IA2 human-centred design project in QCE Design Unit 3
“IA2 project - the format, weighting and requirements of the second internal assessment, how it applies designing with empathy across the explore and develop phases, what a strong design folio evidences, and how every resolved feature must trace back to an identified user need”
IA2 is the human-centred design project, the second internal assessment, worth 30 percent - the largest single instrument. It asks you to apply designing with empathy across the explore and develop phases: analyse the needs and wants of an identified person, write a brief that describes a human-centred design problem and design criteria, and devise and develop ideas in response. A strong design folio evidences real empathy data from interview, observation and immersion, converts it cleanly into criteria, documents a wide and genuine ideation, and presents a resolved proposal whose every feature traces back to an identified need. The justification against the criteria is the climax. Confirm the exact requirements and format against your school's current QCAA instrument.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
QCAA's IA2 is the project aligned to Unit 3 designing with empathy - the highest-weighted internal assessment at 30 percent. This page explains what the project requires, how it applies empathy across the explore and develop phases, and what a strong design folio looks like. The project is where human-centred design is shown at full length, so the marks reward depth of empathy research, breadth of ideation, and a resolved proposal whose every feature traces to a real user need.
The answer
What IA2 is
IA2 is the design project for Unit 3, where human-centred design is practised in full. Where the IA1 challenge is contained and time-limited, the project is extended - you have the room to do thorough empathy research, generate and test a real breadth of ideas, and resolve a justified proposal. It is worth 30 percent of the subject result, the most of any instrument, so it carries the heaviest weight in the internal mark.
Applying empathy across explore and develop
The project is built on designing with empathy. In the explore phase you gather empathy data on an identified person through interview, observation and immersion, analyse it to surface needs, wants and opportunities, and write a design brief that describes a human-centred design problem with design criteria. In the develop phase you devise ideas in response to that problem, visualise them, prototype at low fidelity, and test with the user. The project then moves toward a resolved proposal. The whole arc keeps the human-centred priority - needs above other influences - at the front.
What a strong folio evidences
The design folio is the assessed artefact, and it must show the journey, not just the destination. A strong folio evidences:
- Real empathy data - interview notes, observation records and an immersion reflection, from an actual person, not assumed.
- Clean analysis - findings synthesised into evidenced needs, often via a persona and empathy map.
- A brief and criteria - a clear human-centred design problem and specific, measurable criteria drawn from the needs.
- Genuine ideation breadth - a range of distinct concepts using named strategies, visualised with annotated sketches.
- Prototyping and testing - low-fidelity prototypes tested with the user, with the results documented.
- A resolved proposal - refined, visualised, and justified criterion by criterion.
Tracing features to needs
The single most important quality in a strong IA2 is traceability. Every feature of the resolved design should connect back to an identified user need, and the folio should make that line visible. When a marker reads it, they check the chain: this person needs X (evidenced here), so the criterion is Y, so the design does Z. A feature with no need behind it is either unjustified or a sign the designer drifted toward what interested them rather than the user.
The justification as climax
The project ends in evaluation and justification. You judge the resolved proposal against each criterion, with evidence from testing, and justify how the design meets the user's needs. Because the criteria came from evidenced needs, meeting them is the same as serving the person - which is the whole purpose of human-centred design. This justification is where the top-band marks sit, so it deserves the most care.
Worked example
Identified user: Priya, who has low vision and cooks independently.
Explore: interview, observation and immersion (cooking blindfolded) reveal a latent need - identifying spice jars by touch, not sight, which Priya never mentioned but clearly struggles with. Persona and empathy map synthesise this. Criteria include tactile identification and one-handed operation.
Develop: six distinct concepts ideated - tactile labels, a notched lid system, an audio scanner, a magnetic rack. Low-fidelity tested with Priya; the notched-lid system reads fastest by touch.
Resolve: refined notched-lid set, justified criterion by criterion - tactile identification met (Priya names jars by touch in testing), one-handed met, low cost met.
Every resolved feature traces to an evidenced need, and the justification ties each back to Priya. That unbroken chain is what carries an IA2 to the top band.
IA2 is the human-centred design project, worth 30 percent - the largest instrument. It applies designing with empathy across explore and develop: analyse an identified person's needs, write a brief and criteria, and develop a justified resolved proposal. A strong folio evidences real empathy data, clean analysis, ideation breadth and user testing, with every resolved feature traceable to a need. Confirm requirements against the current QCAA instrument.
- Thin empathy research
- Assumed needs sink the project. Gather and document real interview, observation and immersion data on an actual person.
- Features with no need
- Every feature must trace to an evidenced need. Anything that does not signals drift away from the user.
- Narrow ideation
- A project has room for a genuine range of distinct concepts. Three similar sketches waste the develop phase.
- Skipping user testing
- Low-fidelity prototypes must be tested with the identified user, with results documented. Self-evaluation is not enough.
- A weak justification
- The evaluation against criteria is the climax and the top-band marks. Judge each criterion with evidence and tie it back to the person.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of QCAA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice9 marksFor the IA2 human-centred design project, justify how a strong folio carries empathy data through the explore and develop phases so that every resolved feature traces back to an identified user need. Use an example to support your response.Show worked answer →
IA2 is judged on a folio that evidences designing with empathy, so the marker is looking for an unbroken chain from user to feature.
Justify the chain: empathy research (explore) produces evidence of expressed, observed and latent needs; that evidence is synthesised into a persona and criteria; develop ideates and selects against those criteria; resolve presents features each justified by reference back to a need. A strong folio makes this traceable, for example a need "opens with one hand" leads to a criterion, an ideated lever mechanism, and a resolved feature, all cross-referenced.
Markers reward a folio where features are not arbitrary but evidenced, and where empathy data is used throughout rather than collected then abandoned.
Practice6 marksEvaluate a folio in which the resolved design is strong but the empathy research is thin. Justify how the marking would be affected.Show worked answer →
A 6 mark evaluate answer needs a judgement tied to the assessment criteria.
Evaluate: IA2 rewards designing with empathy, so a thin empathy base undermines the whole folio even if the artefact looks good; the resolved features cannot be justified as meeting genuine user needs, so the explore and justification criteria suffer. The design may be polished but indefensible.
Justify: markers assess whether features trace to evidenced needs, so weak empathy caps the achievable band regardless of finish. Markers reward recognising that empathy data is the foundation the upper bands depend on, not an optional extra.