The IBCP Reflective Project is an independent investigation of an ethical dilemma connected to a career-related area. At SOTA, it belongs to the Career-related Programme core, alongside Personal and Professional Skills, Language and Cultural Studies, and Community Engagement. It is not simply a diary about arts practice or the CP version of a performance portfolio. The student needs to investigate competing considerations, evaluate evidence and develop a reasoned personal position. SOTA programme structure; IB CP core brief.
This independent eduKate guide explains the framework first assessed in May 2027, including its revised assessment and reflection arrangements. Official information was checked on 9 November 2026. Confirm the framework for the student’s actual examination session with SOTA. The dilemmas, worked examples and planning questions below are fictional teaching exercises, not approved topics, claims about real organisations or ready-made submissions.
- Identify a genuine tension between ethical considerations, not only a practical difficulty.
- Make the professional context and the decision-maker clear.
- Research perspectives accurately rather than inventing two opposing sides.
- Choose a permitted format that makes the reasoning easy to follow.
- Keep the learning journal, project and final reflection distinct but connected.
1. What changes for first assessment in 2027
The IB identifies August 2025 as the start of teaching for the revised CP core and May 2027 as its first assessment. For the revised Reflective Project, the final project and reflection are externally assessed. The update also introduces a learning journal, presentation and viva voce, and a revised reflection form with an upper limit of 1,000 words. Source: IB CP core update.
This matters when a family finds older guidance describing a teacher-marked, externally moderated project or a different reflection form. Do not combine requirements from different versions. Ask the school to identify the specification and submission instructions for the student’s own session.
Make a current requirements record
Record the examination session, approved project focus, chosen format, length or duration requirements, school milestones, supervisor and required submission items. Keep the source of each instruction beside it. Mark anything not yet confirmed.
A calendar year is not enough to resolve a specification. A student beginning preparation in one year may be assessed later. An old example may still illustrate thoughtful argument while belonging to a different assessment model.
Read the current update alongside school-issued guidance rather than relying on a search-result summary. Where a general webpage and a cohort-specific instruction appear inconsistent, raise the exact difference with the programme team before acting.
The practical aim is a single coherent set of instructions. Once it is established, the student can spend time investigating the dilemma rather than repeatedly rebuilding a checklist from unrelated resources.
2. Keep the Reflective Project separate from other work
SOTA’s programme overview lists different core components for the DP and CP. The Reflective Project belongs to the CP; the Extended Essay and Theory of Knowledge belong to the DP. Shared research and reflection skills do not make those assessments substitutes for one another. Source: SOTA learning overview.
Within the CP, also distinguish the Reflective Project from Community Engagement and career-related artistic work. A student may encounter an ethical question while making art or working with others, but the project must investigate the question rather than merely document the activity.
Identify the product’s purpose
An arts portfolio might demonstrate the development of artistic work. A practical project report might explain how an event was organised. A reflective diary might record personal responses. An ethical investigation examines why a professional decision is difficult and how competing reasons should be evaluated.
These purposes can inform one another, but a strong account of one does not automatically fulfil another. Before reusing material, discuss the boundaries with the relevant teachers. A shared interest is not permission to submit the same assessed work again.
Try explaining the proposed Reflective Project without naming its format. If the description is only “I will make a film” or “I will write an essay,” the central enquiry remains unclear. Add the professional decision, the people affected and the ethical tension.
For the wider pathway comparison, use the SOTA IBDP and IBCP guide. The present article focuses on doing the Reflective Project thoughtfully once the applicable programme is clear.
3. Distinguish an ethical dilemma from an issue or inconvenience
A broad issue identifies an area of concern. A practical problem asks how something can be achieved. An ethical dilemma involves a decision in which important values, responsibilities or interests pull in different directions. The distinction helps a student avoid spending the project explaining a topic without examining a genuinely difficult choice.
| Starting statement | What it currently describes | How to develop the enquiry |
|---|---|---|
| A production has a limited budget. | A practical constraint. | Identify a decision where the budget pressure conflicts with a significant responsibility. |
| Digital access to performances matters. | A broad issue or value. | Specify who decides about access and what legitimate concern could conflict with it. |
| A creator must choose between wider distribution and a contributor’s control over use. | A possible ethical tension. | Research the context, alternatives, obligations and consequences before judging. |
| One option is obviously dishonest. | A potential breach rather than a developed dilemma. | Do not manufacture a defence; find the real decision and the competing considerations. |
Not every disagreement is a dilemma. Two people may prefer different colours without facing a substantial ethical conflict. Conversely, people may agree that several values matter while disagreeing about which should govern a particular decision.
Ask what makes the choice difficult even for a responsible professional. If the answer is only that one person wants an easy advantage, the enquiry may need further development.
A serious dilemma does not require pretending that every option is equally defensible. The research may reveal that one position is stronger. The task is to show why, while representing the important competing considerations accurately.
4. Define the professional context
The revised IB framework allows career connections beyond the student’s specific career-related study course. The connection still needs to be clear and meaningful. Source: IB Reflective Project update.
Name a professional role and the decision it faces. A producer, curator, performer, designer or arts administrator may encounter different responsibilities even within the same project. Avoid treating “the arts industry” as one person with one set of interests.
Give the decision boundaries
What authority does the decision-maker have? What information is available? What commitments have already been made? Which choices are genuinely possible? These details prevent the argument from recommending an option that the person could not actually take.
Keep legal, contractual and ethical questions distinct. Where a real case depends on law or a contract, verify the applicable material through authoritative sources and appropriate guidance. Do not assume that a personal moral judgement changes a legal requirement.
For an initial hypothetical exercise, you can state assumptions to isolate the ethical issue. For example, assume that two options are legally available and then compare their ethical implications. In the actual research, those assumptions would need checking rather than quietly being treated as facts.
Describe why the student is interested without claiming professional expertise they do not have. Experience as a learner can motivate a question, while careful research develops the understanding needed to investigate it.
A clear career connection makes the enquiry more concrete. It should help the student examine responsibility from inside a decision, not simply attach an occupation name to a general debate.
5. Develop a focused enquiry
Move from the broad concern to a decision that can be investigated within the permitted project. Specify the professional setting, the conflicting considerations and the relevant context. Avoid a question so large that it requires a conclusion about every artistic practice or every culture.
An initial interest such as “ethics and recordings” can become a question about when a producer should make a particular kind of performance recording freely available. The enquiry would then need to identify the access benefit, the contributors’ concerns and the realistic alternatives.
This is a way of developing a question, not a final topic recommendation. The supervisor needs to advise on suitability and scope.
Check for a hidden answer
Questions beginning with assumptions such as “Why is it always wrong…” may predetermine the conclusion. Ask whether the wording permits a genuinely informed judgement. If relevant evidence could not change the answer, the project may be functioning as a campaign statement rather than an enquiry.
Write a provisional position separately from the question. It is reasonable to begin with a view; the important point is to make it available for examination. Record which information might lead you to revise it.
Test the scope through a short outline
List the context needed, the main perspectives, the evidence available and the central comparison. If each heading opens an entirely different project, narrow the focus.
Do not confuse a narrower enquiry with a less important one. A specific decision can expose a substantial ethical tension more clearly than a sweeping discussion whose terms keep changing.
6. Identify affected people without stereotyping them
List who makes the decision, who contributes to the work, who benefits, who bears a cost and who may have little influence over the outcome. Then ask how each group’s perspective will be represented accurately.
A stakeholder map is a planning tool, not proof that everyone in a group thinks alike. Performers may disagree among themselves. Audiences may value different forms of access. An organisation may contain competing priorities rather than one unified opinion.
| Question | What to record | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| What is at stake? | A specific benefit, responsibility, risk or loss. | A vague label such as “they care about money.” |
| What evidence supports the perspective? | A verified statement, policy, study or documented practice. | An invented quotation representing an entire group. |
| Who has influence? | The person’s actual role in the decision. | Assuming that being affected means having equal decision-making power. |
| Who is missing? | A relevant perspective not yet adequately understood. | Treating the most visible voices as the complete picture. |
Look for differences within each perspective where they matter. The same decision may affect an established practitioner differently from someone with fewer resources or less bargaining power. Research the distinction instead of assuming it.
Be careful when discussing vulnerable or less visible groups. A thoughtful investigation should not require exposing personal experiences unnecessarily. Consider whether reliable public evidence can answer the question without direct contact.
The purpose of the map is to improve the reasoning. It should help identify what the proposed decision would mean for real people rather than supply a decorative diagram beside an unchanged opinion.
7. Build a dependable evidence base
Separate factual claims from ethical judgements. The factual part might concern how a practice operates, what a policy says or which effects have been observed. The ethical part concerns how those facts should inform a decision. Both matter, but they require different kinds of support.
A professional code may show the standards an organisation states. A research paper may provide evidence about an effect. A practitioner’s account may explain an experience. None automatically establishes the entire answer.
Use sources for their actual contribution
For each source, record the claim it supports, the context in which it was produced and the limit of its relevance. Read beyond the quotation that fits your initial position. Check whether the author discusses qualifications or contrary findings.
Retain accurate publication details and page or section references. Mark copied wording clearly in your notes. Keep your interpretation separate so that you can later distinguish what the source says from what you infer.
Research the strongest objection
Do not gather only evidence for the position you already prefer. Identify the most serious challenge and look for its best support. An argument becomes more thoughtful when it addresses an objection that could genuinely matter.
Check whether sources concern the same kind of decision. A policy about commercial distribution may not settle a question about educational use. Evidence from a different context may still be useful, but the difference needs explanation.
When reliable information is missing, identify the gap. Avoid substituting a confident assumption, an unverified social-media claim or a generated quotation. A limited conclusion grounded in checked evidence is more defensible than an expansive conclusion built on invented certainty.
8. Compare ethical reasons, not just preferences
Once the main facts are understood, identify the reasons that could guide the decision. Consider consequences, responsibilities, consent, fairness, access, trust and the distribution of benefits and burdens where they are relevant. These are optional analytical questions, not a required list of philosophical theories.
Do not reduce a perspective to its least attractive version. A concern about compensation may involve sustainability and fair treatment rather than simple greed. A concern about access may involve participation and learning rather than a wish to obtain something free.
Explain the tension
Ask why satisfying one consideration could make another harder to protect. Then examine whether the conflict is unavoidable or whether the available options have been framed too narrowly.
A compromise is not automatically the ethical answer. It may distribute harms poorly, create new exclusions or fail to respect a fundamental responsibility. Equally, choosing one priority does not erase the cost imposed on others.
Use a consistent comparison
Apply the same questions to each option. Who benefits? Who bears the risk? What permission or responsibility matters? How reversible is the decision? What evidence supports the predicted result? What uncertainty remains?
Do not require strong evidence from one side while accepting optimistic claims from the other. If a benefit is uncertain, describe it as uncertain regardless of whether it supports your preferred position.
End the comparison with a judgement. Explain which considerations carry more weight in this context and why. A balanced investigation does not require stopping at “both sides have a point”; it requires giving the reader a fair account of the reasons behind the position reached.
9. Work through a fictional performance-recording dilemma
Imagine a producer considering whether to release a recorded performance freely online. The producer values wider access. Some contributors are concerned about losing control over future use and about how distribution might affect their work. For this exercise only, assume that more than one lawful option is available. No statement here describes an actual SOTA production, contract or legal entitlement.
Identify the decision precisely
The question is not whether access is good or whether contributors deserve respect. Both can matter. The enquiry concerns what the producer should do when one distribution choice may advance access while creating concerns for the people who made the work.
Clarify the proposed release: the whole recording or selected material, permanent access or a limited period, unrestricted sharing or a more controlled arrangement. Different choices may create different ethical implications. Do not discuss them as though they were identical.
Distinguish predictions from established facts
One person might predict that wider distribution will introduce new audiences. Another might predict a negative effect on paid opportunities. Those are claims requiring evidence, not facts established by being plausible.
A real investigation would need relevant, verified research and a clearly defined context. The student should examine what the available evidence can support, whether the predicted effects vary and how uncertainty affects the decision.
Represent the contributors carefully
Some contributors might welcome the release; others might attach conditions. The producer cannot assume that a single spokesperson captures every concern. The investigation should distinguish the perspectives and consider how consent and decision-making power operate in the actual case being researched.
The student should also consider audiences who cannot attend in person, those who might benefit from another form of access, and the organisation’s ability to maintain the work. Each consideration needs context rather than a slogan.
Compare realistic options
Possible options for the exercise include no release, a time-limited release, selected excerpts or a release under newly agreed conditions. The task is not to choose the middle option automatically. Examine what each protects, what it sacrifices and whether it is practically available.
A reasoned position might be conditional on meaningful contributor agreement, evidence about the expected effects and a clearly defined purpose. Another researched context could justify a different conclusion. What matters is showing how the evidence and ethical reasoning lead to the position.
This example is a rehearsal of reasoning. It should not be submitted as if it were a researched real-world case. An actual project needs its own approved focus, sources and analysis.
10. Develop a qualified personal position
A personal position is not merely a statement of taste. Explain which option you judge most defensible, the reasons that carry greatest weight and the conditions on which the judgement depends.
Return to the original question. Does the conclusion answer the decision you set out to investigate, or has it shifted to a broader issue? If the question changed during research, make the final relationship between question and answer clear.
State the strongest remaining concern
Identify the objection that still matters after your analysis. Explain whether it limits your conclusion, requires a safeguard or would change the judgement if new evidence emerged.
For example, a position favouring a particular access arrangement might remain sensitive to information about consent or unequal burdens. Naming that condition does not weaken the reasoning; it makes the scope of the judgement visible.
Avoid universal conclusions based on a narrow case. A decision appropriate for one organisation, scale or audience may not apply everywhere. Explain the contextual features that matter.
Distinguish uncertainty from indecision
You can reach a position while acknowledging incomplete information. State what is sufficiently supported, what remains unresolved and why the decision is still justified within those limits.
Do not add an artificial personal transformation simply because the project is called reflective. Your view may change substantially, become more qualified or remain broadly similar for better reasons. The important point is to explain the effect of the investigation honestly.
Read the conclusion beside the opening proposal. The comparison should show a clearer understanding of the dilemma, not merely more confident language around the same unsupported assumptions.
11. Choose a format that carries the argument
The revised framework permits written, verbal, visual and audiovisual forms, with a podcast among the new options highlighted by the IB. Obtain the current format-specific limits and required accompanying material through the school before choosing a production plan. Source: IB Reflective Project update.
Choose the form according to the enquiry and your ability to communicate the reasoning clearly. A medium you enjoy can help, but familiarity does not remove the need to present evidence, competing perspectives and a justified position.
| Possible form | Planning advantage | Risk to check |
|---|---|---|
| Written | The reader can inspect the argument and references closely. | A descriptive report may hide the absence of ethical evaluation. |
| Audio | A structured spoken explanation can guide a listener through the dilemma. | Music, tone or editing may substitute for evidence. |
| Visual or audiovisual | Relevant material can be presented alongside analysis. | Production quality may consume time while the reasoning remains weak. |
Prepare an argument outline before detailed production. For a spoken or visual format, identify where each claim, source and qualification will be communicated. Ask how references and any required supporting files must be supplied.
Keep length and duration limits visible throughout. Do not borrow a number from an older guide or assume that the final reflection’s word limit is the limit for the project itself.
Test a small section. Can someone follow the ethical tension without being distracted by effects? Does the presentation allow the reasoning to be checked? Improve that section before producing the whole project.
12. Keep a useful learning journal
The current CP core brief describes a learning journal maintained throughout the project, recording ideas, notes, experiences, feedback and reflections. It supports an enquiry that develops over time rather than a final account reconstructed from memory. Source: IB CP core brief, Reflective Project overview.
Make entries when a decision changes the work. A useful note might explain why a question was narrowed, why a source was rejected or how a perspective challenged an assumption. Date the entry and identify the material involved.
Keep the record specific
“I need more balance” is too broad to guide action. “My current evidence explains the producer’s view but not the contributors’ concerns” identifies a research gap. Add the next step: which kind of source could address it and what you need to check.
Separate copied source material from reflection. Use clear quotation marks and references in research notes. Your journal should not become a place where borrowed wording loses its origin.
Record changes without rewriting the past
When an interpretation changes, add a new note explaining why. Do not edit every earlier entry so that the process appears perfectly consistent. The difference between versions can be valuable evidence of learning.
Keep the journal proportionate. It should help you retrieve decisions and prepare for discussion, not demand a polished essay after every work session. Use the format and submission arrangements confirmed by the school.
The journal, project and final reflection have related purposes but are not identical documents. Keep their roles clear so that the final reflection can draw on real decisions without becoming a pasted chronological log.
13. Use supervision and feedback well
The IB update specifies between three and six guided hours of supervisor support for the revised Reflective Project. That is a support framework, not the total time a student should spend researching or producing the work. Confirm how SOTA organises the support for the student’s cohort. Source: IB CP core update.
Prepare a focused agenda. Bring the current question, a small sample of analysis, the evidence behind it and the decision you need help examining. Identify what has changed since the previous conversation.
Ask questions that improve the enquiry
Useful questions include whether the ethical tension is clear, whether a perspective is being represented fairly, whether an inference goes beyond its evidence or whether the scope is manageable. These questions invite guidance without asking the supervisor to supply the student’s conclusion.
After feedback, record the action you intend to take. If the advice is to investigate another perspective, identify what evidence would be relevant. If the problem is scope, propose a concrete boundary rather than simply shortening the title.
Use peer discussion within the rules
Another student can help reveal an unclear explanation or a missing question when the school permits that form of feedback. The final project remains the individual’s work. Do not divide the argument among classmates and present the combined result as independently produced.
Where instructions about assistance are unclear, ask before using it. Keep a record of substantial feedback and how you responded, following the school’s requirements.
Bring problems early enough to discuss them. A meeting is more useful when the student can still change a method, source or format rather than only explain why the finished production cannot be revised.
14. Prepare the presentation and viva voce
The revised learning sequence includes presenting findings, receiving feedback, revising the project and completing a viva voce with the supervisor. The CP core brief distinguishes these formative activities from the final project and written reflection submitted for assessment. Source: IB CP core brief, learning journey and assessment.
Follow the school’s arrangements for audience, timing and materials. This guide does not invent a SOTA presentation schedule or a universal speaking script.
Make the reasoning available
Practise explaining the dilemma, the professional context, the strongest competing reasons, the evidence that mattered and the position reached. A listener should be able to identify the difficult decision without reading the entire project first.
Do not memorise a perfect defence of every sentence. Prepare to explain why choices were made and where the work remains limited. If a question exposes a gap, acknowledge it and consider whether the project needs revision.
Use feedback before the final version
Separate comments about communication from comments about substance. An unclear sequence may need reorganisation. An unsupported prediction needs evidence or a narrower claim. A missing perspective may require further research.
Record what you changed and why. Do not make every suggested change automatically; evaluate whether it improves the enquiry and remains consistent with the applicable instructions.
For the concluding conversation, know the history of the work. Be ready to discuss an important decision, an assumption that changed and a limitation you now understand. The aim is an authentic account of learning, not a performance of certainty that conceals how the project developed.
15. Write the final reflection from actual decisions
The revised assessment uses a final written reflection on the required Final reflection form, identified in the CP core brief as RP/FRF. Use the current form and school instructions rather than an older template. The project and final reflection are submitted to the IB for external assessment under the revised framework. Source: IB CP core brief, assessment.
Begin by reviewing the learning journal. Select decisions that reveal development: narrowing the dilemma, changing a source strategy, recognising an overlooked perspective or revising a conclusion after examining an objection.
Explain the relationship between action and learning
A useful private planning sequence is: the difficulty, the choice, the reason, the effect and the future application. Do not treat this as a compulsory five-part template. Use it to ensure that the reflection says more than which tasks were completed.
For example, a student might discover that an initial stakeholder map treated a group as having one view. Research then revealed disagreement within the group. The reflection could explain how that changed the analysis and the student’s future approach to representing others.
Distinguish reflection from self-praise
Statements such as “I became a great researcher” need a concrete basis. Explain the habit that changed and the decision that shows it. A modest, supported account is more credible than a dramatic claim of personal transformation.
The reflection need not repeat the whole ethical argument. Its focus is what the process revealed about the student’s thinking, choices and development. Keep the project’s conclusion available as context, then examine how it was reached.
Do not manufacture a struggle or rewrite the process to appear more impressive. Honest reflection can include a view that remained similar but became better justified, as well as one that changed substantially.
16. Keep the research and production ethical
An ethical topic does not automatically create an ethical research process. Ask what information is needed, whether direct contact is necessary, and what approval or consent arrangements apply. Follow school guidance before involving participants, private records or sensitive experiences.
Use public sources where they appropriately answer the question. Do not contact a vulnerable person simply because a personal story might make the production more powerful. A participant’s dignity matters independently of the student’s assessment.
Make authorship and contributions clear
Keep the argument, judgement and final explanation your own. Acknowledge sources and any permitted contributions according to the instructions. For a production involving other voices, images or recordings, confirm how permission and credits must be handled.
The IB’s AI guidance requires acknowledgement of AI-generated material included in assessment. Check school permissions before use and verify any suggested evidence. Do not generate quotations, invent stakeholder testimony or outsource the personal reflection. Source: IB AI guidance.
Do not confuse a fictional exercise with evidence
The examples in this article help practise reasoning. They do not establish that real professionals hold the views described or that a proposed action has a particular effect. The actual project needs independently checked material appropriate to its enquiry.
If you discover a mistaken attribution, unsupported claim or permission problem, correct it openly through the school’s process before submission. Keep an accurate record of what changed.
For any real legal or contractual question, use authoritative current material and appropriate guidance. This article offers an educational method for analysing ethical choices, not legal advice about publication, rights or professional liability.
17. Plan the workload and family support
Work backwards from the school’s confirmed milestones. Separate research, analysis, drafting, production, feedback and final checks. A format that requires recording or editing creates additional practical dependencies; include them before deciding that it will be easier than writing.
Protect the argument before production. A beautifully edited presentation with an unclear dilemma will still need substantial intellectual revision. Test a short section and obtain permitted feedback before committing to the final technical form.
Use a realistic weekly target
Choose a result that moves the enquiry forward: a verified source comparison, a clearer stakeholder distinction, a revised argument section or a completed technical test. Identify the resource or answer needed before that result can be produced.
When arts and academic commitments collide, make the conflict visible early. Show the current progress and remaining tasks to the supervisor. A personal timetable does not change a school deadline, but it can make a request for guidance more specific.
Give parents an appropriate role
Parents can listen to the dilemma, ask what evidence supports a claim, help with logistics and notice when the plan is unrealistic. They should not choose the conclusion, write the script or manufacture reflections.
A useful question is: “Which part of your position would be hardest for an informed person to accept?” Let the student explain the objection and how it was considered. The conversation should clarify thinking rather than turn into a debate the parent must win.
For additional help, prepare a focused enquiry through SOTA’s mentor and school-support conversations. Bring a concrete example of the difficulty rather than a general request to fix the entire project.
18. Frequently asked questions and submission checks
Is the Reflective Project just an opinion essay?
No. A position needs a researched context, an accurately described dilemma and reasons that address important competing considerations. Personal conviction can motivate an enquiry, but it does not replace evidence or evaluation.
Must the student solve the ethical problem completely?
Do not promise a universal solution. Develop a defensible position within the researched context, explain its conditions and acknowledge the concerns that remain. A well-qualified judgement is more useful than a sweeping claim.
Can a student make a podcast or visual project?
The revised framework offers different communication modes. Confirm the permitted format, length, duration, references and supporting files with the school before production. The form must communicate the research and reasoning, not merely present an artistic response to the topic.
Does the final reflection replace the learning journal?
No. They serve different purposes in the process described above. Keep the journal as an accurate record of development and use it to prepare a considered final reflection under the current instructions.
What if the sources support the position the student disliked initially?
Examine the evidence carefully and revise the judgement where appropriate. Explain why the position changed. The purpose is not to defend the first opinion regardless of what the enquiry reveals.
Can classmates share research?
Follow the school’s boundaries for discussion, feedback and assistance. Do not assume that permitted peer discussion authorises shared authorship of an individual project. Acknowledge sources accurately and ask when the boundary is unclear.
What if older online guidance conflicts with the current brief?
Identify the examination session and framework each resource describes. Bring the exact conflict to SOTA. Do not mix an older marking model or form with the revised requirements.
What should be checked before submission?
Confirm that the project states the dilemma clearly, establishes the career connection, represents perspectives fairly, supports factual claims, evaluates alternatives and explains the personal position. Then check the current format rules, references, final reflection, required files and submission procedure.
Open the final exported file or recording and inspect it from the recipient’s point of view. Check that text is readable, audio is intelligible where relevant, links work as required and no private material has been included accidentally.
What is the best next step?
Write a short proposal naming the professional decision, the competing ethical considerations, the people affected and the evidence needed. Add one uncertainty that could change the enquiry. Use that proposal for the next supervisor conversation before expanding the project.
Official sources and further reading
Checked on 9 November 2026. The article explains the framework first assessed in May 2027; confirm its application to the student’s session. School-issued instructions determine internal arrangements. This independent guide is not issued or endorsed by SOTA or the IB.
- SOTA: Learning and IB programme structure
- IB: CP core updates, first assessment May 2027
- IB: Career-related Programme core brief, first assessment 2027
- IB: AI in learning, teaching and assessment