the second additional analysis,
two samples of Personal Project participants in the full DP group were drawn based on the conditions
used for the HLM analyses. The sample of United States Personal Project students who took DP exams
comprised students who took the full DP to examine how Personal Project scores predicted DP exam
scores, conditioned on student and school characteristics (n = 10,029). The sample of United States
Personal Project students who took Extended Essay examined if Personal Project scores predicted
Extended Essay scores for students who took the full DP, conditioned on student and school
characteristics (n = 9,670).
Score calculation. We drew on three key scores from the IB extant data (Table 4 in Appendix IV).
For the Personal Project score, the variable ‘TOTAL_SCALED_MYP’ was used with a range from 1 to 32
points.
10
For the Extended Essay, the variable of ‘EE_Score’ was used with a range from 0 to 34 points.
The DP exam score was newly constructed by using DP grades per subject to calculate each student’s
average DP exam score. The range was from 1 to 7 points. All scores were standardised so that they
could be used for comparisons in the HLM models.
Variables. We identified school-level and student-level characteristics from the extant IB data
(see Table 5 in Appendix IV). School-level characteristics included legal status (i.e., Charter, Private,
State, and State subsidised), years since MYP and DP authorisation, and the number of registered
students in the DP and CP. Student-level characteristics included gender (dichotomous
11
variable
coded 1 for Female, 0 for otherwise); if students’ primary and secondary languages matched their MYP
and/or DP school’s primary and secondary languages of instruction (dichotomous variables coded 1
for matched, 0 for mismatched); additional rigour of DP coursework (dichotomous variable coded 1
for students who took more than three HL courses, 0 for otherwise); and cohort years (e.g., Cohort
10
In this study, students with a “0 score” for the Personal Project were excluded from the analysis based on the assessment
rubric which comprised of 1 to 32 points.
11
Dichotomous variables are categorical variables with two categories.
11
Year 1 referred to students who took the Personal Project in 2016 and DP exams by 2018). We used
additional contextual variables at the student level in the analysis for the United States subset data:
participation in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals
12
(coded 1 for students who
had participated in the Programme, 0 for otherwise), English proficiency 1 (coded 1 for Level 1-3, 0 for
otherwise), and English proficiency 2 (code 1 for those unreported cases, 0 for otherwise). These three
student-level variables were re-coded for analysis in the HLM models.
2.1.4. Analytical Methods
Prior to addressing the research questions, the research team used SPSS version 27.0 for descriptive
analyses using one-way analysis of variance
13
(ANOVA) and t-tests
14
on Personal Project, Extended
Essay, and DP exam scores across different groups. To analyse quantitative data for Research Question
1, we used HLM version 8.2 to perform multilevel analysis for examining associations among students’
Personal Project, Extended Essay, and DP exam scores with respective student and school
characteristics. HLM was used because the student samples were nested within schools, with students
serving as level 1 and schools as level 2 (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
For Research Question 2, we used five matching methods to conduct between-group
comparisons using DP exam and Extended Essay scores. They were Mahalanobis Distance Matching,
Propensity Score Matching, Coarsened Exact Matching, Mahalanobis Frontier, and L
1
Frontier (Stuart,
2010). In doing so, we wrote the programme with PERL to control statistical processing in MLn
software. As the effectiveness of these matching methods (minimal imbalance and maximal sample
size) differed across data sets, we used the results to match with groups according to four criteria: (a)
standardized mean difference, (b) % improvement /% data lost, (c) L
1
imbalance, and (d) number of
matched data (King et al., 2017). With the matched samples, we further conducted the analysis with
multivariate multilevel modelling (Hox et al., 2017) to examine (a) the associations between DP exam
and Extended Essay scores from the two subsets of the matched group and (b) the associations among
Personal Project participation, DP outcomes, and the condition of mandatory external moderation.
For Research Question 3, we conducted a correlation analysis using SPSS 27.0 to examine the
association between Personal Project and DP exam scores for Personal Project participants in the
United States who took 1-5 DP courses and those who took six or more DP courses. We further used
HLM version 8.2 to perform multilevel analysis on associations among Personal Project participants’
scores on the Personal Project, Extended Essay, and DP exams with respective student and school
12
Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals is used as a proxy for student-level poverty in the United States.
13
ANOVA is used to test the statistically significant difference of means between three or more groups of data.
14
T-test is used to test the statistically significant difference of means of two sampled data.
12
characteristics. For the multilevel models,
15
school- and student-level variables were entered
stepwise
16
to assess the effects of Personal Project score in predicting DP exam and/or Extended Essay
scores. The steps for entering variables into each model are summarised in Table 2.1, below.
Table 2.1. Models and Analytical Samples
RQ
Models and analytical samples
Variables added per step
RQ1
• Personal Project score
predicts DP exam score: an
analytical sample of full DP
students who took DP exams
• Model 1: School-level characteristics: legal status,
number of years since MYP authorisation, number
of years since DP authorisation, number of
registered students in DP
• Model 2: Personal Project score
• Model 3: Additional rigour DP coursework
• Model 4: Female
• Model 5: Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction; self-
reported language matched with DP school’s
language of instruction
• Model 6: Cohort year
• Personal Project score
predicts Extended Essay
score: an analytical sample of
full DP students who took the
Extended Essay
• Model 1: School-level characteristics: legal status,
number of years since MYP authorisation, number
of years since DP authorisation, number of
registered students in DP
• Model 2: Personal Project score
• Model 3: Additional rigour DP coursework
• Model 4: Female
• Model 5: Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction; self-
reported language matched with DP school’s
language of instruction
• Model 6: Cohort year
• Personal Project score
predicts Extended Essay
score: an analytical sample of
CP students who took DP
exams
• Model 1: School-level characteristics: legal status,
number of years since MYP authorisation, number
of years since DP authorisation, number of
registered students in CP
• Model 2: Personal Project score
• Model 3: Female
• Model 4: Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction; self-
reported language matched with CP school’s
language of instruction
• Personal Project score
predicts Extended Essay
• Model 1: School-level characteristics: legal status,
number of years since MYP authorisation, number
15
Multilevel models were used as the data was hierarchically structured at more than one level.
16
Stepwise is a method of selecting variables into models in a prescribed order.
13
score: an analytical sample of
course candidates who took
DP exams
of years since DP authorisation, number of
registered course candidates
• Model 2: Personal Project score
• Model 3: Female
• Model 4: Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction; Self-
reported language matched with DP school’s
language of instruction
• Model 5: Cohort year
RQ2
• Multivariate multilevel
regression analyses on DP
exam scores
• Model 1: Personal Project participation
• Model 2: Cohort year of mandatory external
moderation
• Model 3: Interactions
17
between Personal Project
participation and cohort year of mandatory
external moderation
• Multivariate multilevel
regression analyses on
Extended Essay scores
• Model 1: Personal Project participation
• Model 2: Cohort year of mandatory external
moderation
• Model 3: Interactions between Personal Project
participation and cohort year of mandatory
external moderation
RQ3
• Personal Project score
predicts DP exam score: an
analytical sample of United
States Personal Project
students who took DP exams
• Model 1: School-level characteristics: legal status,
number of years since MYP authorisation, number
of years since DP authorisation, number of
registered students in DP
• Model 2: Personal Project score
• Model 3: Additional rigour DP coursework
• Model 4: Female
• Model 5: Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction
• Model 6: Federal Program on Free and Reduced-
Priced Meals; English proficiency
• Personal Project score
predicts DP exam score: an
analytical sample of United
States Personal Project
students who took the
Extended Essay
• Model 1: School-level characteristics: legal status,
number of years since MYP authorisation, number
of years since DP authorisation, number of
registered students in DP
• Model 2: Personal Project score
• Model 3: Additional rigour DP coursework
• Model 4: Female
• Model 5: Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction
• Model 6: Federal Program on Free and Reduced-
Priced Meals; English proficiency
17
Testing interactions allows examination of the joint effect of two or more independent variables on at least one dependent
variable.
14
Following this, using the restricted maximum likelihood method,
18
we developed the multilevel
models separately on each analytical sample to examine the associations. In each analytical sample,
the multilevel models with group-mean centering
19
were applied to student-level characteristics and
grand-mean centering
20
to school-level characteristics. The equations of the final HLM and the
multivariate multilevel model are referred to in Appendix V.
We also calculated the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient
21
(ICC) by considering the null model
22
as a base for modelling without containing any variables. For Research Question 1, the results of 2-
level ICC showed the following proportion of variance among the schools and students contributing
to four analytical samples (see Table 1 in Appendix VI for details):
• Full DP students who took DP exams (43.77% school variance; 56.23% student variance);
• Full DP students who took the Extended Essay (21.04% school variance; 78.96% student variance)
• CP students who took DP exams (48.12% school variance; 51.88% student variance)
• Course candidates who took DP exams (32.90% school variance; 67.10% student variance)
For the additional analysis on the United States subset data in Research Question 3, the results of 2-
level ICC showed the proportion of variance among the schools and students contributing to two
analytical samples (see Table 1 in Appendix VI for details).
• United States Personal Project participants who took DP exams (44.82% school variance; 55.18%
student variance)
• United States Personal Project participants who took Extended Essay (19.58% school variance:
80.42% student variance)
As IB extant data consisted of 108 countries, we also calculated the 3-level ICC for Research Question
2 as a reference (see Table 2 in Appendix VI).
2.2. Phase Two - Qualitative
2.2.1. Interview Data
The qualitative phase of the research investigated the broader outcomes of the Personal Project for
students, school faculty, and communities surrounding schools. In other words, it considered the
potential of more comprehensive outcomes that go beyond preparation for DP exam and Extended
Essay scores. The research team interviewed school leaders, school faculty, and students. A pilot study
18
Maximum Likelihood Estimation is a statistical method for estimating the parameters of the probability distribution.
19
Group-mean centering refers to centering the variable around the mean of each group.
20
Grand-mean centering refers to subtracting the full sample mean from each parameter.
21
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient is used to measure the degree of clustering within groups or levels.
22
Null model refers to the unconditional model, which served as the baseline for comparison.
15
was conducted at one IB World School in Hong Kong. The purpose was to gather initial information on
perspectives of the experiences and outcomes of the Personal Project, which informed the
subsequent focus of inquiry. The main part of the qualitative phase involved interviews at six IB World
Schools in six jurisdictions: Hong Kong, Peru, Qatar, South Korea, the United States, and Zambia.
All six of the selected schools offered the MYP and DP, which enabled the research team to
investigate how the Personal Project shapes MYP-DP alignment. Apart from that, we employed
‘maximum variation sampling’ to identify variations across schools and selected schools to represent
that variance (Patton, 2002). The sampling criteria aimed for variation in (a) location: geography and
host culture; (b) school type: state, private, international; (c) student population: predominantly local
to predominantly expatriate; (d) longevity: MYP authorisation under five years prior to over 20 years
prior; (e) curriculum: schools with alternative dual curriculum pathways following the MYP, and
schools with only the DP following the MYP. Details of the schools are presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Case School Information
Case
Location
School type
Student
population
Language
Longevity
(MYP)
Curricula
1
Hong
Kong
International
Predominantly
expatriate
English
5-10 years
Full IB
continuum
and another
curriculum
2
Peru
Private
Predominantly
local
English and
Spanish
Over 20
years
Full IB
continuum
only
3
Korea
International
Predominantly
local
English
Under 5
years
Full IB
continuum
and another
curriculum
4
Qatar
Private
Predominantly
local
English
Under 5
years
Full IB
continuum
and another
curriculum
5
United
States
Public
All
local
English
Over 10
years
Full IB
continuum
and another
curriculum
6
Zambia
International
Predominantly
expatriate
English
Over 20
years
Full IB
continuum
only
Five of the schools were recruited by the research team’s networks. First, the research was
hosted by the Asia Pacific Centre for Leadership and Change, which has extensive global networks with
16
IB World Schools. Second, the Co-Principal Investigators, as named on the title page, are current and
former Programme Leaders for an IB recognised master’s degree with an alumni/ae network with IB
school leaders across over 20 countries. The IB facilitated the recruitment of the remaining school.
At each school, the research team conducted one-to-one interviews with heads of schools (n
= 1-2), DP/Extended Essay coordinators (n = 1-2), and MYP/Personal Project coordinators (n = 1). Focus
group interviews were held with Personal Project supervisors (n = 2-3), Extended Essay supervisors
23
(n = 2-3), students who had recently completed the Personal Project (n = 3-5), and DP students working
on their Extended Essay (n = 3-5), Focus groups facilitated interactive discussions, which can have a
‘synergistic effect’ by encouraging participants to debate, react, and build on responses (Stewart et
al., 2009 p. 594). We conducted all the interviews in English and online through the Zoom platform.
They each lasted 45 minutes to 1.5 hours. In sum, we conducted 13-19 interviews at each school,
which resulted in 107 participants across the six schools (see Table 2.3 on the following page).
We developed interview protocols to investigate Personal Project experiences and outcomes
(see Appendix VII for an example). The pilot study informed the initial questions, which we revised in
an iterative process in light of emerging findings. Also, we tailored the questions to different groups
of participants to elicit information appropriate for their expertise, including alignment with school
missions, professional learning opportunities, promising practices, challenges, student characteristics
(e.g., gender, socioeconomic status, language), school-community engagement, the educational
development of students, and gaps and synergies with the DP (see Table 2.3). Using the interviews,
we also investigated how crises in and outside schools (e.g., COVID-19) affected the Personal Project’s
implementation. In addition, a research team member attended an online Personal Project exhibition
at one case school to observe students’ presentations. This supplementary ethnographic data
provided a close-up and rich picture of the Personal Project in practice.
Finally, we gathered additional qualitative data to delve deeper into the outcomes of the
Personal Project for students. We conducted interviews with MYP alumni/ae to explore the potential
long-term outcomes of the Personal Project beyond the DP. The IB Alumni/ae Affairs Team sent an
open interview call to graduates from the six case schools between 2004 and 2021. We conducted
four online interviews using Zoom with participants who were taking a gap year, at university, or in
employment. Using the interviews, we investigated reflections on the Personal Project and how the
learning outcomes may have contributed to their current studies or work. In addition, the research
team gathered insights from Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators’ Grant awardees that provides
mentoring and financial support to help MYP students maximise their social impact. The grant is open
23
In a few cases, Personal Project supervisors and EE supervisors were interviewed on a one-to-one basis owing to scheduling
availability.
17
to all MYP students, not limited to those who have completed the Personal Project. The IB’s Strategy
and Transformation Team sent an open call to grant awardees of 2020, asking them to comment on
whether and how the grant played a role in continuing their Personal Project initiatives. Three
awardees provided written responses.
Table 2.3. Interview Participants and Topics
Participants
Number of
participants
Type of
interview
Examples of interview
topics
Heads of schools
8
One-to-one
• Overall picture
• Alignment with school mission
• School and student characteristics
• Professional learning
• Educational benefits for students
• School-community engagement
DP/Extended
Essay
coordinators
MYP/Personal
Project
coordinators
DP/
Extended Essay
coordinators
(6)
MYP/
Personal Project
coordinators
(9)
One-to-one
• Institutional support and
resources
• Positions and roles
• Professional learning
• Challenges and limitations
• Educational benefits for students
• MYP-DP transition
• School-community engagement
Extended Essay
supervisors
14
Focus group
• Readiness for the DP and
Extended Essay
• Gaps and synergies with the DP
and Extended Essay
• Promising practices for Extended
Essay preparation
Personal Project
supervisors
14
Focus group
• ‘Hands-on’ supervision
experience
• Professional learning
• Promising practices for
supervision
• Challenges and limitations
• Examples of successful projects
• Educational benefits for students
Students who
recently
completed the
Personal Project
30
Focus group
• Self-reflection on experience
• Skills gained
• Challenges to a successful project
• Preparedness for the DP and
Extended Essay
DP students
working on their
Extended Essay
26
Focus group
• Self-reflection on the experience
• Skills gained
• Gaps and synergies with the DP
and Extended Essay
• Preparedness for further studies
n = 107
18
2.2.2. Qualitative Analysis
The research team transcribed the interviews verbatim and thematically analysed the data using
NVivo 12. The objective of thematic analysis was to interpret the underlying issues or critical findings
from large amounts of interview data. The research team generated ‘codes’ (labels assigned to
features or ‘chunks’ of interview data) that were subsequently integrated into broader ‘themes’ and
‘sub-themes’ (patterned responses or meanings; see Miles et al., 2014). The thematic analysis started
after we collected interview data from the first school and, through an iterative data collection
process, we considered the findings in tweaking or expanding the interview protocols (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). In the analytical process, we struck a balance between being open-minded to new
findings and recognising our active role as researchers in generating codes and constructing themes.
The codes and themes did not passively emerge but were generated via interpretation through
interactions between the data and the focus of the research on the outcomes of the Personal Project
for students, school faculty, and communities that surround schools. The findings identified distinctive
student and school characteristics and shared findings that cut across the six schools.
2.3. Phase Three - Data Convergence
In Phase Three, the research team comparatively analysed the qualitative and quantitative data to
triangulate findings. This approach permitted interpretations that accounted for multiple perspectives
and data sources, therefore yielding additional insights (Gorard & Taylor, 2004). Put simply, it was, ‘a
validity procedure where researchers look for convergence among multiple and different sources of
information to form themes or categories in a study’ (Creswell & Miller, 2000 p. 126). We interwove
findings from Phase One and Phase Two to investigate (a) the extent to which findings about Personal
Project experiences and outcomes are generalisable or transferrable and (b) contextual nuances in
Personal Project experiences and outcomes. We interrogated the quantitative findings by identifying
potential explanations from the qualitative data. Likewise, qualitative findings illuminated findings
that could be further examined in the quantitative data.
To facilitate the mixed methods analyses, we visualised the data through ‘joint displays’, which
brought ‘…the data together through a visual means to draw out new insights beyond the information
gained from the separate quantitative and qualitative results’ (Guetterman et al., 2015 p. 555). We
used visually engaging tables to clearly associate the qualitative and quantitative findings, for
example, by displaying relevant quantitative findings, coupled with key themes from qualitative data,
and converging interpretations. The converging evidence identified in the ‘joint displays’ provided the
foundation for a series of key interrelated research themes and informed recommendations that are
presented in the Discussion and Recommendations chapter of this report.
19
3. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
In this chapter, we examine quantitative findings from multiple waves of extant IB data. Specifically,
we examine how students’ Personal Project scores are associated with subsequent performance in
the DP. We first report the associations among students’ scores in the Personal Project, Extended
Essay, and DP exams. A multilevel analysis was conducted with hierarchically nested data to identify
variations according to student and school characteristics. Following this, we report the association of
DP exam and Extended Essay scores between DP students who participated in the Personal Project
and their counterparts who did not participate in the Personal Project. We further report associations
under the condition of mandatory external moderation. Finally, we look at a subset of data from IB
schools in the United States to examine how full DP students’ Personal Project scores are associated
with DP outcomes. We also report how the additional contextual variables of student-level
participation in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals and English proficiency
associate with Personal Project, Extended Essay, and DP exam scores.
3.1. Results of Z Scores, ANOVA, and T-tests
Before the primary analyses, the research team conducted normality tests on the analytical samples
to identify the distributions of Personal Project, DP exam, and Extended Essay scores. We reported Z-
score values for Personal Project, Extended Essay, and DP exam scores for each analytical sample (see
Appendix VIII). The results from the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-test showed that full
DP students had significantly higher Personal Project scores (M = 15.54, SD = 5.43) than students who
took the CP (M = 10.52, SD = 4.71) and course candidates (M = 11.10, SD = 4.99), F(1,2) = 3975.714, p
< .001. The results also showed that students who took the full DP had significantly higher Extended
Essay scores (M = 18.03, SD = 6.328) than course candidates (M = 13.21, SD = 6.11), p < .001. Finally,
students who took the full DP had significantly higher DP exam scores (M = 4.83, SD = 0.98) than their
counterparts who took the CP (M = 3.81, SD = .96) and course candidates (M = 3.80 SD = 1.11), F(1,2)
= 5665.855, p < .001.
3.2. Personal Project, DP Exam, and Extended Essay Scores
The research team addressed the question: ‘Do Personal Project scores predict DP exam and/or
Extended Essay scores for Personal Project participants who continue into the DP?’, with two sub-
questions: ‘If such associations exist, do they vary by student characteristics?’ and ‘If such associations
exist, do they vary by school characteristics?’. The descriptive statistics of school-level and student-
level variables in the multilevel analysis are presented in Appendix IX. In the current section, we report
20
the results of multilevel regressions on the final models of each analytical sample. For the detailed
regression results of each model, please refer to Appendix X. The major findings are summarised
below.
3.2.1. Overall Findings
In the regression models, the standardised coefficients (β) were reported to compare effect sizes. The
effect size was generally interpreted under the rule of < .2 (small), < .5 (moderate) and < .8 (significant)
(Cohen, 1988). Although score standardisation was performed in the HLM models, caution is needed
in interpreting the associations among Personal Project, DP exam, and Extended Essay scores owing
to the separate samples drawn.
• Personal Project scores predict DP exam and Extended Essay scores: The results of two separate
multilevel models demonstrated that Personal Project scores associated significantly with DP exam
and Extended Essay scores for full DP students (β = 0.418, p < .001 and β = 0.250, p < .001,
respectively) (see Table 3.1 on page 22). The results also showed that students’ Personal Project
scores were significantly associated with DP exam scores for students who took the CP and course
candidates (β = 0.258, p < .001 and β = 0.202, p < .001, respectively) (see Table 3.2 on page 22).
• Personal Project scores have a stronger association with DP exam scores than with Extended
Essay scores: In the multilevel models of full DP students, Personal Project scores had a significantly
higher magnitude of association with DP exam scores (β = 0.418, p < .001) than Extended Essay
scores (β = 0.250, p < .001) for Personal Project participants (see Table 3.1).
3.2.2. Student Characteristics
• Female Personal Project participants associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay
scores: The results of multilevel models showed that female Personal Project participants who
took the full DP were more significantly associated with higher Extended Essay scores (β = 0.131,
p < .001) than their male counterparts (see Table 3.1). A significant positive association between
gender and DP exam scores was also found in the results of course candidates who took DP exams,
showing that female Personal Project participants were associated with higher DP exam scores (β
= 0.117, p < .001) than their male peers (see Table 3.2).
• Mixed language-match associations with DP and Extended Essay scores: The four multilevel
models showed mixed findings regarding associations between language match and DP outcomes.
Language match refers to if students’ self-reported primary and/or secondary languages matched
their MYP and/or DP/CP schools’ primary and secondary languages of instruction. CP students
who took DP exams had a positive association between self-reported language match with CP
21
school’s language of instruction and DP exam scores (β = 0.108, p < .05) (see Table 3.2). However,
full DP students showed a negative association between self-reported language match with MYP
school’s language of instruction and Extended Essay scores (β = -0.243, p < .05) (see Table 3.1).
• Additional rigour of DP course coursework associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay
scores: The results for full DP students showed a significant association among additional rigour
of DP coursework, DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores (see Table 3.1). Personal Project
participants in the full DP who went on to take more than three Higher Level DP courses were
significantly associated with higher DP exam scores (β = 0.373, p < .001) and Extended Essay scores
(β = 0.209, p < .001) than their peers who took three or fewer Higher Level DP courses.
• Cohort year associated with DP exam and Extended Essay scores. Full DP students who took the
Personal Project in 2017 and DP exams by 2019 had relatively lower Extended Essay scores (β = -
0.592, p < .05) than students who took the Personal Project in 2018 and DP exams by 2020 (see
Table 3.1). Also, course candidates who took the Personal Project in 2017 and DP exams by 2019
had relatively lower DP exam scores (β = -1.075, p = < .05) than students who took the Personal
Project in 2018 and DP exams by 2020 (see Table 3.2).
3.2.3. School Characteristics
• Private school status associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores: The results of
multilevel models showed that private school status was significantly associated with higher DP
exam scores for Personal Project participants who took full DP (β = 0.134, p < .05) than students
who were not in private schools (see Table 3.1). Similarly, private school status was associated with
higher Extended Essay scores for Personal Project participants who took the full DP (β = 0.120, p
< .05) than their non-private school peers (see Table 3.1).
• More time since MYP authorisation associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores:
The period of time that schools had been authorised to offer the MYP was significantly associated
with higher DP exam scores for Personal Project participants who took the full DP (β = 0.014, p
< .05) (refer to Table 3.1). Similarly, the results showed that schools authorised to offer the MYP
for a longer period of time were significantly associated with higher Extended Essay scores for
Personal Project participants who took the full DP (β = 0.009, p < .05) (see Table 3.1).
• A higher number of registered students associated with DP exam scores: The multilevel model
showed that schools with a higher number of students registered in the full DP were significantly
associated with higher DP exam scores for Personal Project participants (β = 0.001, p < .05) (see
Table 3.1).
22
Table 3.1. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam and Extended Essay Scores: Full DP Students
Personal Project
score predicts DP
exam score: Full DP
students who took
DP exams
Personal Project
score predicts
Extended Essay
score: Full DP
students who took
Extended Essay
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
0.134*
0.120*
Number of years since MYP authorisation year (2021-
MYP authorisation year)
0.014*
0.009*
Number of years since DP authorisation year (2021-
DP authorisation year)
Number of registered students in DP
0.001*
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.418***
0.250***
Additional rigour DP coursework (1= More than 3 HL
courses taken, focal group)
0.373***
0.209***
Female
0.131***
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
-0.243*
Self-reported language matched with DP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
Cohort year 1 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2016
and DP exams by 2018, focal group)
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2017
and DP exams by 2019, focal group)
-0.592*
Table 3.2. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam and Extended Essay Scores: CP Students
Personal Project
score predicts
Extended Essay
score: CP students
who took DP exams
Personal Project
score predicts DP
exam score: Course
candidates who took
DP exams
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.258***
0.202***
Female
0.117***
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
Self-reported language matched with CP/DP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.108*
Cohort year 1 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2016
and DP exams by 2018, focal group)
#
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2017
and DP exams by 2019, focal group)
#
-1.075*
Note: Non-significant school-level variables are not shown in this table.
# Due to the collinearity issue, the variables of “cohort year” were not examined in the models.
3.3. Personal Project Participation and DP Outcomes
The research team addressed the question: ‘Do Personal Project participants have DP exam and/or
Extended Essay scores than their DP peers who were not Personal Project participants?’. There was
23
one sub-question: ‘Do any associations demonstrated deviate for a subset of data from students who
attempted Personal Project under the condition of mandatory when compared to other available data
years)?’. We present the major findings below.
3.3.1. Personal Project Participation
Before the analysis, we used five matching methods to create subsets of equivalent students from two
groups: DP students who participated in the Personal Project and DP students who did not participate
in the Personal Project. The results showed that Coarsened Exact Matching performed the best across
all criteria (please refer to the section on analytical methods): it yielded the most matched data (n =
24,098), the greatest matching improvement over data lost ratio (146%), the smallest L1 imbalance
(.124), and the smallest standardized mean difference in values of variables across subsets (< .001).
Hence, we used these data in the subsequent analyses. In the matched data, the variances in DP exam
and Extended Essay scores differed mostly across students rather than across schools or countries. The
results showed that the differences in DP exam scores were among students (67%), across schools
(22%), and across countries (11%). This pattern was also identified in the differences in Extended Essay
scores across students (63%), schools (25%), and countries (12%).
In the multivariate multilevel regression models, Model 1 showed that DP students who
participated in the Personal Project had higher academic outcomes than DP peers who did not
participate in the Personal Project (see Table 1 of Appendix XI). Compared to other DP peers, students
who did the Personal Project attained a 3% higher DP exam score (β = 0.181, p < .001) and a 6% higher
Extended Essay score (β = 2.205, p < .001). The total variance of having a Personal Project score
accounted for 0.6% of the differences in DP exam scores and 1.4% of the differences in Extended Essay
scores (see Table 1 of Appendix XI). For the results of the separate model on the DP exam and Extended
Essay scores, please refer to Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix XI.
3.3.2. Mandatory External Moderation
We used the matched sample to examine the associations between cohort years of mandatory
external moderation and DP outcomes. The 2016-18 cohort year was selected as the reference group
to compare other cohort years (i.e., 2017-2019 and 2018-2020). The results of Model 2 showed mixed
findings regarding associations among cohort years, DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores.
Compared to DP students in cohort year of 2016-18, DP students in cohort year of 2017-2019 had 2%
lower DP exam scores (β = -0.146, p < .001) and 6% lower Extended Essay scores (β = -2.074, p < .001)
(see Table 1 of Appendix XI). Compared to DP students in the 2016-18 cohort year, DP students in the
cohort year of 2018-2020 had 4% higher DP exam scores (β = 0.304, p < .001) but 3% lower Extended
24
Essay scores (β = -1.076, p < .001) (see Table 1 of Appendix XI). The total variance of mandatory
external moderation conditions accounted for 0.3% of the differences in DP exam scores and 1.1% of
the differences in Extended Essay scores.
Following this, we examined the interactions between Personal Project participation and cohort
years of mandatory external moderation. Generally, there was a positive association among Personal
Project participation, DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores for cohorts before and after
mandatory external moderation. However, there were some differences (see Table 1 of Appendix XI).
Compared to DP students who did not participate in Personal Project, the results of Model 3 showed
that (a) DP students who did the Personal Project in 2016 attained 3% higher DP exam scores (β =
0.204, p < .001) and 6% higher Extended Essay scores (β = 1.911, p < .001); (b) DP students who did
the Personal Project in 2017 scored approximately the same on DP exams (β = -0.221, p < .001) and
2% higher on the Extended Essay (β = -1.192, p < .001); and (c) DP students who did the Personal
Project in 2018 scored 1% higher on DP exams (β = -0.105, p < .01) and 3% higher on Extended Essay
scores (β = -0.837, p < .05). These interactions accounted for 0.1% of the differences in DP exam scores
and 0% of the differences in Extended Essay scores. The final model accounted for 1% of the
differences in DP exam scores and 2.5% of the differences in Extended Essay scores. For the results of
the separate model on DP exam and Extended Essay scores, please see Table 2 and 3 of Appendix XI.
3.4. United States Case
The research team used subset data from IB schools in the United States to conduct descriptive
statistical analysis of Personal Project participants who took 1-5 DP courses and the full DP and
associated DP outcomes. We further conducted the multilevel models to examine the contextual
variables of student-level participation in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals and
English language proficiency. The descriptive statistics of school-level and student-level variables in
the multilevel analysis are presented in Appendix XII. For the detailed regression results of each model,
please refer to Appendix XIII. The following summarises the major findings.
3.4.1. United States Subset Data
• Personal Project scores predict DP exam and Extended Essay scores: The results of two separate
multilevel models showed that the scores of Personal Project participants were significantly
associated with subsequent DP exam and Extended Essay scores (see Table 3.3).
• Personal Project scores had a stronger association with DP exam scores than Extended Essay
scores: In the multilevel model, for Personal Project participants who took the full DP, Personal
25
Project scores had a significantly higher magnitude of association with DP exam scores (β = 0.336,
p < .001) than Extended Essay scores (β = 0.239, p < .001) (see Table 3.3).
• Full DP students’ Personal Project scores had a stronger association with DP exam scores: For
Personal Project participants who went on to take more than five DP courses, the correlation
analysis results indicated a significantly stronger association between Personal Project scores (M =
12.59 and SD = 4.92) and DP exam scores (M = 4.24, SD = 0.87), r = 0.397, p < .001., compared with
their peers who took who 1-5 DP courses (Personal Project score: M = 10.06, SD = 4.64 and DP
exam score: M = 3.58, SD = 1.07, r = 0.278, p < .001) (see Table 3.3).
Table 3.3. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam and Extended Essay Scores: United States Subset
Data
Personal Project
score predicts DP
exam score: United
States Personal
Project students who
took DP exams
Personal Project
score predicts
Extended Essay
score: United States
Personal Project
students who took
Extended Essay
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.336***
0.239***
Additional rigour DP coursework (1= More than 3 HL
courses taken, focal group)
0.389***
0.182**
Female
0.162***
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals (1=
Participated, focal group)
-0.207***
-0.083*
English Proficiency 1 (1= Level 1-3, focal group)
English Proficiency 2 (1= Unreported, focal group)
Note: Non-significant school-level variables are not shown in this table.
3.4.2. Student and School Characteristics in the United States
• Female Personal Project participants associated with higher Extended Essay scores: Female
Personal Project participants in were associated with higher Extended Essay scores (β = 0.162, p
< .001) than their male peers who continued into the full DP (see Table 3.3).
• Additional rigour of DP course coursework associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay
scores: A significant association was identified among additional rigour of DP coursework, DP
exam scores, and Extended Essay scores (see Table 3.3). Personal Project participants in the full
DP who took more than three Higher Level DP courses were significantly associated with higher
26
DP exam scores (β = 0.389, p < .001) and Extended Essay scores (β = 0.182, p < .010) than students
who took three or fewer Higher Level DP courses.
• Participation in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals associated with lower
DP exam and Extended Essay scores: The results showed a significant association among full DP
student’s participation in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals, DP exam
scores, and Extended Essay scores (Table 3.3). The separate multilevel models showed that
students who had participated in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals were
significantly associated with lower DP exam scores (β = -0.207, p < .001) and Extended Essay scores
(β = -0.083, < .05) than their peers not part of that programme.
3.5. Follow-up Sensitivity Analysis
With the extant global data, we conducted a multigroup path analysis to examine the generalisability
of quantitative findings between global data (all students from schools in all countries) and non-global
data (all students from schools in excluded European nations). The measurement models regarding
student characteristics, Personal Project, DP exam, and Extended Essay scores were validated by using
AMOS 27. In the first invariance test, we examined the difference between global data and non-global
data on Personal Project participants who took DP exams. The descriptive statistics of the
measurement model are presented in Table 1 of Appendix XIV. The results of the path regression
models showed that the coefficient estimates of different paths on student characteristics, Personal
Project, and DP exam scores look similar across the two groups (Table 2 of Appendix XIV).
The results of a Chi-square difference test between the unconstrained and fully constrained
models showed that the difference between the two groups is non-significant (p = 0.091) (Table 3 of
Appendix XIV). Hence, the parameters used in the measurement model were assumed to be invariant
across two groups. Next, we examined the difference between global and non-global data on Personal
Project participants who took the Extended Essay. The descriptive statistics of the measurement
model are presented in Table 4 of Appendix XIV. Results of path regressions showed that the
coefficient estimates of different paths on student characteristics, Personal Project scores, and
Extended Essay scores were similar across the two groups (Table 5 of Appendix XIV). The results of a
Chi-square difference test between unconstrained and fully constrained models also showed that the
difference between the two groups is non-significant (p = 0.818) (Table 6 of Appendix XIV). Hence, the
parameters used in the measurement model were assumed to be invariant across two groups.
27
3.6. Summary
This chapter examined how students’ Personal Project participation associates with performance in
DP, with additional analyses of student and school characteristics. In Tables 3.4 to 3.6, we summarise
the overall findings and the United States subset data findings, respectively.
Table 3.4. Summary of Quantitative Findings (Part 1)
Research Question
Quantitative Findings
Do Personal Project scores
predict DP exam and/or
Extended Essay scores for
Personal Project participants
who continue into the DP?
• a. If such associations exist,
do they vary by student
characteristics?
• b. If such associations exist,
do they vary by school
characteristics?
Overall findings
• Students’ Personal Project scores predict both DP exam and
Extended Essay scores.
• Personal Project scores had a stronger association with DP
exam scores than with Extended Essay scores: a one-unit
increase in Personal Project score associated with a 0.42-unit
increase in DP exam score and a 0.25-unit increase in
Extended Essay score.
• Student-level variance explained 52-67% of associations
between Personal Project and DP exam scores, with 33-48%
explained by school-level variance.
• Student-level variance explained around 80% of the Personal
Project’s association with Extended Essay scores, whereas
20% was explained by school-level variance.
Student characteristics
• Female Personal Project participants averaged higher scores
on DP exams (+0.13) and Extended Essay (+0.12) than their
male peers.
• There were mixed findings regarding associations among
language match (i.e., students’ primary/secondary languages
and school’s language of instruction), DP exam scores, and
Extended Essay scores.
• Students who took more than three DP Higher Level (HL)
courses scored higher on DP exams (+0.38) and the Extended
Essay (+0.21).
• Students who took Personal Project in 2017 and DP exams by
2019 had lower scores on DP exams (-0.59) and Extended
Essay (-1.08) than their peers in the 2018-2020 cohort.
School characteristics
• Private school status associated with higher scores on DP
exams (+0.13) and Extended Essay (+0.12).
• More time since MYP authorisation associated with slightly
higher scores on DP exams and Extended Essay (+0.01 each) .
• Higher numbers of registered DP students associated with
very slightly higher DP exam scores (+0.001).
28
Table 3.5. Summary of Quantitative Findings (Part 2)
Research Question
Quantitative Findings
Do Personal Project
participants have higher DP
exam and/or Extended Essay
scores than their DP peers who
were not Personal Project
participants?
• a. Do any associations
demonstrated deviate for a
subset of data from
students who attempted
the Personal Project under
the condition of mandatory
external moderation when
compared to other
available data years?
Personal Project participation
• Personal Project participants attained higher scores on
DP exams (+0.18) and Extended Essay (+2.21) than their
DP peers who did not participate in Personal Project.
Mandatory external moderation
• Positive associations among Personal Project
participation, DP exam scores, and Extended Essay scores
were identified for cohorts before and after mandatory
external moderation.
Table 3.6. Summary of Quantitative Findings from the United States Subset Data
Domain
Quantitative Findings
Additional analyses from
the United States data
subset
Overall
• Personal Project scores predict DP exam and Extended Essay
scores.
• Personal Project scores had a stronger association with DP
exam scores than Extended Essay scores.
• Full DP students’ Personal Project scores had a stronger
association with DP exam scores than students who took 1-5
DP courses.
24
Student characteristics
• Female Personal Project participants were associated with
higher Extended Essay scores than their male peers.
• Additional rigour of DP course coursework was associated
with higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores.
• Students’ participation in the Federal Program on Free and
Reduced-Priced Meals was associated with lower DP exam
and Extended Essay scores than their peers not part of that
programme.
24
Although this study cannot determine why links between Personal Project scores and DP exam scores were larger for full
DP students than for CP students or course candidates, possible explanations include: (a) considerably smaller sample sizes
for the latter two groups, (b) geographic clustering of CPs and/or where course candidacy tends to be common (i.e.,
disproportionately in the United States and United Kingdom), and/or (c) effects of school-based policies and/or school-
community norms that can yield selection biases for which types of students are screened, or self-screen, into CP rather than
DP or other programmatic choices (see Mitchell, 2022).
29
4. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
This chapter reports on interview findings from heads of schools, coordinators, supervisors, and
students from six IB World Schools in Hong Kong, Peru, Qatar, South Korea, the United States, and
Zambia. We investigated the experiences and outcomes of the Personal Project for students, school
faculty, and the community surrounding the schools. In so doing, the inquiry is extended beyond DP
preparation to consider the potentially broader contribution of the Personal Project. We report on the
positive outcomes, challenges to realising those positive outcomes, and promising practices. We first
focus on students by exploring current and future-oriented benefits of the Personal Project
experience. We then look at the outcomes for school faculty, exploring the various roles of school
faculty, how the Personal Project shapes perceptions of the IB, the prospect of creating a closer school
community, opportunities for professional learning, and workload commitments. Following this, we
consider how community engagement in the Personal Project can benefit students, the potential of
students to contribute to positive community outcomes, and the associated challenges. We conclude
the chapter with a summary of the key findings.
4.1. Students
In this part of the chapter, we address the question: ‘How do MYP school community stakeholders
perceive the outcomes of the Personal Project experience for students who have attempted it?’. First,
the interviews provided insights into the Personal Project’s positive outcomes as part of the IB school
career, opportunities to develop ATL skills, and preparation for the DP. These findings were
complemented by ethnographic data from an online Personal Project exhibition and interviews with
IB alumni/ae interviews to explore potential longer-term benefits of the experience. Second, the
findings highlighted concerns raised by participants over assessment, student workload commitments,
and unequal access to resources that may limit the positive outcomes. Third, promising practices are
put forward to enable students to get the most out of the Personal Project experience.
4.1.1. Positive Outcomes for Students
1. A milestone in the IB school career
The participants frequently described the Personal Project as a milestone in the IB school career. It
was characterised as a ‘passion project’ that enabled students to independently pursue their personal
interests over an extended period of time. Accordingly, the student interviews revealed a diverse
range of topics (see Table 4.1). As a head of school noted:
30
The project is integral to our IB school programme. You know, it’s a long-term project. It’s a
project that gives the kids loads of opportunities to explore their own interests. (Head of
school, Zambia)
Table 4.1. Personal Project Topics
Category
Number of
Students
Examples of Topics
Arts and crafts
7
• Designed own jewellery collection
• Composed music album
Business
2
• Ran marketing campaign: Herbal toothpaste
• Started homemade cupcake business
Cultural heritage
4
• Designed Pakistani traditional dress
• Film on a search for biological parents
Health/lifestyle
14
• Developed an app for COVID-19 guidelines
• Mental health awareness campaign
• Started a food blog for cancer survivors
History
3
• Wrote a book on Pearl Harbor
• Translation of North Korean literature
Science and technology
11
• Product design: Bicycle phone charger
• Research paper: Genome editing
• Experiments: Wind tunnel simulator
Service and social issues
15
• Volunteered at an animal shelter
• English lessons for refugees
• Debate participation: Prison abolition
n = 56.
For heads of schools and faculty, the Personal Project was a platform to apply the IB’s philosophy of a
well-rounded education. In the most successful cases, this not only involved developing skills but
broader benefits through pursuing interests and a sense of achievement upon completion. One head
of school remarked on how students feel ‘ownership’ over their Personal Project:
They're the experts, they know this thing that they've created, it has encompassed their lives
for a number of months. And they feel that ownership. (Head of school, South Korea)
The students often described the Personal Project as a ‘refreshing’ experience that stood out from
other parts of their education. As one student put it: ‘The project gives us a chance to gain more
knowledge about our own passions’ (DP student, Qatar). Another student explained how the Personal
Project differed from ‘just another assignment’:
It was a lot freer. It was more of a thing I wanted to do rather than just another assignment
that I have to put in the time to get high grades. (DP student, South Korea)
31
2. Opportunity to develop Approaches to Learning (ATL) skills
The Personal Project can be a steep learning curve. As leading a project was often a new experience,
some students took time to adjust, faced challenges with timely completion, and in some cases were
overwhelmed. One student explained:
You’re being handed a project where there’s no class, no teacher, and they say finish it by the
end of the year, so there were a lot of things that were overwhelming. (DP student, United
States)
The task can be magnified for students facing various contextual issues, such as completing the
Personal Project in a non-mother tongue language. Nonetheless, heads of schools and faculty
consistently believed that the Personal Project offered ample learning opportunities, especially by
developing ATL skills. This was true both for high-achieving students and those who failed to complete
it or did not meet their expectations. Indeed, the Personal Project was described as a ‘low-stakes’
exercise, where students can learn from mistakes, which can inform future projects.
The most often highlighted ATL skill was ‘self-management’. The process of completing a year-
long independent project required setting goals, managing time, and self-motivation, as a head of
school explained:
At the base level, every student achieves an understanding of the necessity of managing time
and managing themselves, looking at the different ways of self-regulation, and how to be
organised. (Head of school, South Korea)
Also, the participants often cited ‘social’ and ‘communication’ skills. As an example, a student
explained how they had to be proactive in updating their progress and reaching out for support from
their supervisor: ‘We are expected to go to the supervisor to ask for help. We can't wait for them to
catch up with us’ (DP student, Hong Kong). In another example, students can develop ‘social’ and
‘communication’ skills when presenting at the Personal Project exhibition:
The presentation is an exciting moment for them it is often the first time that they have to
prepare something as formal as a Personal Project presentation. They sometimes do have
some stage fright or worry about presenting for an audience, but it’s a great learning
experience. (Supervisor, Peru)
‘Thinking’ skills were another ATL mentioned. Through the Personal Project, students needed to study
a subject in-depth, solve problems, and critically reflect on the process. As a coordinator described:
32
It teaches the kids to deal with frustrations and problems. That makes them create solutions,
not to fear them. I always tell the kids every problem is just a reflection point to develop
critical thinking. (Coordinator, Peru)
Lastly, some participants highlighted ‘research’ skills. This included picking a topic, identifying reliable
sources, and writing the report. As one student explained:
I learned the importance of having reliable sources and how to search for them so that we can
trust what was being reported. Before, I was just jumping to Wikipedia. (MYP student, Peru)
3. Bridge gaps between MYP and DP
Most participants believed that the MYP prepares students well for further education. Nonetheless,
they discussed gaps between the MYP and the DP. The DP was described as more academically
rigorous, whereas the MYP was more skills-oriented and less pressurised. The MYP-DP transition, thus,
can be a ‘jump’ as it involves a greater workload, a step up in difficulty, and more high-stakes
assessments, as illustrated below:
From MYP to DP, we went from just relaxed teenagers to full-time, serious students. In MYP,
we would study in a more relaxed way. Then in DP, we suddenly have to focus all the time.
(DP student, Qatar)
The participants frequently noted that the Personal Project can ‘bridge the gaps’. One student
described the Personal Project as a ‘first step into the DP’:
The Personal Project is kind of that first step into the DP in that a lot of the responsibility is
given to the student and the process prepares us for a higher level of study. There’s a lot less
handholding by the teachers when we do the Personal Project, much like the whole DP. (DP
student, South Korea)
First, ATL skills can be transferable to the DP. A coordinator discussed how self-management skills help
students handle the DP’s increased workload:
For students coming from MYP and going into the DP, I feel like they are better able to manage
their time. They've already had that experience working independently and managing their
time during the Personal Project. (Coordinator, Qatar)
Second, completing the Personal Project can instil resilience to step up to the DP. A student noted: ‘It
definitely taught me how nothing great can be achieved without struggle’ (DP student, United States).
33
Third, the experience enabled students to develop interests and know-how that can be pursued
further in the DP. As one student reflected:
For my project, I worked on genome editing technology. For me, the biggest thing was helping
select my DP subjects. I was able to test if I really am interested in genetics. I’m taking full DP
now and studying biology. (DP student, South Korea)
At the same time, most participants were cautious about singling out the Personal Project scores as a
direct indicator of DP success. Although they believed the Personal Project was a valuable experience,
it was only one part of the five-year MYP. Also, they observed that the most academically able,
organised, and motivated students can achieve highly in the DP irrespective of the Personal Project.
Lastly, interviews with alumni/ae demonstrated how the Personal Project can benefit
students beyond the DP (see Box 1, below).
Box 1. Alumni/ae Perspectives on the Personal Project
The research team conducted IB alumni/ae interviews to explore whether the Personal Project
carries long-term benefits beyond the DP. The IB Alumni/ae Affairs Team sent an open recruitment
call for interviewees through their internal network to MYP and DP graduates between 2004 and
2021. Four alums participated, including one student taking a gap year, two undergraduates, and a
business owner. Initially, they were unclear about the Personal Project's longer-term outcomes.
However, upon reflection, they described three long-lasting benefits. First, independent self-
management skills developed through the Personal Project were valuable for managing university
assignments and coursework. A participant noted how setting deadlines helped develop
organisational skills that were transferable to meeting multiple deadlines at university. Second, the
alums discussed how the Personal Project was their first experience of a large-scale independent
project. This included a first opportunity to conduct interviews, navigate library databases, and write
a report, which they continued to develop in the DP and at university. Third, the experience helped
them discover strengths, weaknesses, and personal interests. For example, a participant noted how
the Personal Project guided them in selecting an undergraduate major. Another participant shared
how exploring their cultural heritage in the Personal Project led them to start a business:
In a way, the Personal Project brought me closer to my African cultural heritage, and through
that, I learned how deeply I cared about it. It's something I continue doing. For my project,
I choreographed a traditional African dance. Since then, all my projects have had that
common running theme, and that influenced my decision to start my business. (Business
owner, Canada)
34
4. Potential Extended Essay preparation
There were mixed opinions on the utility of the Personal Project in preparing students for the
Extended Essay. Some participants discussed similarities in both being student-led projects. As a
supervisor explained:
I’ve found myself saying more than once the Extended Essay is not unlike your Personal
Project, as you create a research question and conduct independent research. I’ve used it as
an introduction. (Supervisor, Qatar)
Others noted how the experience of planning, carrying out, and writing a project report was beneficial
for the Extended Essay. One student focused on academic writing:
The writing skills that the project gives us are really helpful for writing the Extended Essay, like
how to follow a structure, using the right academic style, and things like referencing. (DP
student, Peru)
However, other participants were less convinced, especially those at the DP level. School faculty
characterised the Extended Essay as a rigorous academic research project, which contrasted with
depictions of the Personal Project as a ‘passion project’. Similarly, students described the Extended
Essay as more closely aligned with university-level work. One student elaborated on the differences:
While the Personal Project tests your ability to explore and go through a process of learning
from scratch, the Extended Essay, kind of flips around the other way, and you have to first be
knowledgeable about the topic before you dive in for further research. (DP student, South
Korea)
These differences were not necessarily identified as a deficiency, as the Personal Project presented
other benefits to students. One coordinator questioned whether the purpose of the Personal Project
should be preparation for the Extended Essay:
The Personal Project preparing for EE? That would be trying to achieve too many things in one
project. I don't think that’s the purpose. The Extended Essay is a whole different ball game.
(Coordinator, Qatar)
4.1.2. Challenges to Positive Outcomes for Students
1. Assessment misaligned with what matters to students
The most common concern raised by students was with assessment. Students typically shared
enthusiasm about their projects. Their primary interests were in the process of carrying out the project
and creating the product or outcome. Yet the Personal Project’s is assessed by the ‘report’ as an
35
account of the project and its impact. Consequently, some students expressed frustration as they
believed their product or outcome can be under-appreciated.
I was frustrated because I felt like they didn’t really look at it. I loved my product, and I was
proud of it. I felt unappreciated because I was like, I spent most of my time making the film.
But here I am getting graded on the report. (MYP student, Hong Kong)
Some students discussed losing interest in their projects. The process journal was described by some
as ‘at times repetitive and boring’ (MYP student, Hong Kong). They also noted that the report can be
cumbersome or ‘sucked the fun out of the process’ (DP student, United States). Another student
described:
I’ve seen cases where students start off enthusiastically but lose interest as they realise the
product really doesn’t matter. The product is what makes your project unique, what captures
your dedication and effort. But many students simply ignore it. I think that defeats the entire
purpose of the Personal Project. (DP student, South Korea)
Others described how students strategically shift their attention to the report. Although the MYP is
graded as pass/fail, the Personal Project score held considerable value for some students. This outlook
was most commonplace in competitive academic contexts, such as in Hong Kong and South Korea. A
few students admitted to writing the report in a way that ‘ticked boxes’ to meet the assessment
criteria, such as developing ATL skills.
I feel like to get a high score, we have to pretend [in the report] that everything went so
perfect, that we are like angels, and we developed all these ATL skills, when in reality, it was
a lot messier. (MYP student, South Korea)
Significantly, the findings suggest that learning outcomes may not be fully captured by Personal
Project scores.
2. Workload can exceed IB guidelines
The IB expects students to spend around 25 hours to complete the Personal Project. However, most
participants shared that the process requires considerably more time. As one supervisor put it: ‘Those
who are deep into their topics spend hundreds of hours on it’ (Supervisor, Hong Kong). Similarly, a
student described how 25 hours was ‘unrealistic’:
25 hours is just unrealistic. 24 hours is just one day, and then an extra hour. I don’t think I
would have been able to do my project in a day. (MYP student, United States)
36
A few students admitted compromising on the quality of their projects, as they were unable to invest
more than 25 hours. For others, the time commitment created a heavy workload. First, the workload
can lead to practical difficulties with engaging in other parts of the MYP or extracurriculars. Second, it
can result in students feeling anxious or stressed. As one student explained, this can reflect a
competitive academic environment:
Here we put a lot of attention on our scores. That plays a role in how we understand the
Personal Project. I felt a lot of pressure seeing other people’s awesome projects, so I found
myself putting in extra hours. (DP student, South Korea)
Nonetheless, similar concerns were shared in all the case schools, as the below quote illustrates:
I did get stressed, and I know some people even cried because of the Personal Project. We
have other classes and assignments too, so it got too much at one point. (MYP student, Peru)
3. Unequal access to resources
Resources from families, schools, and the broader community played a crucial role in Personal
Projects. Family members shared advice on topics and helped form connections with community
stakeholders. A coordinator in Zambia noted that students often used family networks for their
projects:
Oftentimes, the parents help. We have kids whose parents work for NGOs and other
development organisations, so you’re able to get certain sets of data and find the right people
to support them just because of our parent community. (Coordinator, Zambia)
In other cases, families provided financial backing. One supervisor described students travelling
overseas to visit research sites and conduct interviews. Another shared an example of students
outsourcing their product:
You have students who don’t put in much work along the way. And all of a sudden, they show
up with this extravagant and professionally built product, like a model of a World Cup stadium,
that they clearly had help making. (Supervisor, Qatar)
By contrast, other schools serve a less socioeconomically advantaged student body. The head of a
school in the United States shared that the IB provides a ‘life-changing’ opportunity for students,
especially by getting them college-ready. However, these students may not have access to the same
family resources to support their projects:
37
We are reaching underserved populations. You know, 60 percent are under the poverty line,
primarily African American students, from all over the city…We saw the IB as an opportunity
to change lives and help more students from marginalised homes and families go to college.
(Head of school, United States)
School resources were also crucial for introducing, supporting, and seeing projects through to
completion. This included support from coordinators through briefing sessions, written guidelines,
and exemplars. Supervisors also played a key role in projects. As a student explained, the support
extended to emotional support through encouragement and reassurance:
I told my supervisor how I was working through the nights to meet the deadline, and he told
me I was on track, and to get some rest. He would go through my report and would give me
pointers on areas for improvement (DP student, South Korea).
However, a few participants perceived differences among IB schools in Personal Project resources. As
a student noted, schools that have offered the Personal Project for a longer period may have more
resources for students:
My school is kind of new to the IB. Well, there are other schools that have been doing it way
longer than us. They might have more resources to help with the project…Also, the other
schools have these new guides, so their students know more about getting top marks. (DP
student, Qatar)
The community beyond schools was also a valuable resource. In some cases, the schools had long-
term connections that acted as a bridge to contacts across a range of public, private, and non-
government organisations. In the below example, the school’s network with a local embassy led to a
connection with an expert:
The embassy was very helpful for me. They connected me to an epidemiologist as I worked
on my COVID-19 guideline app. He provided me with information, and I used some data and
like the latest research on COVID-19 (MYP student, Zambia)
Conversely, there were contextual issues that limited how students utilised community resources. As
one example, in Qatar, a few participants described how female students can face restrictions in the
local community:
One of cultural issues here is that some of the girls can’t be so independent. Like, one girl
wanted to go to a falcon festival for the project. But she said to me, ‘my dad won’t let me go,
I have to ask my brother or somebody to go with me’. Then, her brother didn’t want to go,
but she couldn’t go by herself. (Supervisor, Qatar)
38
These findings shed light on the potential inequality of opportunity with the Personal Project, as not
all students had equal access to resources to support their work.
4.1.3. Promising Practices for Positive Outcomes for Students
1. Promote and structure peer learning
The first promising practice was promoting and structuring peer learning. Although the IB did not
design the Personal Project to incorporate peer learning, faculty members at different schools
highlighted it as an effective way to push the Personal Project forward, likely enhancing the experience
for students. This most often involved providing opportunities for students preparing for the Personal
Project to interact with their counterparts who had completed their projects. A common strategy was
to encourage younger students to attend the Personal Project exhibition. Students highlighted how
these interactions were valuable for understanding the project’s scope, learning tips and strategies,
and instilling confidence about project completion. One coordinator explained:
We always invite the Grade Nines to the exhibition, so that they can come along and see what
it looks like, connect with the older students, and just be inspired that way. We find that
handover helps a lot. (Coordinator, Qatar)
In a few cases, students formed their own Personal Project groups. This presented additional peer-
learning opportunities as students supported each other and shared resources. Although the Personal
Project is designed to be an independent piece of work, schools may consider facilitating such groups
to ensure all students have access to peer support throughout the process.
I had a group of friends who would get together and like, read my journal, and tell if it is good
or not. Or, if I couldn’t figure out what to put in a section, I could ask what they wrote. It was
nice to have someone to help me get through. (DP student, United States)
2. Provide formalised guidance early
The coordinators highlighted the importance of providing formalised guidance to students at the start
of the process. This included an oral presentation to new Personal Project students. In addition, the
coordinators shared written guidelines, including a booklet outlining the expectations, exemplars from
past students, and a report template. The benefits included promoting a clear understanding of the
task, reducing dependency on supervisors, and making the process less daunting. All of this meant
that students could invest more time on their Personal Project initiative. A student underscored this
point:
39
What I liked about our school is that they supported us by providing us with many examples.
Also, the coordinator helped with different guides to help us. So, it was kind of easy for us to
understand what was going on. (MYP student, Qatar)
3. ‘Light-touch’ approach to supervision
The participants often recommended that supervisors take a ‘light-touch’ approach to supervision that
encourages independent learning. They emphasised that students gained the most from the
experience if they had ownership of their project, especially by developing ATL skills. Hence, the
supervisor’s role can be to guide students along the way and only intervene when needed.
We try to encourage independence. It’s up to the students to make appointments with
supervisors; it’s not the other way around. But occasionally, we do have students that just do
not have those skills developed yet and do need that support. Only in those cases do the
supervisor pull students in. (Supervisor, Qatar)
The students shared a similar perspective. They valued their supervisor’s guidance in starting projects,
discussing challenges, and finalising the report. However, they also appreciated the opportunity to
work independently, as illustrated below:
She wasn't really involved in the process of actually creating my product. That was challenging,
but I think it was good for my growth as it made me take my own initiative. (MYP student,
Hong Kong)
In Figure 4.1, we display the three promising practices for increasing the Personal Project’s positive
student outcomes.
Figure 4.1. Increasing Positive Outcomes for Students
Increasing
positive
student
outcomes
Promote and
structure peer
learning
Provide
formalised
guidance early
‘Light-touch’
approach
supervision
40
4.2. School Faculty
This part of the chapter investigates the question: ‘How do MYP school leaders, coordinators, and
classroom educators perceive the outcomes of the Personal Project experience on school faculty who
support its implementation?’. We switch the focus from students to the benefits, challenges, and
promising practices for school faculty. First, the findings revealed perspectives about how the Personal
Project has the potential to foster an appreciation of the IB, enhance collaboration among school
faculty, and enable faculty to get to know students better. Second, the findings identified challenges
relating to a high workload and contrasting views over professional learning opportunities. Finally, the
promising practices targeted institutional support so supervisors can most effectively guide students.
4.2.1. Positive Outcomes for School Faculty
1. Appreciation of an IB education
The heads of schools and faculty believed that the Personal Project fostered an appreciation of an IB
education. They discussed how the experience was well-aligned with IB values of cultivating inquiring,
knowledgeable, and caring students. As a coordinator explained, this can contrast with the DP’s more
academic and high-stakes environment:
In the DP, there is this desire for achieving that 45 [the highest possible score in the DP]. The
number is really important to the kids, parents, and administrators. That creates a culture of
wanting to achieve a particular score…And all of the other good stuff can be lost along the
way. (Coordinator, Hong Kong).
First, the Personal Project underscored the IB’s philosophical approach. A coordinator described how
the opportunity for 15-16-year-old students to pursue an independent ‘passion project’ demonstrated
the IB’s distinctiveness:
Our role in an IB school is to get students to think, care deeply, and be passionate about their
interests, not just be successful by getting a high score…The Personal Project provides us with
that opportunity as educators. (Coordinator, South Korea)
Second, the Personal Project highlighted the importance of ATL skills for students. A supervisor shared
that the experience of supervising students inspired faculty to incorporate ATL skills into day-to-day
teaching:
It really helped us to reflect on ATL skills. Now, I think we’ve promoted that through Personal
Project. But increasingly, our teachers are trying to build ATLs through their teaching in
different content areas. And I think a lot of that grew out of the Personal Project. (Supervisor,
Zambia)
41
Third, the Personal Project can demonstrate the IB’s contribution to students’ personal growth.
Through supervision, participants described how they observed students overcome challenges and
realise their potential. One supervisor reflected on their student’s Personal Project exhibition
presentation:
We love to celebrate our students’ growth. Watching my student write and perform her song
was incredible, knowing that previously she was terrified of public speaking. (Supervisor,
Zambia)
2. Enhancing collaboration among school faculty
The Personal Project can enhance opportunities for school faculty to collaborate. This included
deepening existing relations and establishing new connections across subject areas. For example,
coordinators and supervisors collaborated over timelines, supervision strategies, and internal grade
moderation. These interactions can be most valuable for new or junior staff as collaboration with
experienced faculty presented professional learning opportunities.
In many cases, the collaborations were organised by the MYP or Personal Project coordinator.
As one coordinator explained:
I run lunch training for supervisors. We’d order sandwiches, and supervisors could drop by
and get extra support from myself with whatever they needed. (Coordinator, South Korea)
In other cases, the collaboration was more informal. One coordinator shared the benefits of their
colleagues discussing the Personal Project in their native language while working overseas:
Sometimes you’d hear them kind of arguing about a student’s score in Spanish, and that was
fun. They enjoyed that. Because how often do you get to speak your mother tongue overseas?
A little chit-chat while working goes a long way. (Coordinator, South Korea)
Overall, heads of schools emphasised how the Personal Project was a means to build a closer
professional community in schools. As one participant noted, the experience can bring ‘the whole
school closer’:
As the role of the supervisor is broadcast out to such a large portion of the faculty, it becomes
a shared experience that builds cohesiveness around the school and brings the whole school
closer. (Head of school, Qatar)
42
3. Getting to know students better
The Personal Project offered opportunities to enrich student-faculty relationships. In particular, school
faculty can get to know students beyond the classroom. For example, one supervisor recalled having
their pre-conceived ideas about a student challenged at a Personal Project exhibition:
There’s a kid who was very soft-spoken and not an excellent public speaker. And, lo and
behold, on his Zoom Personal Project presentation, he’s got a suit and tie on and pulls off the
best talk. To see him like that was so impressive. (Supervisor, Qatar)
All this was perceived to contribute to deeper connections that can inform interactions with students.
First, the experience can open lines of communication for faculty to support students with academic
and personal issues beyond the Personal Project, as a coordinator explained:
Learners have a range of capabilities and areas that they find difficult. If you have a student
who is on an individual education plan or is having difficulty with language, the Personal
Project allows for these kinds of challenges to become visible, and the supervisor has a
broader understanding of the student’s needs. (Coordinator, Zambia)
Second, the Personal Project can promote an appreciation of students’ interests and talents. As a
supervisor shared, this was particularly notable for supervisors who discovered a common interest
with a student.
I had a student who created a kinetic energy phone charger. I teach a robotics elective, and I
like to kind of nerd out, so it was a lot of fun to share that with him. (Supervisor, Qatar)
Third, school faculty were more informed to advise and mentor students. This included advice for DP
subject selection, the Extended Essay, and after graduation, as noted below:
Working as their supervisor could turn into help beyond the project. Like discussions on the
right subjects for DP or even a career they think they want to pursue. (Supervisor, Zambia)
4.2.2. Challenges to Positive Outcomes for School Faculty
1. High supervisor workload
Most MYP faculty engaged with Personal Project supervision in addition to administrative and
teaching duties. In some cases, they would meet with students three to four times during the Personal
Project process. However, other supervisors reported meeting students more frequently, up to weekly
or fortnightly. Moreover, the number of students supervised by one faculty member varied across the
schools. In general, small and well-staffed schools reported a one-to-two supervisor-student ratio,
43
whereas it was typically one-to-four for larger schools. The United States public school was an outlier,
as one supervisor worked with up to 20 students.
A high supervision workload was described as demanding by many participants. Some
students requested additional support owing to aspirations for a high score, whereas others needed
interventions to ensure they completed the tasks on time. Furthermore, supervisors often were asked
to supervise projects outside their fields of expertise, as noted below:
I’ve got somebody doing composting right now. I wish I knew about composting, but I don’t. I
know of teachers who feel uncomfortable with the openness of the Personal Project.
(Coordinator, Peru)
In a few cases, supervisors described the responsibility as contributing to work-based stress, as one
participant explained:
The Personal Project supervisors are overwhelmed already. Not only do I have all my lesson
planning and all my grading, I’m also responsible for these projects. And you’re just like I’m
only one person. (Supervisor, United States)
If unresolved, Personal Project supervision can lead to resentment if faculty are already occupied with
other tasks. As a coordinator noted:
Everyone’s busy. To introduce yet another thing that requires, you know, consistent meetings
with students etc. That was met with a bit of resentment because these things can sometimes
fall over into after-school hours. (Coordinator, South Korea)
2. Contrasting views of IB professional learning
Heads of schools and coordinators discussed how the Personal Project presented opportunities for
professional learning in the IB. This involved school faculty gaining inquiry-based learning supervision
experience, engagement in internal grade moderation, and participating in IB workshops on the
Personal Project. As one head of school explained: ‘Much like it is for the students, staff can choose
to turn this experience into a learning opportunity’ (Head of school, South Korea). A few supervisors
reinforced this view, as illustrated in the below reflection on an IB workshop:
I got a lot out of the workshop. It was very practical, very hands-on. That helped reinforce
criteria related to grading, collaboration with colleagues, and was just a lot of fun.
(Coordinator, South Korea)
44
Most supervisors were less convinced. A few participants believed that the experience can be
impactful in developing skills in mentorship, academic guidance, and personal support. More typically,
however, they discussed how the Personal Project’s major benefits were accrued by students. Some
participants described the supervisor’s role as ‘another thing that has to be done’ with less clear
professional learning outcomes:
We did Personal Project moderation, but it was another thing that has to be done.... If you
spoke to the people moderating, they’re like ‘Okay, yeah, that’s an interesting one’. But ask
them again in a few weeks, and either they’ve forgotten, or you’ll get a different response. I
don’t really see it as professional learning. (Supervisor, Qatar)
These findings point to a discrepancy in views about the IB professional learning opportunities
presented by the Personal Project. They suggest that more dialogue among heads of schools,
coordinators, and supervisors would be beneficial to understand the experience of supervisors and
what schools can do to integrate more professional learning into the role.
4.2.3. Promising Practices for Positive School Faculty Outcomes
1. Leverage institutional knowledge
Institutional knowledge of the Personal Project was typically held by MYP and Personal Project
coordinators. The leveraging of this expertise was consistently highlighted as crucial to the Personal
Project’s successful implementation. These coordinators played a key role in interpreting and
disseminating IB guidelines to supervisors, including the transition to mandatory external moderation.
They also frequently developed and shared learning materials. Further, they were the primary contact
point for supervisors to discuss challenges whilst working with students until completion. The findings
underscore the importance of the IB providing thorough support for coordinators, especially those
with relatively less experience or at schools new to the MYP. The support may involve regular IB
professional development, opportunities for networking with other coordinators, and sharing up-to-
date resources. In addition, the findings point to the importance of schools preserving the knowledge
collected by coordinators to inform their successors, for example, through a cumulative portfolio. A
head of school characterised the coordinator as the Personal Project’s ‘backbone’:
They’re the backbone, really. Our MYP coordinator helps run things smoothly. (Head of school,
Hong Kong)
2. Nuanced pairing of supervisors with students
MYP and Personal Project coordinators can work closely with supervisors when pairing with students.
In so doing, coordinators can gather information on the supervisors’ existing workload, experience,
45
and know-how. Supervisors can be matched according to their prior relations with students, expertise,
and interest in project topics. Moreover, school faculty with a high workload can be given reduced
supervisor responsibilities and inexperienced school faculty can take on a co-supervisor role. All this
can contribute to professional satisfaction for supervisors and high-quality supervision for students. A
coordinator in Qatar discussed pairing new supervisors with more experienced colleagues:
What we’ll do is if it’s a new teacher to the Personal Project, we won’t actually allocate them
a student on their own to supervise. They’ll be paired with another supervisor who has done
it before so they can learn from them first. (Coordinator, Qatar)
3. Craft supervisor groups
Crafting supervisor groups can ease the workload and enhance the effectiveness of Personal Project
supervision. In the case schools, these groups involved a collaboration among three to four supervisors
to share experiences, strategies for supporting students, and how to overcome challenges. The
benefits included creating a forum for mutual support, a closer-knit community, and professional
learning. All of which were especially valuable for less experienced supervisors:
We work in teams of three or four. I get the chance to look at three other Personal Projects
whilst doing my own, using the criteria. Then, we discuss deadlines, make sure that we
standardise the marks, share resources and tips, and like, support each other through
challenges as they come. (Supervisor, South Korea)
As a supplementary point, the supervisors mostly collaborated towards the end of the Personal
Project, such as with internal grade moderation. A few participants highlighted that the supervisor
groups might have greater potential if they met at the beginning and throughout the supervisory
process. The three promising practices are shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2. Increasing Positive Outcomes for School Faculty
Increasing
positive
school faculty
outcomes
Leverage
institutional
knowledge
Nuanced
supervisor-
student pairing
Craft supervisor
groups
46
4.3. The Community
In this section, we address the question: ‘How do MYP school community stakeholders perceive the
outcomes of the Personal Project experience for the broader community that surrounds the school?’.
First, we report how community engagement provides opportunities for students to develop ATL skills,
learn about their local community, and drive positive change in communities. To complement these
findings, we report on interviews with recipients of the Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators’ Grant,
which supports students seeking to expand their Personal Project. Second, we consider how students
may gain more from the experience than community members. Third, we present promising practices
to help students connect with the community, understand the needs of stakeholders, and maintain
good relations upon project completion.
4.3.1 - Positive Outcomes for the Community
1. Opportunity for community engagement
The Personal Projects involved various degrees of engagement with the local community. Some
projects did not require considerable interactions outside the school, especially those focused on
academic pursuits. Faculty did not necessarily perceive a lack of community engagement as a ‘limiting
factor’. First, students can benefit from the Personal Project experience without community
engagement. Second, schools typically provide other community engagement opportunities, such as
service work. Nonetheless, as a coordinator described, the schools typically encouraged students to
consider community engagement in their Personal Project:
Community engagement depends on the student. I find that in some situations, they do, in
others they don’t. It depends, but we try to encourage them to do it. (Coordinator, Hong Kong)
Also, as a head of school explained, a high proportion of projects involve students ‘being out and
about’ in the community:
Personal Projects don’t necessarily involve the kids being out and about, but I would say a
surprisingly large percentage of them do. (Head of school, Peru)
The students shared a wide range of community experiences. This included consulting experts at
universities, gathering advice from business leaders, and working with non-government organisations.
For example, one student worked with a professor at a local university:
47
If I had any questions, I could visit the lab and discuss my reading. And during the drafts of my
paper, I was able to get feedback on what I might do to improve my scientific language or
what further resources I could use. (DP Student, South Korea)
In another example, a student consulted experts at a local hospital:
My project was about the neurobiology of criminal offenders, so I talked to radiologists at our
hospital. They helped with medical terminology and scans so I could make clay models of what
an impulse control disorder looks like. (DP Student, United States)
2. Develop ATL skills beyond the school
Many participants discussed how students developed ATL skills through interactions with the
community. They most commonly cited ‘communication’ and ‘social’ skills. These were often
developed by reaching out to community members to introduce projects, inquire about resources,
and seek advice. School faculty highlighted how these experiences presented opportunities to
enhance interpersonal skills:
In terms of interpersonal skills, it’s fantastic. They have to converse with adults who are
strangers and professionals in their fields. Kids really come out of their shells. (Supervisor,
Zambia)
Also, connections with experts can inspire students and contribute to high-quality projects, as
illustrated below:
I chose a topic because of this very well-known psychologist, and I just messaged her on
Instagram. I was shocked that she responded. She helped me develop my project, which was
amazing. (MYP student, Peru)
In addition, the participants often cited ‘self-management’ skills. In many cases, students required
organisational skills to schedule interactions with community stakeholders. They also needed time-
management skills to meet commitments. As one student shared, whose Personal Project involved
volunteering at an animal shelter:
You kind of have to manage your time all throughout the year, set deadlines, and try not to
procrastinate and leave everything to the last minute. (MYP student, South Korea)
The MYP student participants were under various COVID-19 restrictions during their Personal Project.
In some cases, this context created challenges for community engagement, given the limitations to
48
face-to-face interactions. Yet the restrictions presented new opportunities to develop ATL skills, such
as ‘thinking’, ‘communication’, and ‘social’ skills. As a coordinator put it:
I have a strong belief in the value of thinking outside the box. Sometimes the limitations can
make you more creative. So, despite COVID-19, students could make those connections with
people, but they had to adapt their approach and go online. (Coordinator, Zambia)
Moreover, at a virtual Personal Project exhibition in the South Korean school, the students were
observed presenting their projects online to the community stakeholders. In so doing, they applied
online presentation skills to share their findings and respond to questions from stakeholders from
universities, private businesses, and non-government organisations.
3. Learn about the local community
The participants frequently shared that the Personal Project provides students with an opportunity to
experience and explore communities beyond the school. This experience can promote a deeper
understanding of local communities, which points to broader learning outcomes beyond preparation
for further education. As noted below, a student discussed engagement with children at a hospital in
the local community:
My topic was studying children with cancer, specifically how that affects their day-to-day lives.
I visited local hospitals and learned about gaps in facilities these kids have. I got to connect
and empathise with them by exploring their experience with authenticity. (DP student, United
States)
The participants most often cited service work regarding learning about the community. Service-
oriented projects were highlighted as potentially most valuable for international or private school
students who may have limited interactions with those outside their own cultural and socioeconomic
community. First, in the international schools in Hong Kong and Zambia, a high proportion of students
were globally mobile expatriates. These students can face cultural and language barriers with the local
community. At the school in Zambia, a supervisor described how service Personal Project helped
students learn about the ‘lives of local people’:
We do a lot to ensure that our students are not disconnected. We encourage direct
community engagement through our service work so they can learn about the lives of the
local people here, and we can sometimes help them connect to people who facilitate
communication if they don’t speak their mother tongue. (Supervisor, Zambia)
49
Second, service projects can also help students at private schools learn about their local community.
This was most notable for students from socioeconomically privileged families attending private
schools in Peru, Qatar, and South Korea. In one example, a student described seeing a ‘completely
different side of my city’:
I went to a school for deaf students to research my Personal Project. It was a completely
different side of my city. It just gave me a perspective on my surroundings; they didn’t have
basic resources like computers or Wi-Fi, it was messy, and it got me thinking deeply about
what work needs to be done. (DP student, Peru)
Other projects enabled students to become more aware of businesses, institutions, and organisations
in the local community. For example, a student contacted a local fire station to gain input for a project
based on developing a car fire alarm:
I went to a fire station and spent some time with the firefighters. I asked them all about road
accidents related to fires. They told me so much about their work and their procedures. It was
amazing to learn about their protocols. (DP student, Qatar)
4. Positive change in the local community
Most participants believed that Personal Project was a platform for students to bring about positive
change. A coordinator in Zambia reflected on the wide range of topics that sought to make a social
impact on the local community:
One student was recycling books and extending her initiative by getting others involved. Some
projects are poverty alleviation, others focus on education for local students, and refugee
children. There are some environmental clean-up projects. I mean, there’s so many examples
of the impact on the community. (Coordinator, Zambia)
In some cases, the contribution was through service work, such as volunteering to teach English to
disadvantaged students. However, other projects contributed to the community through other
means. This included public information campaigns on health/lifestyle (e.g., mental health), raising
awareness over cultural heritage (e.g., traditional poetry), and bringing attention to social issues (e.g.,
gender discrimination). Also, a coordinator gave the example of a student creating a cookbook to
reach the local community despite restrictions during COVID-19:
A student created a cookbook for kids that didn’t involve turning on the stove. They wanted
to promote healthy eating, not people turning to junk food. The pandemic led to that topic
because they really couldn’t go out and do a whole lot in their community, but they could still
do something positive for their neighbourhood. (Coordinator, United States)
50
4.3.2. Challenges to Positive Community Outcomes
1. Students may benefit more than the community
A commonly held belief by the heads of schools and faculty was that the Personal Project can be more
beneficial for students than the community. They frequently shared how the experience stood
students in good stead for further studies as well as presenting other learning benefits. Yet, as a head
of school explained, the primary purpose of engaging the community was ‘the completion of the
project’ for some students.
It's the way the Personal Project is structured. Students try to connect with the community by
reaching out to different agencies or organisations, but it’s mainly for the benefit of
completing the project. (Head of school, Qatar)
Further, the students’ relative inexperience and limited resources can restrict their contribution to the
community. A coordinator gave the example of a project that they felt had limited social impact,
despite having good intentions:
The student followed a homeless refugee around Hong Kong to show what his day looked like.
He aimed to elevate the person and spread awareness, but in the end, the person didn’t come
off any better. I don’t know what kind of service he did. It kind of missed the mark.
(Coordinator, Hong Kong)
In addition, the Personal Project was largely a self-contained piece of work, and many students
discontinued their projects upon completion. One student noted: ‘I liked the Personal Project, but it’s
a memory now’ (DP student, Qatar). In some cases, the students lost interest in their topic. In other
cases, students admitted their attention shifted after starting the DP. One student described how they
were unable to continue with their project due to DP study commitments:
I try to do programming, but homework and assignments get in the way. Like there are so
many deadlines to keep up with the DP. After submitting my final project, I couldn’t continue
working on the app. (DP student, Zambia)
However, there were examples of longer-term outcomes in the community. In a few cases, students
were able to continue with their product or outcomes. A student, for example, developed the Personal
Project into a successful business:
One student made a paintball field. And that is now like this establishment here. Kids book it
for birthday parties. He ended up studying DP Economics because he was so interested in
running a business. (Coordinator, Zambia)
51
Another pathway to long-term community outcomes was through IB support to expand on Personal
Projects. An example is the Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators’ Grant, described in Box 2. More
generally, the participants described that the long-time contribution can be indirect. In these cases,
students pursued passions developed during the Personal Project in further studies or a career that
could contribute to communities over the long term.
2. Trend towards overreliance on digital technology
Some participants observed that the Personal Project’s pathways to positive community outcomes
increasingly used digital technology, such as apps, social media, and websites. The rationale was often
that online communication had the potential to make a positive social impact in ways that extended
beyond local communities. The trend had accelerated as students faced restrictions on face-to-face
interactions owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. As one example, a student created a website with a
database of side-effects of food allergy medications:
Box 2. Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators' Grant
The IB launched the Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators' Grant in 2020 to support MYP
students' initiatives focused on social impact. Up to 30 students annually receive the grant through
a competitive review process. In addition to financial support, the grant provides opportunities for
mentoring from experts and collaboration with other grant awardees (IB, 2022f). Utilising the IB's
network, their Strategy and Transformation Team sent an open call to grant awardees of 2020,
asking them to comment on whether the grant played a role in continuing their Personal Project
initiatives. They relayed three written responses to the research team. All the respondents shared
that the grant helped them expand on Personal Project's social impact. On the one hand, financial
support helped students continue their initiative. For example, one participant shared how they
used the grant funds to build an environmentally sustainable shop at a school, from which the
profits were donated to charity. On the other hand, the students described how the grant
incentivised them to continue their initiatives after finishing the MYP. In one case, a student
described how the grant enabled them to take the Personal Project ‘to the next level' for a project
that used technology to aid the mobility of people with disabilities:
I was able to create something I could not have done before. This let me really take my
Personal Project to the next level and stretch myself to make a stronger impact with it. It
also gave me an incentive to continue working on the project after the project concluded,
and I'm still working to this day (Grant awardee, United States).
52
Being a severe allergy patient, I made an informational resource to help people understand
common medication side effects, hypersensitive reactions, and common misconceptions
about allergies. (DP student, South Korea)
At the same time, some faculty were sceptical about the social impact of projects that had an
overreliance on digital technology. This was most often cited in cases where students developed a
website for their product or outcome. On the one hand, there was concern that, in practice, most
initiatives did not engage an audience beyond the students’ existing network of family and friends. On
the other hand, projects that set goals of reaching a global audience can neglect opportunities to make
a difference closer to home. Relatedly, a few participants noted concerns over unrealistic claims of a
‘global impact’ using digital technologies:
I sometimes struggle with that. I think you could do a Personal Project that doesn’t have to be
about a global impact. Because then the downside is that then you end up with students who
learn a little bit about being disingenuous and how to make things look like more than what
they are. (Coordinator, Qatar)
4.3.3. Promising Practices for Positive Community Outcomes
1. Guide initial contact with community stakeholders
The participants believed that students benefited from initial guidance with contacting community
stakeholders. They typically had limited experience developing professional relationships outside
schools. As a result, many students initially struggled to appropriately frame their requests, resulting
in ineffective or failed attempts to engage the community. A promising practice to get projects started
was for coordinators and supervisors to provide support with identifying who to contact, how to make
initial contact, and managing expectations. As one coordinator put it:
We help students with how to reach out to people if they can’t explain what the project is
themselves, and why it’s important. We help them modify their written request to clearly
communicate their ideas, so they are more likely to get backing for their projects.
(Coordinator, Peru)
2. Supervisors step back after initial contact
Supervisors can ‘step back’ after initial contact has been established with community stakeholders.
That way, students can take the lead in their community interactions. By doing so, students can
assume ownership of their projects and develop their own understanding of the needs of
stakeholders, as shared in the below quote:
We give them a chance to partner with people in the community by themselves and
understand their needs. I think this is important for their personal development as they’re
53
going to have to develop those connections themselves later at university and at work. (MYP
coordinator, Hong Kong)
3. Stress ongoing community relations
The heads of schools and coordinators emphasised that it is crucial that students end their interactions
with community stakeholders on favourable terms. The intention behind this was twofold: first, to
teach students how to maintain relationships with stakeholders and second, to uphold the school’s
reputation. Accordingly, a promising practice was to encourage students to keep stakeholders up to
date with the project’s outcomes and invite them to attend the Personal Project exhibition. A
coordinator underscored how students should not ‘disappear’ after completing the project:
We like to remind them that once you’ve completed your tasks you should end things on a
positive note. Don’t just disappear one day. Not because you might need something from
them but to be respectful. Sometimes the students have a lot going on, so I feel these
reminders go a long way. (Coordinator, South Korea)
Figure 4.3 illustrates the three promising practices to increase positive community outcomes.
Figure 4.3. Increasing Positive Outcomes for the Community
4.4. Summary
This chapter investigated the Personal Project’s outcomes for students, school faculty, and the
community surrounding the schools. Nearly all the participants agreed that the Personal Project
prepared students well for further education. However, they further believed that the potential
outcomes were broader, encompassing more comprehensive benefits. They also brought attention to
challenges with Personal Project. Lastly, a series of promising practices were shared to help students,
school faculty, and the local community get the most out of the experience. In Table 4.2, we
summarise the key qualitative findings in relation to the research questions.
Increasing
positive
community
outcomes
Guide initial
contact with
community
stakeholders
Supervisors step
back after inital
contact
Stress ongoing
community
relations
54
Table 4.2. Summary of Qualitative Findings
Research Question
Qualitative Findings
How do MYP school community
stakeholders perceive the
outcomes of the Personal
Project experience on students
who have attempted it?
Positive outcomes for students
• A milestone in the IB school career
• Opportunity to develop ATL skills
• Bridge gaps between MYP and DP
• Potential Extended Essay preparation
• Long-term influence over skills and interests
Challenges to positive outcomes
• Assessment misaligned with what matters to students
• The workload can exceed IB guidelines
• Unequal access to resources
Promising practices
• Promote and structure peer learning
• Provide formalised guidance early
• ‘Light-touch’ approach to supervision
How do MYP school leaders,
coordinators, and classroom
educators perceive the
outcomes of the Personal
Project experience on school
faculty who support its
implementation?
Positive outcomes for school faculty
• Appreciation of an IB education
• Enhancing collaboration among school faculty
• Getting to know students better
Challenges to positive outcomes
• High supervisor workload
• Contrasting views of IB professional learning
Promising practices
• Leverage institutional knowledge
• Nuanced supervisor-student pairing
• Craft supervisor groups
How do MYP school community
stakeholders perceive the
outcomes of the Personal
Project experience on the
broader community that
surrounds the school?
Positive outcomes for the community
• Opportunity for community engagement
• Develop ATL skills beyond the school
• Learn about the local community
• Positive change in the local community
Challenges to positive outcomes
• Students may benefit more than the community
• Trend toward overreliance on digital technology
Promising practices
• Guide initial contact with community stakeholders
• Supervisors step back after initial contact
• Stress ongoing community relations
55
5. Convergence of the Findings
This chapter comparatively analyses the findings from Phase One and Phase Two to provide a more
expansive picture of the Personal Project. Specifically, we converge quantitative analysis of the global
IB dataset and qualitative analysis of interviews at the six IB World Schools. This process permitted
interpretations that offset the limitations of one source of data, are more compelling, and yield
additional insights. First, we report overall associations among Personal Project, DP exam, and
Extended Essay scores, and other Personal Project outcomes. Second and third, we consider the role
of student and school characteristics in Personal Project outcomes. Fourth, we present the
associations among Personal Project participation, DP outcomes, and the condition of mandatory
external moderation. Lastly, we look at the Personal Project in the United States context. The chapter
concludes with a summary of the converged findings.
5.1. Converged Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
The converged findings are visualised in the following pages through a series of ‘joint display’ tables
that present selected quantitative findings, relevant themes from the qualitative data, and converging
interpretations.
In Table 5.1, we demonstrate converged overall findings on how the Personal Project
experience prepares students well to ‘step up’ to the DP through higher academic performance and
learning outcomes that scores may not capture. In Table 5.2, we report converged findings on student
characteristics. They illustrate mixed findings of how gender and language match (i.e., students’ self-
reported primary/secondary languages and the schools’ language of instruction) relate to Personal
Project experiences and outcomes. Table 5.3 shows how school characteristics may shape the
Personal Project. The converged findings put forward explanations for how private schools and schools
that have been authorised to offer the MYP for more years were associated with higher DP exam and
Extended Essay scores. In Table 5.4, we present converged findings on why DP students who
participated in the Personal Project attained higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores than DP peers
who did not participate in the Personal Project. The table also illustrates how Personal Project
mandatory external moderation relates to student academic outcomes in the DP. Finally, Table 5.5
focuses on the United States. The converged data largely reinforce findings from the global IB dataset
and interviews at IB World Schools. They also provide evidence of potential inequality of opportunity
as students’ participation in the Federal Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals was associated
with lower DP exam and Extended Essay scores compared with students who did not participate in
that programme.
56
Table 5.1. Converged Findings on Overall Student Outcomes
Domain
Phase One:
Quantitative
Phase Two:
Qualitative
Phase Three:
Convergence
Personal
Project as
preparation
for the DP
• Personal Project
scores predicted
DP exam and
Extended Essay
scores for Personal
Project participants
who continued into
the DP.
• The Personal Project
enables students to
develop ATL skills
that prepare them
for the DP.
• Broader benefits
include developing
personal interests,
forging connections
with school faculty,
and learning about
the community.
• The Personal Project
can also have
positive outcomes
for school faculty
and communities.
• The Personal Project
is a valuable part of
a well-rounded IB
education.
• The most
academically able,
organised, and
motivated students
may achieve high DP
scores irrespective of
the Personal Project.
• DP scores do not
fully capture the
outcomes for
students, faculty,
and communities.
A comparison
of preparation
for the DP and
Extended
Essay
• Personal Project
scores more strongly
predicted DP exam
scores compared to
Extended Essay
scores.
• The Personal Project
can ‘bridge gaps’
between the MYP
and DP as students
develop ATL skills,
resilience, and
interests.
• The Extended Essay
is a more
academically
rigorous research
project aligned with
university-level
work.
• The Personal Project
experience helped
prepare students for
both DP exams and
the Extended Essay.
• The most notable
contribution was for
‘stepping up’ to the
DP in general, rather
than the Extended
Essay in particular.
57
Table 5.2. Converged Findings on Student Characteristics
Domain
Phase One:
Quantitative
Phase Two:
Qualitative
Phase Three:
Convergence
Gender
• Female Personal
Project participants
had higher DP and
Extended Essay
scores than their
male peers.
• Gender was not
cited as an
important feature
impacting Personal
Project scores.
• Gender can shape
the Personal Project
experience. Female
students may face
more contextual
challenges or
restrictions engaging
in the community
beyond schools.
• The quantitative
data suggest that the
gender of Personal
Project participants
is associated with DP
outcomes.
• Gender was not a
major theme for the
Personal Project in
the qualitative data.
We recommend
further research.
Language
match
• There were mixed
findings regarding
associations among
language match, DP
exam scores, and
Extended Essay
scores.
• The Personal Project
was a steep learning
curve as a first
experience leading a
long-term project.
• The challenge can be
magnified for those
facing various
contextual issues,
such as taking the
Personal Project in a
non-mother tongue
language.
• Although language
barriers were
challenging for
students, language
match was not a
clear predictor of DP
outcomes.
• One explanation is
that the Personal
Project is offered by
high-achieving
international schools
with multilingual
student bodies.
58
Table 5.3. Converged Findings on School Characteristics
Domain
Phase One:
Quantitative
Phase Two:
Qualitative
Phase Three:
Convergence
Legal status of
schools
• Private school status
was associated with
higher DP exam and
Extended Essay
scores for Personal
Project participants
who took the DP.
• Resources played a
key role in Personal
Projects.
• Families shared
advice, formed
connections, and
provided financial
backing.
• School resources
were vital for
introducing,
supporting, and
seeing Personal
Projects through to
completion.
• Private school
students may have
greater access to
family and school
resources to support
the Personal Project.
• The findings shed
light on the potential
inequality of
opportunity in the IB
and the outcomes of
students.
School MYP
authorisation
year
• Schools that have
been authorised to
offer the MYP for a
longer period of time
were associated with
higher DP exam and
Extended Essay
scores for Personal
Project participants
who took the DP.
• Institutional
knowledge held by
coordinators was
crucial to successful
Personal Project
implementation.
• Coordinators
interpreted
guidelines, shared
learning materials,
and were the
contact point for
supervisors.
• Schools with more
MYP experience
likely have more
institutional
knowledge of the
Personal Project.
• The IB can target
support for new
coordinators or
coordinators at
schools new to the
MYP.
59
Table 5.4. Converged Findings on Personal Project Participation and DP Outcomes
Domain
Phase One:
Quantitative
Phase Two:
Qualitative
Phase Three:
Convergence
Personal
Project
participation
and DP
outcomes
• Personal Project
participants attained
higher DP exam and
Extended Essay
scores than their DP
peers who did not
participate in
Personal Project.
• Students who
participated in the
Personal Project had
opportunities to
develop ATL skills
that prepared them
for success in the DP.
• The Personal Project
is a ‘low-stakes’
exercise where
students can learn
from mistakes that
can inform future
assignments.
• The Personal Project
learning experience
prepares students to
‘step up’ to the DP,
potentially
contributing to
higher DP exam and
Extended Essay
scores.
Personal
Project
mandatory
external
moderation
and DP
outcomes
• There were positive
associations among
Personal Project
participation, DP
exam scores, and
Extended Essay
scores for cohorts
before and after
mandatory external
moderation.
• Coordinators play an
integral role in
interpreting and
communicating
Personal Project
guidelines.
• Their role includes
managing changes
such as the
transition to
mandatory external
moderation of the
Personal Project.
• IB support and
guidance for
coordinators are
crucial for the
successful
implementation of
the Personal Project.
60
Table 5.5. Converged Findings on the Personal Project at United States Schools
Domain
Phase One:
Quantitative
Phase Two:
Qualitative
Phase Three:
Convergence
Personal
Project
preparation
for the DP
• Personal Project
scores predicted DP
exam and Extended
Essay scores.
• Personal Project
scores had a
stronger association
with DP exam scores
than Extended Essay
scores.
• Students develop
skills and interests
during the Personal
Project that prepares
them for further
education.
• The learning
experience is more
comprehensive than
preparation for high
DP scores.
• The United States
case reinforces
findings from the
global datasets
• The Personal Project
not only stands
students in good
stead for the DP but
offers broader
learning
opportunities.
Federal
Program on
Free and
Reduced-
Priced Meals
• Participants in the
Federal Program
were associated with
lower DP exam and
Extended Essay
scores than their
peers not part of the
programme.
• The IB can be ‘life-
changing’ for low
socioeconomic
status students,
especially by getting
them ‘college-ready’.
• Low socioeconomic
status students may
have less access to
family and school
resources to support
the Personal Project.
• Schools can target
support for low
socioeconomic
status students to
ensure they get the
most out of the
Personal Project
experience.
5.2. Summary
This chapter converged selected quantitative and qualitative findings. The process permitted more
profound interpretations of Personal Project outcomes than would be possible from one source of
data. We summarise the key findings below.
• The converged findings demonstrate how the Personal Project prepares students to ‘step up’ to
the DP. Quantitative data showed that Personal Project scores predicted subsequent DP scores.
Qualitative data showed how the experience provides opportunities to develop valuable ATL skills.
The findings further suggest that the Personal Project had the greatest contribution as preparation
for the whole DP, rather than the Extended Essay in particular. The academically strongest
students may achieve highly in the DP irrespective of the Personal Project. Nonetheless, the
Personal Project’s outcomes may not be fully captured by DP scores. The learning outcomes for
students include developing personal interests, forging connections with school faculty, and
learning about the community. Moreover, the Personal Project can have positive outcomes for
school faculty and communities surrounding schools.
61
• Student characteristics revealed contextual nuances in the Personal Project. Female Personal
Project participants had higher DP and Extended Essay scores than their male peers. Yet,
qualitative data revealed that female students might face more contextual challenges with the
Personal Project. For example, female students faced restrictions in interacting with community
stakeholders in some contexts. Also, some students faced language barriers with the Personal
Project, although there were mixed quantitative findings regarding associations between
language match and DP scores. One explanation was that the Personal Project is offered by
international schools with multilingual student bodies, extensive resources, and competitive
academic cultures conducive to high-scoring projects.
• School characteristics can shape Personal Project experiences and outcomes. Personal Project
participants at private schools and schools authorised to offer the MYP for a longer period were
associated with higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores. Qualitative analysis suggests students
at private schools may be able to draw upon more extensive family and school resources to
maximise the benefits of the Personal Project. Moreover, institutional knowledge developed by
schools over time was crucial to successful Personal Project implementation. These findings
suggest that the IB should target support at non-private and newly authorised schools.
• Quantitative findings showed that Personal Project participants had higher DP exam and Extended
Essay scores than their DP peers who did not participate in Personal Project. The findings
underscore how Personal Project contributes to preparing students for the DP. The qualitative
findings further demonstrated how all students can benefit from the Personal Project, as a ‘low-
stakes’ exercise that provides opportunities to learn from mistakes to inform future assignments.
• Quantitative data demonstrated that DP exam and Extended Essay scores differed across cohort
years. Generally, there was a positive association among Personal Project participation, DP exams
and Extended Essay scores for cohorts before and after mandatory external moderation.
Qualitative data highlighted coordinators’ integral role in interpreting and communicating
Personal Project guidelines. The findings underscore the importance of IB support for coordinators
as the primary holders of institutional knowledge, especially those who are relatively
inexperienced in the role or working at schools new to the MYP.
The United States case largely reinforced findings from the IB global data. Personal Project scores
predicted DP scores, and the experience encompassed broader learning outcomes. Also, the case
reinforced the potential of inequality of opportunity, as students who participated in Federal
Program on Free and Reduced-Priced Meals were associated with lower DP exams and Extended
Essay scores than their peers not part of the programme. The findings call attention to the
importance of targeting support for IB students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds.
62
6. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this research was to investigate the experiences and outcomes of the Personal Project
at IB World Schools globally. The preceding chapters have detailed findings separately from the
quantitative and qualitative phases, and by bringing the two data sets together. This chapter presents
six interrelated key themes that look a little more deeply across the findings and then puts forward a
series of recommendations for the IB’s consideration.
6.1. Key Themes
In Figure 6.1, we present six key themes that emerged from the research, which are discussed in more
detail in the subsequent pages.
Figure 6.1. Key Themes
Key
Themes
1. There are strong
positive linkages
between the
Personal Project
and students'
academic
performance and
development.
2. Faculty
engagement in the
Personal Project
process provides a
range of rich
professional
learning
opportunities.
3. The Personal
Project provides a
unique opportunity
for students to
engage with and
learn from their
broader
community.
4. The
Personal Project's
assessment
structure may gear
student attention
more toward the
final report than
the process.
5. Multiple student
and school factors
shape students'
success in the DP.
6. The context of
the school and
community can
accentuate
inequities which
may influence the
Personal Project.
63
1. There are strong positive linkages between the Personal Project and students’ academic
performance and development.
The findings suggest multiple linkages between the Personal Project and students’ academic
performance and development. First, Personal Project completion is associated with higher
achievement in the DP, including DP exams and the Extended Essay. However, the potential outcomes
of the Personal Project extend beyond examination and essay scores. By allowing students to engage
in a ‘passion project’ over a sustained period, students develop a range of organisational,
communication, and academic skills—encapsulated by ATLs. Such skills transcend academic work as
students work with peers, adults, and stakeholders across various communities and networks and
develop the skills needed to work with a broad array of parties. Through the Personal Project, students
also build their capacity for self-management, conducting research, and self-regulation of their
learning. The skills were most immediately beneficial for meeting the increasing challenges of the DP.
Engagement with the Personal Project also exposed students to areas of interest that can inform their
later choices and preparedness for further education and careers. As such, the experience serves to
help students ‘step up’ to the DP and develop greater mastery of ATLs. The experience also has the
potential to deliver beyond IB programmes as a part of students’ overall developmental trajectory.
2. Faculty engagement in the Personal Project process provides a range of rich professional learning
opportunities.
The IB provides formal professional development opportunities for school faculty in ATLs and the
Personal Project. Faculty engagement with the Personal Project in schools revealed the potential for
enhanced professional learning in these areas. This seemed most effective when school-based
structures were in place to facilitate interaction among faculty around activities such as sharing
supervision strategies, engaging in internal moderation activities, and reflecting on the ATLs and
strategies to develop them. Such participation also built mentorship or coaching relationships that
were especially beneficial for novice faculty. Reciprocally, we suggest that such relationships provide
leadership opportunities for more senior faculty. Further, working with colleagues and students over
a sustained period served to develop learning-centered relationships. In this way, the Personal Project
can manifest as a shared experience around which the entire school engages and serve as a
mechanism for faculty to understand better individual students’ unique learning strengths and
develop responsive learning enhancement or support strategies. Similar to student learning, the
findings suggest professional learning opportunities that extend well beyond formal professional
development sessions. Nonetheless, they seem contingent on school leaderships’ positive influence,
particularly that of an effective programme coordinator.
64
3. The Personal Project provides a unique opportunity for students to engage with and learn from
their broader community.
A feature of the Personal Project is the opportunity for students to engage various communities to
facilitate its completion. While projects do not necessarily need to have this aspect, in our case
findings, most projects entailed engagement with the local community or networks beyond schools.
While this may potentially benefit students in learning to engage with an array of stakeholders, it also
provides a valuable opportunity to learn in-depth about their community, its needs, and the potential
for service, advocacy, and public information to make a difference. At its best, the Personal Project
connects students to community organisations, services, and businesses that can seed enduring
relations with schools. However, the extent to which the potential positive social impact of projects
was realised or sustained seemed to vary across students.
4. The Personal Project’s assessment structure may gear student attention more toward the final
report than the process.
The Personal Project has multiple aims, and students value the experience. They benefit from the
process of working through the different stages, from carrying out the project to creating the product
or outcome. Still, there is a risk that this may be overshadowed by an overconcentration on the final
report. Qualitative data indicated a version of this washback effect. In other words, although external
moderation leads to reliable assessment, an emphasis on the final report may skew students’
pragmatic focus away from the process. This concern relates to how students and schools allocate
time and resources to the Personal Project. The schools in our case studies allocate excess hours and
supervisory resources to a project that, by IB guidelines, should represent around 25 hours of work.
5. Multiple student and school factors shape students’ success in the DP.
Quantitative data indicated that Personal Project completion is associated with higher achievement
in the DP. However, there is a need for caution in interpreting the findings.
First, multiple contextual (student and school) factors may provide more reliable indicators of
DP scores than success on the Personal Project itself. These include but are not limited to gender,
academic aptitude, private schooling, socioeconomic status, time since the IB authorised the school,
and the size of the DP student cohort. Three findings emerged to support the influence of different
contextual factors. The first touches upon equity, the second on the school’s history, and the third on
school size, or, more accurately, the number of students sitting the IB. First, Personal Project students
who sat for the DP at private schools scored higher DP exam and Extended Essay scores than their
non-private school peers. When considered in tandem with the issues around socioeconomic status
65
(see also point six below), this may relate to supervisor-student ratios for the Personal Project,
availability of curriculum resources, and the existence and substance of and access to community and
family networks. The second issue relates to school IB history. Data indicated that schools authorised
to offer the MYP for a more extended period had a positive association with the DP exam and
Extended Essay scores. These schools may have accumulated more IB institutional knowledge to guide
students with the Personal Project and the transition to the DP. The third issue is that schools with
higher numbers of registered DP students tended to have higher DP exam scores. This finding may
relate to larger schools having more resources to implement IB programmes successfully.
In addition, the Personal Project had a stronger association with DP than Extended Essay
scores may reflect the tendency for DP schools to emphasise examination success over nonacademic
outcomes, as well as the different nature of the Personal Project and Extended Essay. Lastly, although
important to student learning, the Personal Project’s emphasis on ATLs is not directly related to
academic outcomes. In short, the Personal Project’s contribution to formal academic outcomes should
not be overplayed and should be considered along with a school’s different contextual features.
6. The context of the school and community can accentuate inequities that may influence
Personal Project experiences and outcomes.
Private schools appear to have more resources to dedicate to the Personal Project than do less well-
resourced public schools. Both individually and in combination, this has the potential to influence the
efficacy of the Personal Project experience across several areas. These include:
• Curriculum time and level of other in-school resources that can be allocated to the Personal Project.
Schools with superior resources can allocate more curriculum time to the Personal Project and
provide a greater range and depth of resource material to support projects. Despite the 25 hours
formally allocated for the Personal Project, schools with lower supervisor-student ratios and more
structural flexibility can dedicate more time to supporting the Personal Project. Also, schools
enjoying higher levels of material resources, such as dedicated learning centres, may be better
placed to support a broader range and depth of projects.
• Ratio of supervisors to students allocated for the Personal Project. Depending on resource
availability, different schools assigned different numbers of supervisors to each Personal Project
student. Data showed that the ratio of supervisors ranged from one supervisor to two students in
better-resourced schools to one supervisor to 20 students in less well-resourced schools. Such
stark differences can influence levels of individual support, ranging from topic selection to depth
of support for report completion. Higher ratios may also place greater intellectual and professional
demands on supervisors who support large numbers of students.
66
• Access to community and family networks to select topics and complete the Personal Project.
Schools in more challenging circumstances may have fewer available community resources and
family networks for students. This can potentially influence the Personal Project experience in at
least four ways. First, fewer community resources may limit the range of project topics available
to students. Second, support and expertise for carrying out projects may be harder to find in some
communities than in others. Third, the sophistication/relevance of areas that students can
discover and then access may be more limited in some communities. Fourth, families in some
schools may have fewer networks and less time to commit to supporting students with the
Personal Project. In short, the context of the school may advantage or disadvantage students not
only in completing the Personal Project but by restricting the range, awareness, and choice of
possible topics before the project is launched.
• Families provide multiple forms of support to students. In addition to time, expertise, and network
constraints, families in some contexts may lack access to financial or other material resources to
support students with their projects. Personal Project topic selection, the learning process, and
overall benefits may be constrained.
6.2. Recommendations
This section puts forward several recommendations for both schools and the IB to consider. They draw
on the promising practices identified through interviews with school leaders, faculty, and students
working intimately with the Personal Project across the six case schools (see also Figures 6.2 to 6.5).
6.2.1 Schools with Students
• Provide face-to-face and written guidance for students from the beginning of the Personal Project
process. Such advice can ensure students clearly understand the Personal Project’s purpose,
requirements, and expectations. Deeper student understanding from the outset may reduce
student anxiety and dependency on supervisors.
• Offer a range of supervisory approaches in line with context and student needs. Different students
may respond best to different supervisory systems. Students lacking experience and confidence
may require more frequent and sometimes more directive supervision, whereas others may be
comfortable working more independently. Regardless of the level of supervision needed, a
respectful, lighter-touch approach as the project progresses may encourage independent thought
and support the development of ATL skills.
• Design structures that get students working together on the Personal Project. Peer learning can
help students understand the purpose and scope of the Personal Project and draw on others’
67
practical experiences. Although the IB did not design the Personal Project to incorporate peer
learning, school faculty highlighted it as an effective way to push the Personal Project forward,
likely enhancing the experience for students. Learning with others can instil confidence and show
students that, even though it is an individual project, they are not alone on their journey. Peer
learning structures can be instituted even before the formal Personal Project period by inviting
younger students to observe the projects ‘in process’, attend the Personal Project exhibition, and
facilitate peer study groups.
Figure 6.2. Schools with Students
6.2.2 Schools with Faculty
• Empower coordinators to lead the Personal Project experience. Coordinators often have high levels
of institutional expertise and knowledge. They are in an ideal position to leverage this know-how
to support supervisors and students. The empowerment of coordinators depends on trust from
senior leadership, discretion to match topics with supervisors, and additional time and other
resources. The backing may further include opportunities to join Personal Project-specific
professional development. Additionally, schools may institute systems where coordinators
formally record important knowledge, perhaps in the form of a cumulative portfolio, to inform
their successors when they leave the school.
• Nurture structures that allow supervisors to share and support each other. Supervisor groups can
promote mutual support and professional learning opportunities by sharing experiences,
strategies for helping students, and how to overcome challenges. They may be especially
beneficial for first-time supervisors and supervisors in newly authorised schools. Depending on
the school context, such groups may be loose configurations without a formal leader or more
Schools with
Students
Offer a range of
supervisory
approaches in line
with context and
student needs
Design structures
that get students
working together
on the Personal
Project
Provide face-to-
face and written
guidance for
students from the
beginning of the
Personal Project
process
68
formal groups with an appointed, more experienced leader. Different forms of distributed
leadership hold the potential to add to the supervision experience.
• Design suitable criteria and processes for pairing students and supervisors. Supervising projects
can be demanding for faculty. This may be particularly so in schools where supervisors work with
large numbers of Personal Project students. Where possible, coordinators can discuss supervisor
preferences, keep a record of expertise and interests, and consider the faculty member’s
supervisory style. Other criteria may account for faculty workload, familiarity with the Personal
Project process, prior relations with students, and experience as a supervisor.
Figure 6.3. Schools with Faculty
6.2.3 Schools with the Community
• Position robust and ongoing community relations as the heart of the Personal Project
experience. Schools and students need the community to promote project relevance and social
impact; the community can also benefit from what students ‘give back’ through their projects.
Therefore, schools can work closely with their communities to garner support and help faculty
and students treasure the relationships formed. Schools can develop and sustain interactions
between students and community stakeholders. One example is explaining to students that they
should share their projects with their community partners and not ‘cut and run’ when completed.
In such a regard, a school’s reputation may determine community support for future projects.
• Provide ‘start-up’ support to Personal Project students. Making initial contact with relevant
community members and groups can be challenging for students. Schools can provide support
and advice with contacting stakeholders in a specific area, making initial contact, and managing
Schools with
Faculty
Nurture
supportive
structures that
allow supervisors
to share and
support each
other
Design suitable
criteria and
processes for
pairing students
and supervisors
Empower
coordinators to
lead the Personal
Project
experience
69
student and community expectations. Schools can also provide the community with information
about the Personal Project, including its purpose and expectations, lists of previous beneficial
projects, the support the schools can offer, and even advice on ‘talking’ to students.
• Empower students to engage the community and for the community to support students. After
establishing initial contact, the school and supervisors can consider stepping back and allowing
students to drive and shape the engagement. Likewise, involved community members and groups
are trusted to provide meaningful student support.
Figure 6.4. Schools with the Community
6.3 IB with Schools
• Reinforce the purposes and holistic benefits of the Personal Project process beyond formal
assessment. Data indicate that students value the Personal Project most for the whole process
and final product or outcome rather than only a mechanism for DP preparation. It seems
important that students and schools see the Personal Project for what it is – an opportunity to
systematically explore an area of personal passion that can benefit themselves and their
community, rather than only another pathway to higher DP scores.
• Provide targeted support to build Personal Project infrastructure for newly authorised schools and
those seeking IB authorisation. Given that data indicated that schools authorised to offer the MYP
for a longer time period tended to produce higher DP scores, the IB may consider instituting
mechanisms to give newly authorised schools a ‘jump start’ in understanding the Personal Project
purpose and associated structures. Support from the IB may target coordinators who play an
integral role in Personal Project implementation through professional development, structured
and unstructured networking opportunities, and clear written guidelines. The IB may also explore
Schools with
the
Community
Provide 'start-up'
support to
Personal Project
students
Empower
students to
engage the
community and
for the
community to
support students
Position robust
and ongoing
community
relations as the
heart of the
Personal Project
experiencer
70
opportunities to share promising practices from well established, successful schools. Early
authorisation support may be particularly valuable for schools serving lower socioeconomic status
students and new schools with faculty inexperienced in the IB.
• Review the Personal Project’s assessment structure. Data indicated that a perceived over-
emphasis on the final report can distract students from the learning process and experience
throughout the Personal Project. It may be worth reviewing the grading structure and assessing
the relative weight allocated to the final report. In addition, the IB may also wish to consider how
it communicates its expectations for the Personal Project, given that it is graded as pass/fail.
• Enhance the role of the International Baccalaureate Educator Network (IBEN) in spreading
Personal Project practices and supporting schools in less advantaged circumstances. Given the rich
knowledge accumulated about the Personal Project over the years in individual schools and the
unevenness of school contexts, the IB may consider constructing a data bank of promising
practices and make this accessible to all schools through the IBEN. Also, IBEN clusters can provide
peer-to-peer support specific to the Personal Project for newly authorised MYP schools and their
faculty or those serving less advantaged communities. IBEN clusters can be further supported by
input from MYP coordinators from more experienced schools and IB Field Representatives with
specialised expertise in, or passion for, the Personal Project. Similarly, given the critical role of
coordinators in structuring school-based practices that lead to successful enactment, the IBEN
provides a potential mechanism for sustained coordinator and supervisor professional learning
around Personal Project implementation and exchange of facilitative school-based support
structures and strategies. In these ways, the IBEN can provide ongoing, informal, and needs-
responsive support that enhances the impact of formal IB workshops and training sessions.
• Help schools explore different supervision models based on promising practices in different
circumstances. Given the stark differences in supervisor-to-student ratios across schools, the IB
may work with heads of schools and coordinators to guide instituting in- and cross-school
collaborative structures. This might include advice about ways to collaborate that emphasises
mentoring and peer dialogue strategies for supervision, understanding of ATL skills and how they
relate to the Personal Project, and the potential of promoting a richer and more well-rounded
sense of student achievement.
• Take stock of a school’s contextual factors on the Personal Project journey. Unsurprisingly, data
showed that various contextual factors, including socioeconomic status, can influence students’
Personal Project outcomes. This is apparent in areas such as family support, supervisor-student
ratios, and the availability of community resources. Given such differences, the IB should be aware
of the implications for students to realise the full benefits of the Personal Project experience. The
71
IB may consider further exploring and resourcing structures to bring more- and less-advantaged
schools together to benefit students. Configurations may include:
• Cross-school clusters
• Sister school schemes
• Short-term coordinator or supervisor exchange programs
• Further expanding the IBEN
• Maximise the ongoing and collective contribution to the community. Personal Projects are
generally seen as discrete projects - the benefits of which to individual students’ academic and
personal development are clear. However, the potential of a collective contribution seems to be
underexplored, especially in terms of supporting schools’ broader communities. A promising
practice identified in the interviews was inviting community stakeholders to attend the Personal
Project exhibition to see students present their work. Schools may ask how the Personal Project
can further be leveraged to build community connections through questions such as:
• How can the collective impact of Personal Projects in the community be gauged?
• How can Personal Project outcomes be made more widely available across the community?
• How can Personal Projects be catalogued and shared across different years?
• How can schools leverage the Personal Project as a mechanism for continued engagement
with the local community?
Figure 6.5. IB with Schools
IB with
Schools
Reinforce the
purposes and holistic
benefits of the
Personal Project.
Provide targeted
support to build
Personal Project
infrastructure for new
schools.
Review the Personal
Project's assessment
structure.
Enhance the role of
the IBEN to spread
high-quality Personal
Project practices.
Help schools explore
different supervision
models based.
Take stock of a
school's contextual
factors on the
Personal Project
journey
Maximise the ongoing
and collective
contribution to the
community.
72
7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study investigated the outcomes of the IB MYP’s capstone Personal Project experience for
students, school faculty, and communities that surround schools. The research team identified
multiple benefits in each category of analysis and suggested emerging promising practices and
recommendations for potential uptake across schools and by the IB. Student and school participation
in the Personal Project provides a clear benefit to students as a ‘step up’ to the DP. In addition, the
experience has strong potential to move beyond supporting academic achievement by developing
students across a range of learning outcomes that are unlikely to be fully captured by DP exam or
Extended Essay scores. Moreover, the potential benefits extend to providing a platform for individual
and collective professional learning by faculty as well as establishing and sustaining vibrant
connections with local communities. We believe that these benefits can be further leveraged by IB
schools worldwide.
The findings point to clear and considerable benefits of the Personal Project for various
stakeholders. However, the study also reveals a few areas pertaining to school context and assessment
practices that the IB may wish to probe in more depth to address possible concerns around equity and
social impact. Future research may address these concerns by providing more detailed ethnographic
studies of the experience of completing a Personal Project, focusing on community stakeholders and
their perspectives from the ‘other side’ of projects, and comparing the potential complementary
facets of Creativity, Activity, Service in the DP or the Reflective Project in the CP and the potential for
sustaining positive outcomes.
Overall, the Personal Project is an integral part of the IB ‘school career’ and marks the MYP as
a unique programme for middle school-aged students. Whilst an ambitious and visionary undertaking,
the findings of this study suggest that the experience is a valuable endeavour for students, school
faculty, and the communities with which they engage.
73
REFERENCES
Ateşkan, A., Dulun, Ö., & Lane, J. F. (2016). Middle Years Programme (MYP) implementation in
Turkey. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://www.ibo.org/contentassets/a7bc64e18f3a4a5493d4213f648f8b18/research-myp-in-turkey-
full-report-en.pdf
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2015). The International Baccalaureate (IB)
Middle Years Programme (MYP): Comparing IB Diploma Programme outcomes of students who
complete the MYP and other middle years courses of study. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate
Organisation. https://ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/myp/comparing-dp-outcomes-
with-myp-report-en.pdf
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House,
83(2), 39-43. DOI: 10.1080/00098650903505415.
Bryant, D. A., Walker, A., & Lee, M. (2016). A review of the linkage between student participation in
the International Baccalaureate continuum and student learning attributes. Journal of Research in
International Education, 15(2), 87-105. DOI: 10.1177/1475240916658743.
Bryant, D. A., Walker, A., & Lee, M. (2018). Successful leadership in International schools: Lessons from
the Asia-Pacific. Australian Educational Leader, 40(1), 26-29. DOI:
10.3316/informit.478617890744846.
Bullock, K. (2011). International Baccalaureate learner profile: Literature review. Bethesda, MD:
International Baccalaureate Organisation. https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-
research/iblearnerprofileeng.pdf
Bunnell, T. (2011). The International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme after 30 years: A critical
inquiry. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(3), 261-274. DOI:
10.1177/1475240911423604.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice,
39(3), 124-130. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dickson, A., Perry, L. B., & Ledger, S. (2020). Letting go of the Middle Years Programme: Three schools’
rationales for discontinuing an International Baccalaureate program. Journal of Advanced Academics,
31(1), 35-60. DOI: 10.1177/1932202X19869006.
Durel, R. J. (1993). The capstone course: A rite of passage. Teaching Sociology, 21(3), 223-225. DOI:
10.2307/1319014.
Fairman, J. C., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2012). Spheres of teacher leadership action for learning.
Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 229-246. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2012.657865.
74
Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Maidenhead,
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative
results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family
Medicine, 13(6), 554-561. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1865.
Hammer, S., Abawi, L., Gibbings, P., Jones, H., Redmond, P., & Shams, S. (2018). Developing a generic
review framework to assure capstone quality. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 730-
743. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1453787.
Hare, J. (2010). Holistic education: An interpretation for teachers in the IB programmes. Cardiff,
Wales: International Baccalaureate Organization. https://manchesters.in/public/portal-
docs/1800_Holistic_learning.pdf
Harrison, R., Albright, E., & Manlove, S. (2015). Evolving the IB Middle Years Programme. The
International Schools Journal, 35(1), 71-86.
Hayden, M., McIntosh, S., Sandoval-Hernández, A., & Thompson, J. (2020). Global citizenship:
Changing student perceptions through an international curriculum. Globalisation, Societies and
Education, 18(5), 589-602. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2020.1816158.
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications.
New York: Routledge.
International Baccalaureate. (2015). International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme subject
brief. Retrieved online from: https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/digital-toolkit/brochures/myp-
brief_personal-project_2015.pdf.
International Baccalaureate. (2017). Extended Essay guide. Bethesda, MD: International
Baccalaureate Organisation.
International Baccalaureate. (2018). Personal Project guide. Bethesda, MD: International
Baccalaureate Organisation.
International Baccalaureate (2021a). The IB Middle Years Programme statistical bulletin, May 2021
examination session: Retrieved online from: https://www.ibo.org/about-the-ib/facts-and-
figures/statistical-bulletins/middle-years-programme-statistical-bulletin/.
International Baccalaureate. (2021b). Personal Project guide. Bethesda, MD: International
Baccalaureate Organisation.
International Baccalaureate. (2022a). Find an IB world school. Retrieved online from:
http://www.ibo.org/programmes/find-an-ib-school/.
International Baccalaureate. (2022b). IB Learner Profile. Retrieved online from:
https://www.ibo.org/contentassets/fd82f70643ef4086b7d3f292cc214962/learner-profile-en.pdf.
International Baccalaureate. (2022c). Personal Project. Retrieved online from:
https://www.ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/assessment-and-exams/personal-
project/.
75
International Baccalaureate. (2022d). Moderation. Retrieved online
from: https://www.ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/assessment-and-exams/e-
portfolios/moderation/.
International Baccalaureate. (2022e). Assessment and exams. Retrieved online from:
https://www.ibo.org/programmes/diploma-programme/assessment-and-exams/
International Baccalaureate. (2022f). Dr Siva Kumari MYP Student Innovators’ Grant. Retrieved online
from:https://www.ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/dr-siva-kumari-myp-student-
innovators-grant/
Jarvis, J., Lawson, M., Rudzinksi, A., Van Deur, P., Brady, K., & Palmer, C. (2013). Evaluation of learner
profile attributes and competencies in South Australian International Baccalaureate (IB-MYP)
students. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://www.ibo.org/contentassets/4ccc99665bc04f3686957ee197c13855/ib2013_researchreportfi
nal.pdf
King, G., Lucas, C., & Nielsen, R. (2017). The balance-sample size frontier in matching methods for
causal inference. American Journal of Political Science and Politics, 61(2), 473-489.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12272
Lee, M., Spinks, J. A., Wright, E., Dean, J., & Ryoo, J. H. (2017). A study of the post-secondary
outcomes of IB Diploma alumni in leading universities in Asia Pacific. Bethesda, MD: International
Baccalaureate Organisation. https://ibo.org/research/outcomes-research/diploma-studies/a-study-
of-the-post-secondary-outcomes-of-international-baccalaureate-diploma-programme-alumni-in-
leading-universities-in-asia-pacific-2017/
Lee, M., Mo, Y., Wright, E., Lin, W., Kim, J. W., Bellibas, M., Faigen, B., Gumus, S., Ryoo, J. H., & Tarc,
P. (2022). Decoding the IB teacher professional: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, China,
Denmark, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States. Bethesda, MD: International
Baccalaureate Organisation. https://ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/continuum/talis-
full-report.pdf
Lee, N., & Loton, D. (2019). Capstone purposes across disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1),
134-150. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1347155.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, E. M. (2022). Why IB? Post-16 choice processes in a dual-curriculum UK independent school.
Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation. https://ibo.org/globalassets/new-
structure/research/pdfs/why-ib-e-mitchell-jta-final-report.pdf
Ozili, P. K. (2022). The acceptable R-square in empirical model for social science research. Working
paper, Available at SSRN 4128165.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
76
Perry, L. B., Ledger, S., & Dickson, A. (2018). What are the benefits of the International Baccalaureate
Middle Years Programme for teaching and learning? Perspectives from stakeholders in Australia.
Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/myp/myp-in-australia-final-report-2018-
en.pdf
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis
methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Ryan, A. M., Tocci, C., Ensminger, D., Rismiati, C., & Moughania, A. (2018). The incorporation of the IB
learner profile in Chicago Public Schools Middle Years Programmes. Bethesda, MD: International
Baccalaureate Organisation. https://ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/myp/myp-
learner-profile-cps-full-report-2018-en.pdf
Shiffler, R. E. (1988). Maximum Z scores and outliers. The American Statistician, 42(1), 79–80. DOI:
10.1080/00031305.1988.10475530.
Sperandio, J. (2010). School program selection: Why schools worldwide choose the International
Baccalaureate Middle Years Program. Journal of School Choice, 4(2), 137-148. DOI:
10.1080/15582159.2010.483916.
Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2009). Group depth interviews: Focus group
research. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The Sage handbook of applied social research methods (pp.
589-617). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical
Science, 25, 1-21.
Tan, L. (2021). Performance comparison between IB and non-IB school students on the International
Schools' Assessment. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/outcomes/isa-final-report.pdf
UK NARIC. (2019). Comparative analysis of assessment in the IB Middle Years Programme and the
GCSE. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://www.ibo.org/contentassets/a7bc64e18f3a4a5493d4213f648f8b18/myp-gcse-assessment-
comparison---uk-naric-final-report.pdf
Valle, J. M., Menéndez, M., Manso, J., Garrido, R., & Thoilliez, B. (2017). Implementation and outcomes
of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Middle Years Programme (MYP) in Spanish schools. Bethesda,
MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation. https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-
research/myp/myp-in-spain-summary-2017-en.pdf
Wade, J., & Wolanin, N. (2015). A comparison of MYP and non-MYP students' participation and
performance in high school. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/myp/myp-participation-and-
performance-full-report.pdf
77
Walker, A., Bryant, D., & Lee, M. (2014). The International Baccalaureate continuum: Student, teacher
and school outcomes. Bethesda, MD: International Baccalaureate Organisation.
https://www.ibo.org/globalassets/publications/ib-research/continuum/continuum_report_final-
en.pdf
Walker, A., & Lee, M. (2018). Weaving curriculum connections in International Baccalaureate (IB)
schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(5), 468-485. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2018.1515837.
Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A
review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134-171. DOI:
10.3102/0034654316653478.
Wright, E., & Lee, M. (2014a). Developing skills for youth in the 21st century: The role of elite
International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools in China. International Review of Education,
60(2), 199-216. DOI: 10.1007/s11159-014-9404-6.
Wright, E., & Lee, M. (2014b). Elite International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools and inter-
cultural understanding in China. British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 149-169. DOI:
10.1080/00071005.2014.924615.
Wright, E., Lee, M., Tang, H., & Tsui, G. C. P. (2016). Why offer the International Baccalaureate Middle
Years Programme? A comparison between schools in Asia-Pacific and other regions. Journal of
Research in International Education, 15(1), 3-17. DOI: 10.1177/1475240916635896.
Wright, E., & Lee, M. (2019). Re/producing the global middle class: International Baccalaureate alumni
at ‘world-class’ universities in Hong Kong. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(5),
682-696. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2019.1573880.
78
APPENDIX
Appendix I
Table 1. Final Models’ Proportions of Variance Explained and Covariates’ Patterns of Significance
School-level
Student-level
Group
Outcome
Variance
explained
Covariates
Statistically
significant
Covariates
Statistically
significant
Full DP
DP exams
20%
4
3
7
2
EE
6%
4
2
7
5
CP
DP exams
7%
4
0
4
2
Course
candidates
DP exams
4%
4
0
6
3
Note: Full DP = students (n = 45,938) who took a combination of six or more Higher Level (HL) or
Standard Level (SL) courses in the Diploma Programme (DP); CP = students (n = 2,303) in the
Career-Related Programme and took a combination of fewer than six HL or SL courses; Course
candidates = students (n = 18,440) in the DP who took a combination of fewer than six HL or SL
courses; EE = Extended Essay.
79
Appendix II
Before the data cleaning, the research team first accounted for repeated students’ results attributed
to schools offering two programmes (DP and CP). By separating the school data, students’ Personal
Project and DP scores, the research team removed the duplicated entries, but not the student cases.
In other words, the sample remained the same (n = 69,100). Second, entries were removed from
students who withdrew from both the MYP and DP. The student samples remaining in the dataset
equalled 68,214 (98.7% of the original data the research team received from the IB). Third, some
entries recorded no assessment scores (i.e., Personal Project, DP exams, Extended Essay). The
research team decided that those entries lacked relevant predictive and outcome variables for
addressing the research questions. Hence, those entries were removed, and 66,735 students
remained in the sample (96.6% of the original data). Fourth, the research team investigated entries
that consisted of students taking identical courses, but where the data showed differences in
assessment scores and/or assessment year due to re-takes. We extracted the data from these
students' earlier year scores from DP courses and the later year scores from Personal Project to ensure
the closest temporal connection between Personal Project and DP assessments, thus maximising
potential claims regarding predictive validity. The student sample size remained the same (n = 66,735).
Fifth, 37 students who attended two DP schools were removed due to their potential for contributing
to confounding variability.
Table 1. Steps and Actions of Data Cleaning
Steps
Actions
n
(after steps)
Percentage
of original
dataset
Raw data cases from
mother file
Population from the original dataset
69,100
100%
1. Repeated rows
Removed duplicated cases attributing to
schools that offered two programmes
(DP and CP)
69,100
100%
2. Withdrawal entries
Removed entries that recorded
withdrawal of both MYP and DP
68,214
98.7%
3. Empty entries
Removed empty entries that recorded no
assessment scores, which have no
contribution to the research questions
66,735
96.6%
4. Re-take cases
Removed re-take cases (retaining the
shortest distance between Personal
Project and DP)
66,735
96.6%
5. Students who had
attended two DP
schools
Removed 37 students who had attended
two DP schools (identified by the variable
of 'IBISCode_DPCP')
66,698
96.5%
Remaining cases (n = 66,698) were organized in long-to-wide format
80
Appendix III
Table 1. Descriptive Table of Programme Samples
Group
Conditions
n
Full DP students
• Students completed ≥ 6 total of SL and HL DP courses
(regardless of stated programme status in IB’s student
registration data) anywhere in the world;
• Excluding CP and CP-anticipated students
45,938
CP students
• Students completed < 6 total of SL and HL DP courses who
are in the CP anywhere in the world
2,303
Course candidates
• Students completed < 6 total of SL and HL DP courses
(regardless of stated programme status in IB’s student
registration data) anywhere in the world;
• Excluding CP and CP-anticipated students
18,440
Sub-Total
66,681
Outliers
Students who had taken dual programmes (e.g., DP and CP
courses)
27
Total
66,698
Table 2. Descriptive Table of Cohort Samples
Personal Project taken in
10
th
grade
DP taken in 11
th
or 12
th
grade
n for students who took DP
within 2 years
2016
Finished at/before 2018
19,922
2017
Finished at/before 2019
21,692
2018
Finished at/before 2020
24,768
Sub-Total
66,382
Outliers
316
Total
66,698
81
Appendix IV
Table 1. Descriptive Table of Analytical Samples for Addressing RQ1
Analytical samples
Conditions
n
Full DP students
who took DP
exams
• Personal Project students who took full DP Personal Project
performance predicts DP exam score conditioned on
student and school characteristics
41,866
Full DP students
who took Extended
Essay
• Personal Project students who tookfull DP Personal Project
performance predicts Extended Essay score conditioned on
the student and school characteristics
40,497
CP students who
took DP exams
• Personal Project students who took CP Personal Project
performance predicts DP exam score conditioned on
student and school characteristics
1,578
Course candidate
students who took
DP exams
• Personal Project students who took course candidate
Personal Project performance predicts DP exam score
conditioned on student and school characteristics
13,122
Table 2. Descriptive Table of Analytical Samples for Addressing RQ2
Analytical samples
Conditions
n
DP students did
Personal Project
• DP students whose Personal Project scored 1-32
• Matched samples
18,212
DP students did not
participate in
Personal Project
• DP students who have no Personal Project scores
• Matched samples
5,886
Note: “0 score” will be excluded based on the assessment rubric which comprised of 1 to 32 points”
Table 3. Descriptive Table of Analytical Samples for Addressing RQ3
Analytical samples
Conditions
n
US Personal Project
students who are
course candidates
• US Personal Project students who took 1-5 DP courses
9,555
US Personal Project
students who took
full DP
• US Personal Project students who took > 5 DP courses
15,377
US Personal Project
students who took
DP exams
• US Personal Project students who took full DP
• Personal Project performance predicts DP exam score
conditioned on student and school characteristics
10,029
US Personal Project
students who took
Extended Essay
• US Personal Project students who took full DP
• Personal Project performance predicts Extended Essay score
conditioned on the student and school characteristics
9,670
82
Table 4. Score Calculation
Scores
Attributes
Variables label in SPSS
Point
Re-calculation is needed
or not? (Y/N)
Personal
Project score
Single vector of scale
TOTAL_SCALED_MYP
1-32
N, using original total
points
Extended
Essay score
Single vector of scale
EE_Score
0-34
N, using original total
points
DP exam
score
Each subject on 1-7
grades
DP Average_Grade
1-7
Y, using grades per
subject to calculate each
student’s average DP
exam score for all
students who took at
least 2 DP exams,
regardless of whether
they were full DP
students, CP students, or
course candidates.
Table 5. School- and Student-level Variables Used in the Analysis
Levels
Variables
Variables label in SPSS
Values/
categories
Recode
needed?
(Y/N)
School-level characteristics
School
School ID
IBISCode_MYP
IBISCode_DPCP
Various
N
School
Legal status
in MYP/DPCP
LegalStatus_MYP
LegalStatus_DPCP
1 = Charter,
2 = Private,
3 = State,
4 = State-
subsidized
Y
School
Years since
MYP/DPCP
authorization
AuthorizationDate_MYP
AuthorizationDate_DPCP
Numeric
Y
School
Number of
registered
students per
programme
Newly constructed variable [Counting
number of students registered in DP/CP]
Numeric
Y
Student-level characteristics
Student
Student ID
CANDIDATE
Various
N
Student
Gender
GENDER_MYP
1 = Female, 0 =
Male or “X”
Y
Student
Self-reported
lanagugae
matched with
MYPor DPCP
schools’
Newly constructed variables
[computing "Language match in MYP":
LANGUAGE1_MYP and LANGUAGE2_MYP
match with
PrimaryLanaguageofInstruction_MYP
Numeric
Y
83
languages of
instruction
and/or
SecondaryLanaguageofInstruction_MYP]
[computing "Language match in DPCP":
LANGUAGE1_MYP and LANGUAGE2_MYP
match with
PrimaryLanaguageofInstruction_DPCP
and/or
SecondaryLanaguageofInstruction_DPCP]
Student
Additional
rigour of DP
coursework
Newly constructed variable
[Using "LVL_DPCP" on each subject to
count students who had taken more than 3
HL courses]
Numeric
Y
Student
Cohort year
Newly constructed variables
[Using "YEAR_MYP" and "YEAR_DPCP" to
compute "Cohort year 1" (Years taken
Personal Project in 2016 and DP exams by
2018)]
[Using "YEAR_MYP" and "YEAR_DPCP" to
compute to compute "Cohort year 2"
(Years taken Personal Project in 2017 and
DP exams by 2019)]
[Using "YEAR_MYP" and "YEAR_DPCP" to
compute "Cohort year 3" (Years taken
Personal Project in 2018 and DP exams by
2020)]
Numeric
Y
Student
Federal
Program on
Free and
Reduced-
Priced Meals
Newly constructed variables
[Using "Free_LUNCH_PROGRAM_DPCP" to
compute "Free lunch programme" to
identify students who had participated in
the programme or not]
Numeric
Y
Student
English
proficiency
Newly constructed variables
[Using "ENGLISH_PROFICIENCY_DPCP_to
compute "English Proficiency" to identify
students attained different levels]
Numeric
Y
84
Appendix V
a. Equations of Hierarchical Linear Modeling on analytical sample of full DP students who took DP
exams (Final model)
Level-1 Model
DP_ZAVERAGESCORE
ij
= β
0j
+ β
1j
*(PP_ZSCORE
ij
) + β
2j
*(RIGOUR_HL
ij
) + β
3j
*(FEMALE
ij
) +
β
4j
*(MYP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
5j
* (DP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
6j
*(COHORTYEAR_1
ij
)
β
7j
*(COHORTYEAR_2
ij
) +r
ij
Level-2 Model
β
0j
= γ
00
+ γ
01
*(PRIVATE
j
) + γ
02
*(MYP_AUTHYEAR
j
) + γ
03
*(DP_AUTHYEAR
j
)
+ γ
04
*(StudentsPerProgramme
j
) + u
0j
b. Equations of Hierarchical Linear Modeling on analytical sample of full DP students who took
Extended Eassay (Final model)
Level-1 Model
EE_ZSCORE
ij
= β
0j
+ β
1j
*(PP_ZSCORE
ij
) + β
2j
*(RIGOUR_HL
ij
) + β
3j
*(FEMALE
ij
)
+ β
4j
*(MYP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
5j
*(DP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
6j
*(COHORTYEAR_1
ij
)
+ β
7j
*(COHORTYEAR_2
ij
) +r
ij
Level-2 Model
β
0j
= γ
00
+ γ
01
*(PRIVATE
j
) + γ
02
*(MYP_AUTHYEAR
j
) + γ
03
*(DP_AUTHYEAR
j
)
+ γ
04
*(StudentsPerProgramme
j
) + u
0j
c. Equations of Hierarchical Linear Modeling on analytical sample of CP students who took DP
exams (Final model)
Level-1 Model
DP_ZAVERAGESCORE
ij
= β
0j
+ β
1j
*(PP_ZSCORE
ij
) + β
2j
*(FEMALE
ij
) +
β
3j
*(MYP_LANGUAGEMATCH_
ij
) + β
4j
*(CP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + r
ij
Level-2 Model
β
0j
= γ
00
+ γ
01
*(PRIVATE
j
) + γ
02
*(MYP_AUTHYEAR
j
) + γ
03
*(CP_AUTHYEAR
j
)
+ γ
04
*(StudentsPerProgramme
j
) + u
0j
d. Equations of Hierarchical Linear Modeling on analytical sample of course candidates who took
DP exams (Final model)
Level-1 Model
DP_ZAVERAGESCORE
ij
= β
0j
+ β
1j
*(PP_ZSCORE
ij
) + β
2j
*(FEMALE
ij
)
+ β
3j
*(MYP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
4j
*(DP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
5j
* (COHORTYEAR_1
ij
)
+ β
6j
*(COHORTYEAR_2
ij
) +r
ij
Level-2 Model
β
0j
= γ
00
+ γ
01
*(PRIVATE
j
) + γ
02
*(MYP_AUTHYEAR
j
) + γ
03
*(DP_AUTHYEAR
j
)
+ γ
04
*(StudentsPerProgramme
j
) + u
0j
85
e. Equations of Hierarchical Linear Modeling on analytical sample of United States Personal Project
students who took DP exams (Final model)
Level-1 Model
DP_ZAVERAGESCORE
ij
= β
0j
+ β
1j
*(PP_ZSCORE
ij
) + β
2j
*(RIGOUR_HL
ij
) + β
3j
*(FEMALE
ij
)
+ β
4j
*(MYP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
5j
*(FREELUNCH
ij
) + β
6j
*(ENGPRO_1
ij
) +
β
7j
*(ENGPRO_2
ij
) +r
ij
Level-2 Model
β
0j
= γ
00
+ γ
01
*(STATE
j
) + γ
02
*(STATESUB
j
) + γ
03
*(MYP_AUTHYEAR
j
) + γ
04
*(DP_AUTHYEAR
j
)
+ γ
05
*(StudentsPerProgramme
j
) u
0j
f. Equations of Hierarchical Linear Modeling on analytical sample of United States Personal Project
students who took Extended Essay (Final model)
Level-1 Model
EE_ZSCORE
ij
= β
0j
+ β
1j
*(PP_ZSCORE
ij
) + β
2j
*(RIGOUR_HL
ij
) + β
3j
*(FEMALE
ij
)
+ β
4j
*(MYP_LANGUAGEMATCH
ij
) + β
5j
*(FREELUNCH
ij
) + β
6j
*(ENGPRO_1
ij
) +
β
7j
*(ENGPRO_2
ij
) +r
ij
Level-2 Model
β
0j
= γ
00
+ γ
01
*(STATE
j
) + γ
02
*(STATESUB
j
) + γ
03
*(MYP_AUTHYEAR
j
) + γ
04
*(DPCP_AUTHYEAR
j
)
+ γ
05
*(StudentsPerProgramme
j
) u
0j
g. Equations of multivariate multilevel model on DP outcomes (Final model)
Score
yijk
=
y
+ e
yijk
+ f
yjk
+
g
k
Score
yijk
=
y
+ e
yijk
+ f
yjk
+
g
k
+
ywjk
Project
yijk
+
yxjk
Year
yijk
+
yzjk
Interactions
yijk
In the vector Score
yij
, outcome y (DP exams and Extended Essay scores) of student i in
school j in country k has grand mean intercept
y
, with unexplained components
(residuals) at the student-, school-, and country-levels (e
yij
, f
yj
, g
k
).
86
Appendix VI
Table 1. The Proportion of School and Student Variance on Analytical Samples
Analytical sample
Proportion of
school variance
Proportion of
student variance
Full DP students who took DP exams
43.77%
56.23%
Full DP students who took Extended
Essay
21.04%
78.96%
CP students who took DP exams
48.12%
51.88%
Course candidates who took DP
exams
32.90%
67.10%
US Personal Project students who
took DP exams
44.82%
55.18%
US Personal Project students who
took Extended Essay
19.58%
80.42%
Note: The figures might not sum to 100% due to rounding
Table 2. The Proportion of Country, School, and Student Variance on Analytical Samples
Analytical sample
Proportion
of country
variance
Proportion of
school
variance
Proportion of
student
variance
Full DP students who took DP exams
16.46%
11.83%
71.71%
Full DP students who took Extended Essay
7.30%
4.42%
88.28%
CP students who took DP exams
30.07%
12.27%
57.65%
Course candidates who took DP exams
10.00%
18.72%
71.28%
Note: The figures might not sum to 100% due to rounding
87
Appendix VII
Example Interview Guide for DP Students
Introduction
▪ Could you please introduce yourself and share a bit about your background?
▪ How would you describe your school to someone who had never visited?
Reflections on the Personal Project
▪ What did you do for your Personal Project?
▪ How did your school and teachers support you with the Personal Project?
▪ What were the main things you learned through working on the Personal Project?
▪ Did you face any challenges with the Personal Project?
o What were the biggest challenges AND did you seek to overcome them?
▪ From your experience, what was the best thing about the Personal Project?
▪ From your experience, what was the worst thing about the Personal Project?
o What could be done to change this?
▪ How do you think your school or country context impacted your Personal Project?
The Personal Project and the DP
▪ How did the MYP in general prepare you for the DP?
▪ How did the Personal Project prepare you for the DP?
▪ How did the Personal Project prepare you for the Extended Essay?
▪ How do you think the Personal Project will impact you over the longer term beyond the DP?
Personal Project and the community
▪ Did you engage with the communities outside school for your Personal Project?
o If so, how did you make the initial connection?
▪ Were you able to contribute to the community through your personal project?
▪ Did you have any challenges working with community while doing the Personal Project?
o What were the biggest challenges and how did you seek to overcome them?
Final reflections
▪ Overall, what did you gain most from the Personal Project?
▪ If you could give one suggestion to the IB to improve the Personal Project, what would it be?
88
Appendix VIII
a. Results of normality test on analytical sample of full DP students who took DP exams (N =
41,866)
Personal Project score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.148
0.012
12.333
Kurtosis
-0.254
0.024
-10.583
DP exam score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
-0.158
0.012
-13.167
Kurtosis
-0.312
0.024
-13.000
89
b. Results of normality test on analytical sample of full DP students who took Extended Essay (N =
40,497)
Personal Project score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.146
0.012
12.167
Kurtosis
-0.256
0.024
-10.667
Extended Essay score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.160
0.012
13.333
Kurtosis
-0.673
0.024
-28.042
c. Results of normality test on analytical sample of CP students who took DP exams (N = 1,578)
90
Personal Project score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.447
0.062
7.210
Kurtosis
-0.122
0.123
-0.999
DP exam score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
-0.117
0.062
-1.887
Kurtosis
0.141
0.123
1.146
d. Results of normality test on analytical sample of course candidates who took DP exams (N =
13,122)
91
Personal Project score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.532
0.021
25.333
Kurtosis
0.093
0.043
2.163
DP exam score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.112
0.021
5.333
Kurtosis
-0.076
0.043
-1.767
92
e. Results of normality test on analytical sample of United States Personal Project students who
took DP exams (N = 10,029)
Personal Project score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.444
0.024
18.5
Kurtosis
0.440
0.049
8.980
DP exam score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
-0.113
0.024
-4.708
Kurtosis
-0.143
0.049
-2.918
93
f. Results of normality test on analytical sample of United States Personal Project students who
took Extended Essay (N = 9,670)
Personal Project score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.460
0.025
18.4
Kurtosis
0.463
0.050
9.26
Extended Essay score
Statistic
SE
Z-score
Skewness
0.456
0.025
18.24
Kurtosis
-0.225
0.050
-4.5
94
The critical values of Z-score upper and lower limits could be defined by sample sizes (Shiffler, 1988).
In a small sample, the value of a Z-score greater or lesser than 1.96 could be assumed as normally
distributed. This criterion could be revised to ± 2.58 for large samples. However, no criteria on the
critical values of Z-score could be applied in very large samples (i.e., significance tests of skewness and
kurtosis), as the sample means tend to follow a normal distribution based on the Central Limit
Theorem. In terms of skewness and kurtosis, results showed that the threshold are between -0.5 and
0.5, indicating the distribution is approximately symmetric. Referring to the visual graphs in this
Appendix, Personal Project, Extended Essay, and DP exams scores on each analytical sample have bell-
shaped distribution curves. Therefore, the assessment scores could be assumed to have normal
distributions.
95
Appendix IX
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytical Sample on Full DP Students Who Took DP Exams and the
Extended Essay
Full DP students
who took DP exams
(Student n = 41,866;
School n = 590)
Full DP students
who took Extended
Essay
(Student n = 40,497;
School n = 590)
M
SD
M
SD
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
0.63
0.48
0.63
0.48
Number of years since MYP authorisation year (2021-
MYP authorisation year)
11.83
5.88
11.83
5.88
Number of years since DP authorisation year (2021-DP
authorisation year)
17.15
10.50
17.15
10.50
Number of registered students in DP
76.53
90.73
76.53
90.73
Level 1 (student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
15.49
5.43
15.61
5.41
Extended Essay score
NA
NA
18.00
6.33
DP exams score
4.82
0.98
NA
NA
Female
0.56
0.50
0.56
0.50
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.82
0.38
0.82
0.38
Self-reported language matched with DP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.82
0.39
0.81
0.39
Additional rigour of DP coursework (1= More than 3
HL courses taken, focal group)
0.08
0.27
0.08
0.27
Cohort year 1 (1= Year taken Personal Project in 2016
and DP exams by 2018, focal group)
0.30
0.46
0.31
0.46
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2017
and DP exams by 2019, focal group)
0.32
0.47
0.33
0.47
Cohort year 3 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2018
and DP exams by 2020, reference group)
0.37
0.48
0.37
0.48
Note: NA = Not applicable.
96
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Analytical Sample on CP Students Who Took DP exams and Course
Candidates Who Took DP exams
CP students who
took DP exams
(Student n = 1,578;
School n = 68)
Course candidates
who took DP exams
(Student n = 13,122;
School n = 421)
M
SD
M
SD
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
0.32
0.47
0.56
0.50
Number of years since MYP authorisation year (2021-
MYP authorisation year)
11.28
4.73
12.33
5.76
Number of years since DP/CP authorisation year
(2021-DP/CP authorisation year)
5.93
2.15
18.57
10.65
Number of registered students in DP/CP
33.47
40.14
43.10
82.08
Level 1 (student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
10.54
4.71
11.03
4.95
DP exams score
3.81
0.96
3.80
1.11
Female
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.50
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.91
0.29
0.88
0.33
Self-reported language matched with DP/CP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.89
0.32
0.87
0.34
Cohort year 1 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2016
and DP exams by 2018, focal group)
0.22
0.41
0.29
0.45
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2017
and DP exams by 2019, focal group)
0.31
0.46
0.32
0.47
Cohort year 3 (1= Years taken Personal Project in 2018
and DP exams by 2020, reference group)
0.47
0.50
0.39
0.49
97
Appendix X
Table 1. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam Score on Analytical Sample of Full DP Students Who Took DP Exams (Student n = 41,866; School n = 590)
Fixed-effects parameter
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Intercept
-0.153
(0.031)
***
-0.156
(0.031)
***
-0.156
(0.031)
***
-0.156
(0.031)
***
-0.156
(0.031)
***
-0.156
(0.031)
***
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
0.136
(0.065)
*
0.134
(0.065)
*
0.134
(0.065)
*
0.134
(0.065)
*
0.134
(0.065)
*
0.134
(0.065)
*
Number of years since MYP authorization
year (2021-MYP authorization year)
0.013
(0.007)
*
0.014
(0.007)
*
0.014
(0.007)
*
0.014
(0.007)
*
0.014
(0.007)
*
0.014
(0.007)
*
Number of years since DP authorization
year (2021-DP authorization year)
-0.006
(0.004)
-0.006
(0.004)
-0.006
(0.004)
-0.006
(0.004)
-0.006
(0.004)
-0.006
(0.004)
Number of registered students in DP
0.001
(0.000)
*
0.001
(0.000)
*
0.001
(0.00)
*
0.001
(0.000)
*
0.001
(0.000)
*
0.001
(0.000)
*
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.432
(0.015)
***
0.421
(0.014)
***
0.418
(0.015)
***
0.418
(0.015)
***
0.418
(0.015)
***
Additional rigour DP coursework (1= More
than 3 HL courses taken, focal group)
0.371
(0.034)
***
0.372
(0.034)
***
0.373
(0.034)
***
0.373
(0.034)
***
Female
0.026
(0.016)
0.026
(0.016)
0.026
(0.016)
Self-reported language matched with MYP
school’s language of instruction (1=
Matched, focal group)
-0.061
(0.107)
-0.061
(0.107)
Self-reported language matched with DP
school’s language of instruction (1=
Matched, focal group)
0.068
(0.105)
0.068
(0.105)
Cohort year 1 (1= Years taken Personal
Project in 2016 and DP exams by 2018, focal
group)
0.182
(0.114)
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal
Project in 2017 and DP exams by 2019, focal
group)
-0.139
(0.263)
Total variance explained
0.183
0.198
0.198
0.198
0.198
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
98
Table 2. Personal Project Score Predicts Extended Essay Score on Analytical Sample of Full DP Students Who Took Extended Essay (Student n = 40,497; School n = 590)
Fixed-effects parameter
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Intercept
0.035
(0.024)
0.035
(0.024)
0.035
(0.024)
0.035
(0.024)
0.035
(0.024)
0.035
(0.024)
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
0.120
(0.051)
*
0.120
(0.051)
*
0.120
(0.051)
*
0.120
(0.051)
*
0.120
(0.051)
*
0.120
(0.051)
*
Number of years since MYP authorization
year (2021-MYP authorization year)
0.009
(0.005)
*
0.009
(0.005)
*
0.009
(0.005)
*
0.009
(0.005)
*
0.009
(0.005)
*
0.009
(0.005)
*
Number of years since DP authorization
year (2021-DP authorization year)
0.004
(0.003)
0.004
(0.003)
0.004
(0.003)
0.004
(0.003)
0.004
(0.003)
0.004
(0.003)
Number of registered students in DP
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.270
(0.012)
***
0.264
(0.012)
***
0.249
(0.012)
***
0.251
(0.012)
***
0.250
(0.012)
***
Additional rigour DP coursework (1= More
than 3 HL courses taken, focal group)
0.204
(0.042)
***
0.210
(0.042)
***
0.209
(0.042)
***
0.209
(0.042)
***
Female
0.131
(0.020)
***
0.131
(0.020)
***
0.131
(0.020)
***
Self-reported language matched with MYP
school’s language of instruction (1=
Matched, focal group)
-0.243
(0.099)
*
-0.243
(0.099)
*
Self-reported language matched with DP
school’s language of instruction (1=
Matched, focal group)
0.168
(0.098)
0.168
(0.098)
Cohort year 1 (1= Years taken Personal
Project in 2016 and DP exams by 2018, focal
group)
0.033
(0.152)
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal
Project in 2017 and DP exams by 2019, focal
group)
-0.592
(0.247)
*
Total variance explained
0.049
0.052
0.057
0.058
0.058
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
99
Table 3. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam Score on Analytical Sample of CP Students Who Took DP Exams (Student n = 1,578; School n = 68)
Fixed-effects parameter
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Intercept
-0.031
(0.094)
-0.032
(0.094)
-0.032
(0.094)
-0.032
(0.094)
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
-0.233
(0.196)
-0.230
(0.196)
-0.230
(0.196)
-0.230
(0.196)
Number of years since MYP authorisation year
(2021-MYP authorisation year)
-0.004
(0.019)
-0.004
(0.019)
-0.004
(0.019)
-0.004
(0.019)
Number of years since DP authorisation year
(2021-DP authorisation year)
0.018
(0.039)
0.018
(0.039)
0.018
(0.039)
0.018
(0.039)
Number of registered students in CP
-0.002
(0.003)
-0.002
(0.003)
-0.002
(0.003)
-0.002
(0.003)
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.264
(0.051)
***
0.258
(0.052)
***
0.258
(0.052)
***
Female
0.096
(0.061)
0.097
(0.061)
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
-0.157
(0.145)
Self-reported language matched with CP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.108
(0.051)
*
Total variance explained
0.065
0.068
0.068
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
100
Table 4. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exam Score on Analytical Sample of Course Candidates Who Took DP Exams (Student n = 13,122; School n = 421)
Fixed-effects parameter
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Intercept
0.107
(0.035)
**
0.108
(0.035)
**
0.108
(0.035)
**
0.108
(0.035)
**
0.108
(0.035)
**
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= Private, focal group)
-0.065
(0.073)
-0.065
(0.073)
-0.065
(0.073)
-0.065
(0.073)
-0.065
(0.073)
Number of years since MYP authorization year
(2021-MYP authorization year)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.010
(0.008)
Number of years since DP authorization year (2021-
DP authorization year)
-0.001
(0.004)
-0.001
(0.004)
-0.001
(0.004)
-0.001
(0.004)
-0.001
(0.004)
Number of registered course candidates
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.215
(0.022)
***
0.203
(0.022)
***
0.204
(0.022)
***
0.202
(0.022)
***
Female
0.119
(0.030)
***
0.118
(0.030)
***
0.117
(0.030)
***
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.134
(0.221)
0.124
(0.222)
Self-reported language matched with DP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
-0.239
(0.195)
-0.237
(0.195)
Cohort year 1 (1= Years taken Personal Project in
2016 and DP exams by 2018, focal group)
0.272
(0.236)
Cohort year 2 (1= Years taken Personal Project in
2017 and DP exams by 2019, focal group)
-1.075
(0.496)
*
Total variance explained
0.038
0.042
0.043
0.044
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
101
Appendix XI
Table 1. Results of the Multivariate Multilevel Regression Analyses on DP Exam Score and Essay
Scores
Modeling DP exam score
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Personal Project (1= Students did Personal
Project, focal group)
0.181
(0.018)
***
0.256
(0.020)
***
0.204
(0.021)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external
moderation 1 (1= Cohort year of 2017-2019,
focal group)
-0.146
(0.025)
***
-0.129
(0.022)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external
moderation 2 (1= Cohort year of 2018-2020,
focal group)
0.304
(0.021)
***
0.364
(0.029)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 1 (1= Students did
Personal Project in cohort year of 2017-
2019, focal group)
-0.221
(0.053)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 2 (1= Students did
Personal Project in cohort year of 2018-
2020, focal group)
-0.105
(0.039)
**
Total variance explained
0.006
0.009
0.010
Modeling Extended Essay score
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Personal Project (1= Students did Personal
Project, focal group)
2.205
(0.147)
***
1.679
(0.156)
***
1.911
(0.149)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external
moderation 1 (1= Cohort year of 2017-2019,
focal group)
-2.074
(0.194)
***
-2.193
(0.249)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external
moderation 2 (1= Cohort year of 2018-2020,
focal group)
-1.076
(0.226)
***
-1.017
(0.252)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 1 (1= Students did
Personal Project in cohort year of 2017-
2019, focal group)
-1.192
(0.420)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 2 (1= Students did
Personal Project in cohort year of 2018-
2020, focal group)
-0.837
(0.398)
*
Total variance explained
0.014
0.025
0.025
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
102
Table 2. Results of the Multivariate Multilevel Regression Analyses on DP Exam Scores
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Personal Project (1= Students did Personal
Project, focal group)
0.183
(0.014)
***
0.183
(0.014)
***
0.191
(0.014)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external moderation 1
(1= Cohort year of 2017-2019, focal group)
-0.124
(0.017)
***
-0.088
(0.020)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external moderation 2
(1= Cohort year of 2018-2020, focal group)
0.209
(0.018)
***
0.233
(0.020)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 1 (1= Students did Personal
Project in cohort year of 2017- 2019, focal group)
-0.143
(0.036)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 2 (1= Students did Personal
Project in cohort year of 2018-2020, focal group)
-0.094
(0.036)
**
Total variance explained
0.006
0.009
0.010
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 3. Results of the Multivariate Multilevel Regression Analyses on Extended Essay Scores
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Personal Project (1= Students did Personal
Project, focal group)
1.484
(0.114)
***
1.481
(0.113)
***
1.542
(0.115)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external moderation 1
(1= Cohort year of 2017-2019, focal group)
-1.729
(0.148)
***
-1.450
(0.166)
***
Cohort year of mandatory external moderation 2
(1= Cohort year of 2018-2020, focal group)
-1.086
(0.154)
***
-0.919
(0.171)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 1 (1= Students did Personal
Project in cohort year of 2017- 2019, focal group)
-1.089
(0.287)
***
Personal Project * Cohort year of mandatory
external moderation 2 (1= Students did Personal
Project in cohort year of 2018-2020, focal group)
-0.658
(0.289)
*
Total variance explained
0.014
0.027
0.025
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
103
Appendix XII
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of United States Personal Project students who took DP exams and
United States Personal Project students who took Extended Essay
US Personal Project
students who took DP
exams
(Student n = 10,029;
School n = 128)
US Personal Project
students who took
Extended Essay
(Student n = 9,670;
School n = 128)
M
SD
M
SD
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status 1 (1= State, focal group)
0.91
0.28
0.91
0.28
Legal status 2 (1= State subsidized, focal group)
0.02
0.15
0.02
0.15
Legal status 3 (1= Charter, reference group)
0.06
0.24
0.06
0.24
Number of years since MYP authorisation year
(2021-MYP authorisation year)
11.41
4.92
11.41
4.92
Number of years since DP authorisation year
(2021-DP authorisation year)
19.29
10.29
19.29
10.29
Number of registered students in DP
107.62
130.03
107.62
130.03
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
12.66
4.87
12.79
4.83
Extended Essay score
NA
NA
15.15
5.70
DP exams score
4.24
0.89
NA
NA
Female
0.61
0.49
0.61
0.49
Self-reported language matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1= Matched, focal group)
0.93
0.26
0.93
0.26
Additional rigour of DP coursework (1= More than
3 HL courses taken, focal group)
0.16
0.37
0.17
0.37
Free Lunch Programme (1= Participated, focal
group)
0.27
0.44
0.26
0.44
English Proficiency 1 (1= Level 1-3, focal group)
0.72
0.45
0.71
0.45
English Proficiency 2 (1= Unreported, focal group)
0.03
0.18
0.03
0.18
English Proficiency 3 (1= Level 4, reference group)
0.25
0.43
0.26
0.44
Note: NA = Not applicable.
104
Appendix XIII
Table 1. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exams Score on Analytical Sample of United States Personal Project Students Who Took DP Exams (Student n = 10,029; School n = 128)
Fixed-effects parameter
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Intercept
-0.130
(0.068)
-0.130
(0.068)
-0.130
(0.068)
-0.130
(0.068)
-0.130
(0.068)
-0.130
(0.068)
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= State, focal group)
-0.340
(0.306)
-0.323
(0.317)
-0.318
(0.320)
-0.318
(0.320)
-0.318
(0.320)
-0.317
(0.321)
Legal status (1= State Subsidised, focal
group)
0.140
(0.428)
0.173
(0.436)
0.183
(0.438)
0.183
(0.438)
0.183
(0.438)
0.186
(0.439)
Number of years since MYP
authorization year (2021-MYP
authorization year)
0.001
(0.016)
0.001
(0.016)
0.001
(0.016)
0.001
(0.016)
0.001
(0.016)
0.001
(0.016)
Number of years since DP authorization
year (2021-DP authorization year)
-0.004
(0.007)
-0.004
(0.007)
-0.004
(0.007)
-0.004
(0.007)
-0.004
(0.007)
-0.004
(0.007)
Number of registered students in DP
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.369
(0.031)
***
0.351
(0.031)
***
0.350
(0.031)
***
0.348
(0.031)
***
0.336
(0.030)
***
Additional rigour DP coursework (1=
More than 3 HL courses taken, focal
group)
0.392
(0.053)
***
0.392
(0.053)
***
0.395
(0.053)
***
0.389
(0.053)
***
Female
0.020
(0.031)
0.020
(0.031)
0.027
(0.031)
Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction (1=
Matched, focal group)
0.133
(0.066)
*
0.090
(0.064)
Free Lunch Programme (1= Participated,
focal group)
-0.207
(0.047)
***
English Proficiency 1 (1= Level 1-3, focal
group)
0.123
(0.106)
English Proficiency 2 (1= Unreported,
focal group)
-0.112
(0.091)
Total variance explained
0.105
0.135
0.135
0.136
0.144
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
105
Table 2. Personal Project Score Predicts DP Exams Score on Analytical Sample of United States Personal Project Students Who Took the Extended Essay (Student n = 9,670; School n = 128)
Fixed-effects parameter
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Coef.
(SE)
p-value
Intercept
0.019
(0.050)
0.018
(0.050)
0.018
(0.050)
0.018
(0.050)
0.018
(0.050)
0.018
(0.050)
Level 2 (School-level characteristics)
Legal status (1= State, focal group)
-0.303
(0.157)
-0.302
(0.160)
-0.301
(0.160)
-0.301
(0.160)
-0.301
(0.160)
-0.301
(0.160)
Legal status (1= State Subsidised, focal
group)
-0.648
(0.421)
-0.637
(0.428)
-0.636
(0.429)
-0.634
(0.431)
-0.634
(0.431)
-0.634
(0.431)
Number of years since MYP
authorization year (2021-MYP
authorization year)
0.010
(0.010)
0.010
(0.010)
0.010
(0.010)
0.010
(0.010)
0.010
(0.010)
0.010
(0.010)
Number of years since DP authorization
year (2021-DP authorization year)
-0.002
(0.006)
-0.002
(0.006)
-0.002
(0.006)
-0.002
(0.006)
-0.002
(0.006)
-0.002
(0.006)
Number of registered students in DP
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
0.000
(0.000)
Level 1 (Student-level characteristics)
Personal Project score
0.263
(0.027)
***
0.253
(0.026)
***
0.243
(0.025)
***
0.244
(0.025)
***
0.239
(0.025)
***
Additional rigour DP coursework (1=
More than 3 HL courses taken, focal
group)
0.185
(0.185)
***
0.186
(0.058)
***
0.185
(0.058)
***
0.182
(0.058)
**
Female
0.159
(0.031)
***
0.160
(0.031)
***
0.162
(0.031)
***
Self-reported language matched with
MYP school’s language of instruction (1=
Matched, focal group)
-0.058
(0.067)
-0.074
(0.065)
Free Lunch Programme (1= Participated,
focal group)
-0.083
(0.041)
*
English Proficiency 1 (1= Level 1-3, focal
group)
0.074
(0.167)
English Proficiency 2 (1= Unreported,
focal group)
-0.047
(0.086)
Total variance explained
0.038
0.042
0.047
0.047
0.047
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
101
Appendix XIV
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Personal Project Students Who Took DP Exams by Global Data and Non-
Global Data
Global data
(N = 56,578)
Non-global data
(N = 50,176)
M
SD
M
SD
Female
0.56
0.50
0.56
0.50
Self-reported language
matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1=
Matched)
0.84
0.37
0.86
0.35
Self-reported language
matched with DPCP school’s
language of instruction (1=
Matched)
0.83
0.38
0.85
0.35
Additional rigour of DP
coursework (1= More than 3
HL courses taken)
0.06
0.24
0.06
0.25
Personal Project score
14.32
5.63
13.93
5.64
DP exam score
4.55
1.10
4.48
1.11
Table 2. Results of Path Regressions on Student Characteristics, Personal Project, and DP Exam Scores
Global data
(N = 56,578)
Non-global data
(N = 50,176)
Estimate
SE
CR
P-value
Estimate
SE
CR
P-value
Female→ Personal Project score
0.172
0.008
20.451
***
0.161
0.009
17.932
***
Self-reported language matched
with MYP school’s language of
instruction → Personal Project
score
-0.147
0.011
-12.940
***
-0.094
0.013
-7.329
***
Female→ DP exam score
-0.001
0.007
-0.144
0.886
-0.002
0.008
-0.311
0.756
Self-reported language matched
with DPCP school’s language of
instruction →
DP exam score
-0.186
0.009
-20.031
***
-0.170
0.011
-16.053
***
Additional rigour of DP
coursework → DP exam score
0.258
0.015
17.772
***
0.269
0.015
17.646
***
Personal Project score →
DP exam score
0.547
0.003
156.516
***
0.538
0.004
143.867
***
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 3. Results of Chi-square Difference Between Unconstrained Model and Fully Constrained Model
Model Chi-square
df
Diff. Chi-square
Diff. df
p-value
Unconstrained model
219274.533
10
Fully constrained model
219290.829
20
16.296
10
0.091
102
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Personal Project Students Who Took the Extended Essay by Global Data
and Non-Global Data
Global data
(N = 40,834)
Non-global data
(N = 34,679)
M
SD
M
SD
Female
0.56
0.50
0.57
0.50
Self-reported language
matched with MYP school’s
language of instruction (1=
Matched)
0.82
0.38
0.85
0.36
Self-reported language
matched with DPCP school’s
language of instruction (1=
Matched)
0.81
0.39
0.84
0.36
Additional rigour of DP
coursework (1= More than 3
HL courses taken)
0.08
0.27
0.08
0.28
Personal Project score
15.58
5.41
15.23
5.45
Extended Essay score
17.96
6.34
17.64
6.36
Table 5. Results of Path Regressions on Student Characteristics, Personal Project, and Extended Essay Scores
Global data
(N = 40,834)
Non-global data
(N = 34,679)
Estimate
SE
CR
P-value
Estimate
SE
CR
P-value
Female→ Personal Project score
0.176
0.010
17.771
***
0.156
0.011
14.448
***
Self-reported language matched
with MYP school’s language of
instruction → Personal Project
score
-0.113
0.013
-8.776
***
-0.085
0.015
-5.657
***
Female→ Extended Essay score
0.051
0.009
5.474
***
0.051
0.010
5.087
***
Self-reported language matched
with DPCP school’s language of
instruction →
Extended Essay score
-0.138
0.012
-11.710
***
-0.125
0.014
-9.178
***
Additional rigour of DP
coursework → Extended Essay
score
0.050
0.017
2.950
0.003
0.054
0.018
3.059
0.002
Personal Project score →
Extended Essay score
0.375
0.005
81.874
***
0.382
0.005
76.897
***
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Table 6. Results of Chi-square Difference Between Unconstrained Model and Fully Constrained Model
Model Chi-square
df
Diff. Chi-square
Diff. df
p-value
Unconstrained model
153782.004
10
Fully constrained model
153787.970
20
5.966
10
0.818
