The 2027 SEC G3 Design Studies K376 project is not just an extended piece of design homework. It is a thirty-hour, directly supervised individual examination component worth sixty percent of the subject grade. Candidates receive an official design brief, choose one of three fields, work in ten three-hour classes, develop an authentic A3 Design Journal and digital presentation, and explain their decisions before three examiners. This independent eduKateSG Ministry of Education V3.0 Reference 387 explains the official conditions, what each component demonstrates and how to prepare responsibly without compromising project authenticity.
Design Studies K376, previously NP05, is offered only by schools approved for the Applied Subject. The compulsory written paper lasts 2.5 hours and is worth 40%; the project supplies the remaining 60%. SEAB's 2027 school-candidate catalogue, last updated on 26 October 2026, states that 2028 will be the final year of examinations for Applied Subjects. Families considering the subject therefore need to verify both the actual school route and the cohort's eligibility before making long-term plans.
The guidance here is for understanding and non-assessed preparation. It is not an official examination brief, a candidate's design journal, a completed project presentation or a set of fabricated observations. Actual project sketches, research records, digital files and final submissions must be the candidate's own work undertaken in class under direct teacher supervision. The official teacher-supervisor timetable and SEAB documents control deadlines and detailed procedures.
The official K376 Paper 2 framework
| Element | Official specification | Why it matters |
| Entry | Approved schools only; K376 formerly NP05 | Subject entry cannot be assumed merely because the syllabus PDF is public |
| Examining-agency briefing | Week 1 of Term 2 in examination year | Candidates receive the actual design question paper and instructions |
| Brief choice | Choose one of three: Visual Communication; Interior/Exhibition Space; Architectural Design | Unit One is combined with the selected relevant design field |
| Project time | 30 hours in ten supervised classes of three hours | Only eligible directly supervised work is accepted for grading |
| Part A Design Journal | 60 out of 100 project marks | Authentic research, alternative ideas, refinement, detailed sketches and principles |
| Part B Digital Design Presentation | 28 out of 100 project marks | Coherent final solution, necessary views and slide communication |
| Part C Oral Presentation | 12 out of 100 project marks | Five-minute presentation and ten-minute Q&A with three examiners |
At the end of each project class, the teacher supervisor is responsible for locking candidates' hardcopy work in an A3 portfolio and saving softcopy files in the school-secured IT system. Candidates regain access to their own work in subsequent project classes. The final completed portfolio is submitted in PDF format at the last project class. The digital design presentation must also be submitted on the stipulated date before the oral examination. These are official requirements, not merely suggested organisational habits.
Understand every part of the hundred-mark project rubric
| Criterion | Maximum project marks | Question the evidence should answer |
| Research and Design Strategies | 12 | Was relevant information actually gathered and used to develop strategies? |
| Ideas and Concept Generation | 12 | Were meaningful concepts explored according to the design requirements? |
| Concept Evaluation and Refinement | 8 | Were strengths, weaknesses and decisions used to improve the concept? |
| Detailed Design Sketches | 10 | Are parts and whole developed and communicated clearly? |
| Application of Design Principles | 18 | Are appropriate principles genuinely applied across the project? |
| Final Design Output | 12 | Are final views, diagrams and explanations coherent and sufficient? |
| Quality of Final Design | 12 | Does the solution address users and optimise form and function credibly? |
| Effectiveness of Slides | 4 | Is the explanation clear, complete and logically presented? |
| Quality of Oral Presentation | 6 | Can the candidate communicate their authentic design process? |
| Explanation at Oral Q&A | 6 | Can the candidate apply design thinking to new scenario-based questions? |
These categories are not independent bonus marks. They sum to one hundred for the project, which is then weighted to sixty percent of the overall subject. A very polished final render cannot substitute for absent genuine research and concept development. Conversely, a long journal with no clear outcome may struggle to explain the selected solution. The rubric rewards coherence across the entire design process.
A ten-session map: learning illustration, not an official timetable
Illustrative learning phase 1: Session 1: identify the actual task
Review the issued brief, its users, essential requirements and unanswered questions with the supervisor. The learning aim is to distinguish the problem from the first solution idea.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 2: Session 2: examine relevant evidence
Explore authorised sources, user/context needs and design precedents. Keep provenance and records clear rather than collecting images simply to fill a page.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 3: Session 3: extract design strategies
Translate findings into specific criteria, identifying essential constraints and possible mechanisms for meeting the brief.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 4: Session 4: explore real alternatives
Produce meaningful conceptual variations, not only decorative versions, and annotate each option's intention.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 5: Session 5: compare and select
Evaluate credible alternatives against user needs, feasibility and viability, with reasons rather than invented scores.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 6: Session 6: refine the selected concept
Address an important weakness identified in authentic feedback or analysis and record what changes.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 7: Session 7: develop parts and whole
Resolve relevant component choices and their integration through appropriate plans, sketches, views or layouts.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 8: Session 8: make design principles visible
Check ergonomics, hierarchy, Gestalt, materials, ordering, access or other relevant concepts in the actual selected field.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 9: Session 9: communicate the final outcome
Ensure the selected concept and genuine refinements are coherently represented in the digital presentation under authorised controls.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Illustrative learning phase 10: Session 10: review the authentic record
Check completeness and consistency of the journal and final material according to the supervisor's actual schedule and submit as instructed.
This is an educational example of how the phases connect, not an official allocation of K376 assessed work. The examining agency and teacher supervisor set the real schedule, which may distribute activities differently. A student must follow that approved order and complete only permitted tasks within supervised sessions. The goal of the example is to understand why an early unresolved decision can affect a later deliverable.
Thirty-two safeguards and skills for authentic project progress
1. Understand the official briefing
Candidates must attend the examining-agency briefing in Week 1 of Term 2 of the examination year. That is when the question paper is issued. Subsequent schedule and submission dates come from the teacher supervisor, not from an internet article.
Common failure: A pupil uses a publicly invented brief and assumes it is the assigned examination task. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Read the actual issued question paper with the teacher and distinguish official dates from an example study schedule. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
2. Select one official brief
The paper offers three briefs, one each in Visual Communication Design, Interior/Exhibition Space Design and Architectural Design. Each candidate chooses one and develops an individual response, applying Unit One plus the relevant Unit Two, Three or Four.
Common failure: A learner attempts all three briefs simultaneously and never develops any one into a coherent project. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Compare choices against the learner's understanding and the authentic brief before selecting the assigned route. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
3. Separate study tools from assessed work
A public tutorial may teach design principles using fictional posters or pavilions. The assessment requires real candidate work authored under direct teacher supervision. A tutorial must not fabricate research or deliverable pages for a live submission.
Common failure: A fictional visitor survey is copied into the journal and labelled a real school observation. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Use public examples to understand methods and keep the actual assessed sources and decisions authentic. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
4. Respect the 10-by-3-hour structure
Paper 2 runs for thirty hours: ten sessions of three hours each. That structure is official, but precise distribution of tasks across sessions is subject to the supervisor's actual schedule and issued brief.
Common failure: A study guide's example session plan is treated as the official examination timetable. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Follow the school schedule; use examples only to understand how research, exploration, development and review relate. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
5. Know the allowed working environment
The syllabus states that only project work carried out in class under direct teacher supervision is accepted for assessment grading. Unsanctioned home edits cannot be represented as supervised candidate work.
Common failure: The pupil completes a detailed CAD rendering at home and imports it into the assessed file. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Carry out actual assessed research materials, sketches and digital creation only as instructed within supervised classes. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
6. Maintain an A3 hardcopy evidence trail
Journal pages comprise A3 sheets or their equivalent and may contain notes, research, sketches, tables and imagery. Their purpose is an authentic developmental trail, not volume for its own sake.
Common failure: A student prints hundreds of unrelated mood-board images to make the journal appear extensive. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Include relevant original research and annotated decisions tied to the brief, following the school supervisor's handling rules. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
7. Keep work secure after each session
At the end of each project class, the supervisor locks hardcopy work in an A3 portfolio and saves softcopy work to a secure school IT system. Candidates access their own work in the subsequent class.
Common failure: A pupil takes a portfolio home to improve it over the weekend. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Use the school's controlled storage and access process rather than individual unsupervised copies. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
8. Record research honestly
Research and design strategies are worth twelve journal marks. Observations, citations and comparisons should reflect work actually performed and approved, with meaningful relevance to the brief.
Common failure: A fabricated interview says five visitors prefer a concept even though no interview took place. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Identify actual sources, authorisation, sampling limits and design implications; never invent user-test success. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
9. Minimise personal information
A design investigation involving people should follow the school's policies for permission and data handling. A respondent's identity is not automatically necessary to explain a design decision.
Common failure: A journal includes names and personal details of minors when an anonymous summary would suffice. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Seek supervision before collecting information, and record only what is authorised and relevant. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
10. Generate meaningful alternatives
The Ideas and Concept Generation criterion awards twelve journal marks. Alternatives should address design strategies through genuinely different mechanisms, not only decorative variation.
Common failure: The candidate offers five sketches identical except for border colour. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Explore and annotate distinct approaches that meet the actual requirements. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
11. Trace strengths and weaknesses
Concept Evaluation and Refinement carries eight marks. A useful entry explains which drawback or criterion caused a change, not just that the next sketch is nicer.
Common failure: A revised display changes its background but leaves the observed navigation problem unchanged. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Connect a real decision to a requirement, evidence or critique and describe its intended consequence. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
12. Use SWOT as a decision instrument
The syllabus names SWOT as a tool for analysing and refining concepts. Its entries should be specific and actionable rather than generic praise or pessimism.
Common failure: The journal lists good, bad, innovative, risky with no explanation. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Explain a precise strength, weakness, external opportunity or threat and the associated design response. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
13. Develop parts and the whole
Detailed Design Sketches count for ten journal marks. The student should explain component choices and show how they work within the final system using appropriate views.
Common failure: A detailed logo or furniture drawing is never located in the overall design. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Choose views and annotations that connect important parts to the selected concept. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
14. Apply principles throughout
Application of Design Principles is worth eighteen journal marks, the largest single journal criterion. Principles should shape research, evaluation and detailed decisions rather than appear in a last-minute glossary.
Common failure: The final page lists contrast, balance and ergonomics without showing their use. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Explain where a principle changed a design choice and how it relates to actual human needs. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
15. Choose suitable digital representations
The final design may use software such as Photoshop, Illustrator or SketchUp as examples, and a presentation tool such as Keynote or PowerPoint. The software brand is not the essential outcome; the views and explanations are.
Common failure: An impressive animation replaces a necessary plan or explanatory diagram. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Select representations that make design strategies and part-to-whole relationships clear to the examiner. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
16. Audit consistency between journal and slides
The final digital presentation should align with the genuine selected concept and refinements. A copied earlier sketch or outdated annotation can contradict the final outcome.
Common failure: The journal chooses Concept C but the digital file displays Concept A. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Check that names, directions, views and design decisions describe the same authentic version. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
17. Submit digital file on the stipulated date
The digital presentation must be submitted before the oral on the date set for the project. The school supervisor and examining agency provide the actual instructions.
Common failure: A candidate assumes that slides can be replaced freely on the day of the oral. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Follow the official submission window and controlled school process. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
18. Submit the final portfolio PDF
The syllabus specifies that completed portfolios are submitted in PDF format at the last project class. The work must be arranged in appropriate order from research to final design.
Common failure: The candidate assumes an email of scattered image files substitutes for the required portfolio. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Use the supervisor's prescribed packaging, ordering and secure submission method. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
19. Understand the three rubric components
The 100 project marks comprise Journal 60, Digital Presentation 28 and Oral 12. These are related but separately assessed kinds of evidence.
Common failure: A student concentrates entirely on the digital render and neglects genuine research or explanation. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Check each component against its own criteria without treating one as a replacement for another. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
20. Understand final design output
Part B(i) awards twelve marks to coherent final output, including appropriate views, drawings and explanation of parts and whole.
Common failure: A page of duplicate hero renderings omits essential route or function diagrams. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Use the right representations for the actual design question rather than rewarding duplication. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
21. Understand quality of final design
Part B(ii) contributes twelve marks for the quality of the solution. Good design optimises human, technology and business factors and addresses a real user requirement.
Common failure: A beautiful design ignores the user's central accessibility issue. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Explain the functional outcome and credible trade-off rather than rely on personal preference. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
22. Understand slide effectiveness
Part B(iii) contributes four marks. Clear, logical, complete and engaging communication supports understanding but cannot create missing design evidence.
Common failure: An unreadable small caption is shown on an otherwise elegant slide. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Check hierarchy and legibility at the intended presentation scale. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
23. Prepare for a five-minute explanation
The first oral phase is five minutes. It should communicate genuine purpose, strategy, key development and solution rather than narrate every journal page.
Common failure: A student spends the first three minutes reading acknowledgements and never explains the selected concept. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Prioritise the decisions an unfamiliar examiner needs to understand. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
24. Prepare for ten minutes of Q&A
Three examiners ask the candidate three scenario-based questions, drawing on the candidate's individual journal and digital file. An unanticipated constraint tests application, not script memory.
Common failure: A new budget question is answered by repeating the original mood-board description. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Identify what changed, which user criterion is affected and a defensible adaptation. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
25. Avoid inventing assessment evidence
Plausible user quotes, observed counts, drawings and version histories must not be created retrospectively and passed off as authentic. The candidate's own truthful records matter.
Common failure: A missing field note is backfilled with fabricated survey results to make a journal look complete. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: State what was actually done and what remains a limitation; obtain teacher guidance on proper documentation. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
26. Respect copyright and attribution
Images and reference work can support research when legitimately used, but the candidate should distinguish precedent from original creation and follow school rules.
Common failure: A third-party architectural drawing is traced and labelled as a student design. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Identify source provenance, legal suitability and the student's own independent contribution. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
27. Understand that design iteration is not perfect linearity
A new finding can send the pupil back to concepts or research. The journal should honestly record the actual order of learning rather than a fictional flawless timeline.
Common failure: A candidate rewrites earlier notes to pretend the first idea was always correct. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Retain genuine reasons for changes, including weaknesses and unsuccessful trials. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
28. Separate output from external technical certification
A proposal can be technically informed without pretending the pupil has proved building safety, material performance or universal accessibility.
Common failure: A photorealistic model is labelled fully compliant despite no verified dimensions. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: State what the design intends and which appropriate technical checks would be required for real implementation. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
29. Plan a realistic study cadence outside Paper 2
Ordinary study of syllabus knowledge can happen outside an examination class; actual assessed project production cannot. Keeping the distinction clear supports preparation without breaking supervision rules.
Common failure: A parent assumes the candidate may complete sections of the official design file as tuition homework. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Use non-assessed exercises to learn principles and leave actual candidate material within school control. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
30. Check the 2028 final-year policy
SEAB's school-candidate catalogue updated 26 October 2026 says 2028 will be the final year of examinations for Applied Subjects. This matters for younger cohorts and long-term planning.
Common failure: A family assumes K376 remains available indefinitely because the 2027 PDF is public. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Verify school provision and consider later-cohort alternatives according to official guidance. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
31. Recognise the difference from Design & Technology
Design & Technology K345 is a different G3 syllabus. A similar course title or sketching task does not make its assessed coursework interchangeable with K376.
Common failure: A learner revises a K345 paper and believes it covers the K376 project rubric. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Confirm subject entry code and actual teacher-supplied assessment materials. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
32. Maintain an authentic explanation of decisions
The most important continuity across research, journal, digital file and oral is that the candidate can explain their actual choices in their own words.
Common failure: A highly polished external presentation cannot be defended when an examiner asks why a component was selected. The correct response is not to make the portfolio look complete regardless of truth. The integrity, time and evidence conditions of this examination are part of the assessment framework, not optional administrative details.
Practical response: Use supervised work and non-assessed reasoning practice to strengthen genuine comprehension, not memorised marketing text. If a question concerns a real assessed file or schedule, refer to the official teacher supervisor rather than infer permission from public learning material. For conceptual practice, use a wholly fictional, unassessed problem and make its invented status explicit.
Twenty original project-management and integrity cases
Project case 1: The scheduled briefing
Fictional issue: A hypothetical candidate knows the project topic is design but has not yet received the official brief.
Appropriate response: Wait for and follow the examining-agency briefing in Term 2 Week 1; do not present a guessed online task as the official assignment.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 2: One brief selected from three
Fictional issue: A pupil starts a logo project and an architectural pavilion simultaneously without choosing the official option.
Appropriate response: Select one actual issued brief and follow its relevant discipline alongside Unit One.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 3: Outside-class sketching
Fictional issue: A student takes the assessed journal home to add detailed drawings.
Appropriate response: The syllabus permits only classwork under direct teacher supervision to count for grading.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 4: Fabricated interviews
Fictional issue: A pupil includes an invented quotation from a visitor in the final A3 journal.
Appropriate response: Keep authentic research records; fictional teaching quotes cannot become evidence of an actual interview.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 5: The wrong storage method
Fictional issue: A student's hardcopy work is kept in an ordinary bag between project sessions.
Appropriate response: The supervisor must secure the A3 portfolio and keep softcopy in the school system after each session.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 6: Missing concept alternatives
Fictional issue: A candidate submits one finished solution without meaningful concept exploration.
Appropriate response: Check the 12-mark concept-generation criterion; genuine alternatives should follow the design strategies.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 7: Decorative SWOT
Fictional issue: The evaluation page lists 'nice' as a strength and 'bad' as a weakness.
Appropriate response: Make entries specific to actual design criteria and explain how they prompted refinement.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 8: Inconsistent drawings
Fictional issue: The journal and final digital file depict different entrance locations.
Appropriate response: Audit all representations against the selected genuine design version.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 9: Late-slide assumption
Fictional issue: A candidate assumes any home-edited slides may be substituted on oral examination day.
Appropriate response: Follow the stipulated digital submission date and teacher supervisor's process.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 10: Wrong file format
Fictional issue: The portfolio consists of separate image attachments rather than an ordered PDF.
Appropriate response: Use the required PDF portfolio submission at the final project class.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 11: Question about viability
Fictional issue: An examiner asks how an interactive display could be maintained with fewer staff.
Appropriate response: Explain the altered operational constraint and a plausible response; do not repeat an aesthetic description.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 12: Project mark confusion
Fictional issue: A pupil believes a strong digital file can automatically replace a missing journal.
Appropriate response: The Journal 60, Digital 28 and Oral 12 each assess distinct evidence.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 13: Borrowed portfolio page
Fictional issue: A candidate uses a friend’s completed design-journal page as original work.
Appropriate response: Protect independent authorship, source provenance and supervision requirements.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 14: Unmeasured performance claim
Fictional issue: A rendering is described as 100% accessible without a relevant test or standard.
Appropriate response: Distinguish intention from verified performance and name the necessary checks.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 15: The 2028 announcement
Fictional issue: A Secondary 1 family plans on sitting K376 several years after 2028.
Appropriate response: Check SEAB's explicit last-year statement and ask the school about available alternatives.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 16: The initial wrong code
Fictional issue: A tuition plan uses Design & Technology K345 materials for a candidate entered in K376.
Appropriate response: Separate the syllabuses and teach according to the actual SEC code.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 17: The impossible ten-session plan
Fictional issue: A fictional schedule spends every session collecting ideas and leaves no time for final output.
Appropriate response: A plan should acknowledge all phases, but the real session allocation must follow teacher instructions.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 18: An oral that just reads slides
Fictional issue: A candidate can recite all presentation text but cannot explain a new scenario.
Appropriate response: Practise decision reasoning based on the candidate's actual supervised work rather than scripted recital.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 19: Research data not authorised
Fictional issue: The student collects identifiable personal data from other pupils for the project without permission.
Appropriate response: Follow school rules on consent, privacy and appropriate data minimisation.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Project case 20: A final look with no rationale
Fictional issue: The final project looks good, but the candidate cannot say how evidence influenced the selection.
Appropriate response: Trace actual problem, source, criteria, alternatives, refinement and outcome in the student's own work.
Why this matters: a compelling visual result and a credible examination record are not identical. The pupil should be able to explain which source, design decision or instruction controls the appropriate action, and how to avoid presenting unsupported, externally produced or unauthorised material as authentic work.
Changed-condition check: imagine the candidate is still preparing outside the project rather than creating assessed work. The learner may study general principles and analyse fictional data, but once the task concerns the real journal or file, the teacher's direct-supervision rules apply. This distinguishes useful revision from prohibited external production.
Original comparison: a genuine journal and a polished but empty portfolio
Consider two fictional non-assessed folders. Folder A contains a concise problem definition, two appropriately sourced reference observations, three distinct concept strategies, an honest evaluation, several meaningful part sketches and a coherent final proposal. Folder B contains dozens of beautiful images but no explanation of the user, research, choice or refinement. The K376 journal rubric rewards a developmental trail that shows how design decisions arose and changed. Folder size and visual polish alone do not show that reasoning.
This illustration does not mean a candidate can submit Folder A as official work; all examined material must come from their own directly supervised activity. It shows why a teacher should ask what each drawing or note contributes. A learner who can explain why a concept changed has demonstrated something important even if the sketch is simpler than a glossy commercial rendering. That explanation should be authentic and relevant to the student's actual brief.
Fictional decision log: what a legitimate reasoning trail looks like
| Stage (fictional) | Finding or issue | Design consequence | Remaining uncertainty |
| Problem definition | First-time visitors cannot identify the intended destination from a dense sign | Prioritise clear initial orientation | How frequent is the issue across users? |
| Concept exploration | A central directory and route signs offer different ways of giving directions | Compare guidance at entry and later decisions | Which is easier to update? |
| Evaluation | The route-sign option could require more maintenance points | Reconsider modular, consistent information panels | What operational resources are available? |
| Refinement | The conceptual response now includes clearer labels and planned update responsibility | Connect user clarity with viable operation | Has any real user test occurred? |
| Communication | Views explain initial entry, route and sign details | Make the overall process understandable | Dimensions and performance remain unverified |
Every entry in this table is fictional, not a record of research undertaken by any candidate. In a real project, the student must truthfully record what actually happened, what evidence was available and what changes were made. Retrospective fabrication of an earlier test or a neat sequence of decisions would undermine authenticity. A genuine journal can include uncertainty, unsuccessful ideas and changes of direction when those reflect real supervised work.
What the teacher supervisor controls—and what the student still must understand
The teacher supervisor provides the timetable, oversees authenticity, controls work storage and ensures the supervised environment described by the official syllabus. The student remains responsible for understanding the brief, making their own decisions and explaining their design. Supervision is not a substitute for agency; it protects the integrity of the candidate's individual contribution. Families and external tutors can help teach design concepts on separate material but should not author or edit the examined project.
The same principle applies to digital assets and source provenance. Research images can be relevant when their origin and permitted use are handled properly, while copying a finished commercial design into a candidate's work as original is not acceptable. A good pupil can distinguish 'this is a referenced precedent' from 'this is the design I independently developed'. The project journal and oral discussion should make that boundary clear.
The oral is an explanation of work, not an escape from project evidence
The official K376 oral uses the already submitted digital presentation file. In five minutes, the candidate should communicate the actual design process and final outcome clearly enough that examiners understand the purpose. During ten minutes of Q&A, three scenario-based questions probe understanding and application of design principles to the candidate's own journal and file. A new budget, audience or site condition may require the learner to reconsider a detail. The credible response names the change and reasons through it instead of reciting a memorised paragraph.
A useful non-assessed tutorial can ask a student to analyse an invented pavilion under an altered shade requirement, or a fictional poster whose venue has changed. This strengthens design reasoning without preparing answers about a real unseen assessed brief. When the actual oral arrives, the pupil must explain only their own authentic supervised work and state honestly when a condition has not been tested.
A three-learner tutorial about project evidence
Three fictional learners discuss a sample design process. One misunderstands the supervised work rule and plans to finish official sketches at home. Another knows the rule but expects the final digital file to replace a weak research trail. A third has a strong grasp of user research but assumes an invented survey percentage will make the journal more convincing. Their problems are administrative compliance, assessment structure and research integrity. They need different corrections.
The tutor distinguishes non-assessed study from project production, explains the separate rubric components and demonstrates why fictional observations must be labelled fictional. The learners then identify correct next steps for new hypothetical cases independently. They never collaborate to produce an individual candidate's examined portfolio. Parents can support timetabling and understanding without stepping into the role of creator or author.
The twelve-point parent and student checkpoint
- 1. Confirm the actual K376 subject entry and approved school.
- 2. Check the cohort, given SEAB's stated 2028 final examination year.
- 3. Obtain all real project dates and brief instructions from the teacher supervisor.
- 4. Distinguish public non-assessed learning from directly supervised candidate work.
- 5. Understand the official ten three-hour sessions rather than inventing an examination schedule.
- 6. Know how hardcopy A3 and secured digital files are controlled between classes.
- 7. Preserve actual research provenance, consent and honest records.
- 8. Explain why alternative concepts are meaningfully different.
- 9. Link refinements to authentic observations and brief-derived criteria.
- 10. Check final views and annotations correspond to the genuine selected design.
- 11. Follow the official PDF portfolio and prior digital-file submission instructions.
- 12. Practise applying design principles independently in unfamiliar situations.
A four-week non-assessed preparation plan
- Week 1 — study K376's 40/60 assessment, official project conditions and each rubric criterion using a separate fictional example.
- Week 2 — review design research, evidence, concept alternatives and truthful refinement in practice cases that are not the candidate's assigned brief.
- Week 3 — practise checking drawings for parts/whole coherence and explaining human, technology and business trade-offs in invented scenarios.
- Week 4 — rehearse a natural explanation of a fictional design and answer new scenario questions while keeping the actual examined work within school controls.
Frequently asked questions
1. What is the 2027 G3 Design Studies examination code?
K376, formerly NP05. Reference 387 is an editorial article number.
2. How much does Paper 2 count?
Sixty percent of the subject grade, with the written paper contributing forty percent.
3. How many official supervised hours?
Thirty hours in ten sessions of three hours.
4. When do candidates receive the project brief?
At the examining-agency briefing in Week 1 of Term 2 in the examination year.
5. How many briefs are offered?
Three, from Visual Communication, Interior/Exhibition Space and Architectural Design.
6. How many briefs does a student complete?
One selected official brief, undertaken individually.
7. Who sets exact deadlines?
The examining agency and teacher supervisor provide the applicable schedule and submission dates.
8. Can the assessed design be created at home?
The syllabus says only work created in class under direct teacher supervision is accepted for grading.
9. What happens to physical work between classes?
The supervisor locks it in an A3 portfolio.
10. Where are digital files kept between sessions?
In a secured school IT system controlled by the supervisor.
11. What is the final journal format?
Ordered A3 sheets or equivalent compiled and submitted as PDF at the final project class.
12. How is the project scored?
Journal sixty, digital presentation twenty-eight and oral twelve out of one hundred project marks.
13. How many examiners attend the oral?
Three, asking the candidate three scenario-based questions.
14. How long is the oral?
Five minutes' presentation and ten minutes' Q&A.
15. Can AI invent interview or testing results?
Invented results must not be presented as authentic candidate research. Examinable evidence must be truthful and supervised.
16. Is K376 available to private candidates?
It is an approved-school Applied Subject and is not automatically available through a private-candidate route.
17. Does a student submit all three design fields?
No. Unit One plus the chosen field applies to the selected brief.
18. What is the final Applied Subjects examination year?
SEAB's official G3 catalogue states 2028.
19. Is K376 the same as Design & Technology K345?
No. They have distinct codes and assessment requirements.
20. Which source controls these instructions?
The official 2027 SEAB K376 syllabus and direct guidance from the school's supervisor.
Independent project-rules exercises
Practice 1: The scheduled briefing
Original fictional problem: A hypothetical candidate knows the project topic is design but has not yet received the official brief.
Answer-check route: Wait for and follow the examining-agency briefing in Term 2 Week 1; do not present a guessed online task as the official assignment. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 2: One brief selected from three
Original fictional problem: A pupil starts a logo project and an architectural pavilion simultaneously without choosing the official option.
Answer-check route: Select one actual issued brief and follow its relevant discipline alongside Unit One. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 3: Outside-class sketching
Original fictional problem: A student takes the assessed journal home to add detailed drawings.
Answer-check route: The syllabus permits only classwork under direct teacher supervision to count for grading. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 4: Fabricated interviews
Original fictional problem: A pupil includes an invented quotation from a visitor in the final A3 journal.
Answer-check route: Keep authentic research records; fictional teaching quotes cannot become evidence of an actual interview. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 5: The wrong storage method
Original fictional problem: A student's hardcopy work is kept in an ordinary bag between project sessions.
Answer-check route: The supervisor must secure the A3 portfolio and keep softcopy in the school system after each session. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 6: Missing concept alternatives
Original fictional problem: A candidate submits one finished solution without meaningful concept exploration.
Answer-check route: Check the 12-mark concept-generation criterion; genuine alternatives should follow the design strategies. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 7: Decorative SWOT
Original fictional problem: The evaluation page lists 'nice' as a strength and 'bad' as a weakness.
Answer-check route: Make entries specific to actual design criteria and explain how they prompted refinement. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 8: Inconsistent drawings
Original fictional problem: The journal and final digital file depict different entrance locations.
Answer-check route: Audit all representations against the selected genuine design version. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 9: Late-slide assumption
Original fictional problem: A candidate assumes any home-edited slides may be substituted on oral examination day.
Answer-check route: Follow the stipulated digital submission date and teacher supervisor's process. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 10: Wrong file format
Original fictional problem: The portfolio consists of separate image attachments rather than an ordered PDF.
Answer-check route: Use the required PDF portfolio submission at the final project class. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 11: Question about viability
Original fictional problem: An examiner asks how an interactive display could be maintained with fewer staff.
Answer-check route: Explain the altered operational constraint and a plausible response; do not repeat an aesthetic description. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 12: Project mark confusion
Original fictional problem: A pupil believes a strong digital file can automatically replace a missing journal.
Answer-check route: The Journal 60, Digital 28 and Oral 12 each assess distinct evidence. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 13: Borrowed portfolio page
Original fictional problem: A candidate uses a friend’s completed design-journal page as original work.
Answer-check route: Protect independent authorship, source provenance and supervision requirements. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Practice 14: Unmeasured performance claim
Original fictional problem: A rendering is described as 100% accessible without a relevant test or standard.
Answer-check route: Distinguish intention from verified performance and name the necessary checks. State whether the issue concerns official timing, genuine authorship, project evidence, file handling or design reasoning. A wrong assumption about supervision should never be 'repaired' by making up missing work.
Official sources and the continued K376 reference sequence
SEAB 2027 G3 Design Studies K376 — official project and integrity rules
SEAB 2027 G3 school-candidate catalogue — approved Applied Subjects and 2028 last year
Reference 380 — research and design strategies
Reference 381 — concept generation and refinement
Reference 382 — detailed sketches and applied principles
Reference 383 — digital presentation and oral Q&A
Immutable eduKateSG small-group teaching reference
The thirty-hour Design Project teaches a discipline beyond attractive finished work: identify a meaningful need, conduct honest research, develop and evaluate genuine ideas, communicate the final concept and explain its limitations. The project's value rests on what the candidate actually did and understood under supervision, not on the appearance of a manufactured perfect portfolio.