EPQ toolkit
Strong and weak examples
The same project written two ways, so you can see what a moderator is actually looking for in each document.
Every example on this page is invented for this guide. None of it is real student work, and none of it is a model answer to copy. The point is the technique, not the wording. Copying any of it into your own PPR, log or outcome would be malpractice, and it would also be obvious, because your project is not this project.
The examples all follow one invented project: a careers evening about apprenticeships, run for Year 11. That is an event outcome, so it takes the artefact route and also needs a written piece of about 1,000 words. Where the dissertation route differs, there is a note.
Worked example
The brief
Invented for this guide to show the technique. It is not real student work.
A careers event.
No audience, no purpose, and nothing to judge the finished event against.
An apprenticeships evening for Year 11 students and their parents, with at least four employers or training providers attending, that leaves students able to name three routes into work after Year 11 and where to apply for each.
It names who it is for, what it must contain, and what success looks like. Every one of those can be tested afterwards.
For the dissertation route the same test applies to a question rather than a brief: could two sensible people reach different answers?
Worked example
Aims and objectives
Invented for this guide to show the technique. It is not real student work.
Aim: run a careers evening.
- Research apprenticeships.
- Organise the event.
- Improve my confidence.
Aim: plan and run an apprenticeships evening for Year 11 that measurably improves what students know about post-16 routes.
- Research the four main post-16 routes and the local providers for each, using at least six sources including two official ones.
- Secure at least four employers or providers to attend, with a fallback of two speakers joining by video.
- Design and run a short before-and-after question sheet to measure what students knew.
- Produce a written report of about 1,000 words on how the event was planned and what changed during it.
The weak objectives cannot be checked at the end. The stronger ones each have a number or a product attached, so in Phase 6 you can say plainly whether you met them. Objective 3 exists purely to give you something to evaluate.
Worked example
A log entry
Invented for this guide to show the technique. It is not real student work.
14 January. Emailed some companies about the event. Waiting to hear back.
14 January. Emailed eight local employers and two training providers, 40 minutes. Used the list from Source 4 and the college's employer contacts.
Went badly: three of the addresses on the Source 4 list bounced, so that list is at least a year out of date. I have noted that in my evaluation of Source 4 because it affects how much I trust its other information.
Decision: I am not waiting two weeks for replies before booking a date. I will set the date now from the school calendar and offer employers a choice of two slots, because the hall is only free on three evenings this term.
Next step: chase non-replies on 21 January, and ask my supervisor at Thursday's meeting whether the school will send the invitation instead of me, which may get a better response rate.
Same task, four minutes of extra writing. The stronger entry shows a problem, a decision with a reason, a consequence for another document, and a specific next action. That is AO1 and AO3 evidence rather than a to-do list.
Worked example
A source evaluation
Invented for this guide to show the technique. It is not real student work.
Source 4: government apprenticeships website. Very useful and reliable, used throughout.
Source 4: Department for Education (2025) Apprenticeship vacancies: regional summary. Available at: [full web address] (Accessed: 6 January 2026).
Used for the number of apprenticeship starts in this region, which is the figure behind objective 1. It is an official statistical release, so the collection method is published and the figures can be checked against the national tables.
Two limits. The employer contact list attached to it is out of date, because three addresses bounced on 14 January. And it counts starts, not completions, so it says nothing about how many students finish. For completion rates I used Source 9 instead.
The stronger version says what the source was used for, why the evidence can be trusted, exactly where it failed, and what was used instead. It also links to a real event in the log, which is what "documented and evaluated" means.
Worked example
A decision worth AO3 marks
Invented for this guide to show the technique. It is not real student work.
Changed the date of the event because of a clash. Booked the hall for 12 March instead.
Problem, 2 February. The hall is booked for mock exams on my original date, and the two dates left this term are both in the week before Year 11 study leave.
Options. Run it in the smaller drama studio on the original date, capacity 40. Move to 12 March in the hall, capacity 120, but a week before study leave. Move to next term, after Year 11 have already applied.
Decision. 12 March in the hall.
Why. Objective 2 needs four providers, and four stands do not fit in the drama studio. Next term is too late to be useful, which would defeat the aim. The risk is lower attendance that week, so I have added a form-time reminder and moved the start to 5pm to catch students before they go home.
Result to check in the evaluation. Whether attendance held up in that week.
The stronger record is worth marks because it shows rejected options, a reason tied to an objective, and a risk the student then managed. The weak one records that something happened.
Worked example
Evaluating an objective at the end
Invented for this guide to show the technique. It is not real student work.
The event went really well and everyone enjoyed it. I completed all my objectives and learned a lot about organisation. If I did it again I would start earlier.
Objective 2: secure at least four employers or providers, with a fallback of two by video.
Met, but only just, and not in the way I planned. Three attended in person and one joined by video after pulling out on 5 March. The fallback I wrote in Phase 3 is the only reason this objective was met at all, which is the strongest argument for writing fallbacks into a plan.
Objective 3: before-and-after question sheet.
Partly met. I collected 31 before sheets and only 19 after sheets, because students left as the stands closed. The improvement in the 19 matched pairs was from 1.2 to 2.6 routes named correctly, but with under two thirds of the sample returning, I cannot claim that for the whole group. If I ran it again I would collect the after sheet at the door on the way out rather than at the stands.
The weak version is a feeling with a vague promise attached. The stronger version judges each objective against the evidence, admits where the evidence is thin, and turns "start earlier" into a specific change with a reason.