SEC G3 Design and Technology Examinations | What to Do (SEAB K345) is a 2027 guide to the subject where the most important examination work begins well before the written paper. Quick answer: confirm K345, understand that Paper 1 is a two-hour written examination worth 40%, and plan the 22-week individual Paper 2 Design Project worth 60%. The project requires a real-time Design Journal, mock-ups, a prototype and a Presentation Board following specific sizes and submission rules. A beautiful final object cannot substitute for evidence of authentic design thinking and tested decisions.
The new SEC G3 Design & Technology code is K345, replacing reference code 7059. Paper 1 contains four compulsory design-centric questions, 80 marks in total: Question 1 on design contributes 26 marks, while Questions 2–4 on structures, mechanisms and electronics together contribute 54 marks. Paper 2 is an individual coursework examination lasting 22 weeks from question-paper release, excluding school holidays, with a 60-mark rubric and internal marking moderated externally. This guide explains what students should do at every stage, the skills to develop, how to work safely and how to avoid portfolio errors that cannot be fixed at the last minute.
- 2027 SEC G3 Design and Technology subject code K345; historical reference code 7059.
- Paper 1 Written Examination: two hours, 80 raw marks, 40% of overall subject; answer ALL four compulsory questions.
- Paper 1 Question 1: Section 1 Design, 26 marks.
- Paper 1 Questions 2–4: Section 2 Technology, including structures, mechanisms and electronics, 54 marks total.
- Paper 2 Design Project: individual coursework over 22 weeks from examination-paper release, excluding school holidays; worth 60%, assessed out of 60 marks.
- Paper 2 contains Design Journal, mock-ups and prototype; the Presentation Board communicates the proposed solution.
- Design Journal format: securely fastened A3 sheets or an A3 sketch pad, plus mock-up(s), prototype and mould/jig/former where used.
- Presentation Board format: A2-size, single-sided; at most two boards.
- The Design Journal is intended to record the actual process in real time; SEAB advises against reworking completed design sheets.
- Workshop tools, electrical/electronic parts, chemical finishes and equipment must be used only with appropriate school supervision and safety controls.
- Follow the school and SEAB’s current coursework deadline, authenticity and candidate rules.
SEAB official 2027 G3 Design & Technology K345 syllabus PDF
Why K345 is different from an ordinary two-paper examination
The Singapore-Cambridge Secondary Education Certificate starts in 2027 and reflects subjects examined at different registered G1, G2 or G3 levels under Full Subject-Based Banding. K345 identifies the G3 Design and Technology subject, not G2 Design & Technology K234. It combines knowledge, design thinking and manipulation of materials and technology. The timing is very different from a subject that can be revised almost entirely before a written sitting: most of K345’s assessment arises from a substantial 22-week design project.
A candidate who leaves the project until the final few weeks risks losing evidence of exploration, testing and iterative improvement. A rushed journal written after the prototype exists may not honestly show what the candidate did or when decisions were made. The syllabus explicitly describes a real-time Design Journal, time-stage plans and development records, and advises not to re-work completed design sheets. Students should preserve authentic process evidence rather than create a staged history after the fact. Schools are responsible for coursework supervision and assessment, with external moderation.
The official 2027 assessment scheme
| Component | Timing | Raw marks | Weight | Non-negotiable requirement |
| Paper 1 Written | 2 hours | 80 | 40% | Answer Q1 design (26) and Q2–Q4 technology (54 total) |
| Paper 2 Individual Design Project | 22 weeks, excluding school holidays | 60 | 60% | Design Journal, mock-up(s), prototype and Presentation Board according to the syllabus |
The syllabus’s assessment domains are Knowledge with Understanding (40% overall), Design Thinking Skills (30%) and Design Manipulating Skills (30%). Paper 1 assesses design and technological knowledge with design-centric questions. Paper 2 assesses how a candidate identifies a human need, investigates it, develops and tests alternatives, communicates a proposed response and realises a prototype safely. Even when the project result appears modest, a credible process that explains its choices is more informative than a polished object accompanied by invented research.
The four main stages of the design process—and why it is not a straight line
- Needs Analysis: observe actual everyday activities, identify a meaningful design opportunity and understand the user and situation.
- Idea Conceptualisation: generate alternative ideas and develop a defensible design brief and specifications.
- Development: sketch, model, test, assess material and technical choices and revise when evidence reveals problems.
- Prototyping: realise and evaluate a working representation of the proposed design solution.
- Research and evaluation inform all four stages, rather than being separate tasks performed only once at the start.
A realistic example is a student observing that a family member finds it difficult to organise personal items in a tight study space. The student should not jump immediately to fabricating a holder based on appearance. The design process begins by understanding the user’s habits, storage dimensions, safety, available space and cost. Several concepts can be sketched and explored with cardboard mock-ups. Testing may reveal that a seemingly elegant shape is unstable or hard to clean. The candidate can then refine the design brief and prototype while documenting the decisions. This is an illustrative design scenario, not the official 2027 project question.
Design Journal versus Presentation Board: know what each is for
The Design Journal is a record of investigation and evolution. It may show annotated observations, sketches, calculations, user considerations, trial mock-ups, tests and reasons for revision, along with a time-stages plan such as a Gantt chart and sub-plans. The student should be able to point from a design change to the evidence that prompted it. It does not need to be a decorative photo album of a completed item. A genuine journal makes the design process legible to the teacher, moderator and—most importantly—the student.
The Presentation Board has a different purpose: communicate the proposed final design succinctly. It should make the design brief and specifications clear, showing functional and aesthetic details with suitable graphical techniques and how the proposed solution suits its user and environment. SEAB specifies at most two single-sided A2-size boards. Do not assume that more boards earn more marks or that a glossy rendering can compensate for absent functional evidence. The mock-ups and prototype form part of the project submission as specified by the school’s authorised process.
What technology knowledge should students actually develop?
The syllabus covers working knowledge of materials such as wood, metals and plastics; materials selection and the implications of properties, cost, appearance and sustainability; forces and structural strengthening; open- and closed-loop control systems; simple electronics and sensing; mechanical transmission such as gears, cams, linkages, pulleys, levers, screws and rack-and-pinion systems; and safe measuring, shaping, assembly and finishing processes. These are areas to understand, not instructions to attempt potentially hazardous operations without training.
For Paper 1, candidates should identify how technology solves a design need. For instance, a triangular brace can resist deformation in a structure; a rack-and-pinion can convert rotary motion to linear motion; a sensor can supply input to a control system. A useful answer explains function, expected behaviour and a relevant constraint. Naming an attractive mechanism without showing how it would fit a user’s need is incomplete. For workshop tasks, the actual tools and processes must be chosen and supervised by appropriately qualified school staff.
Thirty design-and-coursework mistakes with specific repairs
1. Starting from a product rather than a human need
Common problem: The student decides to make a lamp or organiser before investigating whether anyone needs that particular solution.
What to do: Observe a real activity, identify the user difficulty and define the improvement opportunity before generating products.
Worked design situation: If a person struggles to reach a shelf, the underlying need may be safe access rather than more shelving.
Independent test: Interview or observe an authorised user and write a one-sentence problem statement.
Why this matters: Design begins with a need and context, not an appealing object.
2. Vague user description
Common problem: The brief says the product is ‘for everyone’, making dimensions and requirements impossible to validate.
What to do: Define a specific user group and relevant activities, limitations and environments without making unsupported assumptions.
Worked design situation: A schoolchild carrying items on public transport has different constraints from an office worker in a fixed location.
Independent test: Write an accurate user profile with three evidence-backed needs.
Why this matters: Specific users allow meaningful testing and prioritisation.
3. Research collected without a question
Common problem: Pages of product screenshots are added without showing what they inform.
What to do: Give each piece of research a purpose: dimensions, materials, behaviours, safety or feasibility.
Worked design situation: A photograph of a storage product helps only if a measured design feature or relevant limitation is extracted.
Independent test: Annotate one research item with the decision it influenced.
Why this matters: Research must inform design, not fill pages.
4. Leading user surveys
Common problem: The student asks ‘Would you love my improved product?’ and treats positive replies as proof.
What to do: Use neutral questions and realistic observation, with appropriate privacy and consent practices.
Worked design situation: Ask which task is difficult and why, before proposing an untested product.
Independent test: Rewrite five leading questions into neutral needs-analysis questions.
Why this matters: Credible insight requires honest inquiry.
5. Design brief too broad
Common problem: The brief says ‘create something useful’ and cannot be tested.
What to do: State the user, setting, need and intended function in concise terms.
Worked design situation: A desk accessory for keeping specified items accessible in limited space is more testable than ‘make life better’.
Independent test: Have someone else restate the proposed problem in one sentence.
Why this matters: A clear brief gives the design process direction.
6. Specifications that cannot be measured
Common problem: The student writes ‘attractive’ and ‘strong’ without defining any evaluation criteria.
What to do: Translate needs into checkable functional, size, stability, usability, safety and cost requirements.
Worked design situation: A holder should fit a defined item size and remain stable under a specified safe use condition.
Independent test: Make a brief verification method beside each specification.
Why this matters: Specifications are meaningful only when they can guide testing.
7. Ignoring anthropometric variability
Common problem: One person’s hand or body size is assumed to suit every user.
What to do: Use relevant ergonomic and anthropometric considerations, allowing variation for the defined users.
Worked design situation: A handle that works for one hand size may be hard for another user to grip.
Independent test: Test a paper mock-up with appropriate users under teacher guidance.
Why this matters: User-centred dimensions are evidence, not decoration.
8. One idea treated as sufficient exploration
Common problem: A single sketch is declared the final solution with no alternatives.
What to do: Generate several concepts and compare them against the design specifications.
Worked design situation: A folding, sliding and detachable arrangement may address the same space problem in different ways.
Independent test: Sketch three alternatives and state the strongest trade-off for each.
Why this matters: Divergent thinking improves decisions before costly fabrication.
9. SCAMPER as a label only
Common problem: The word SCAMPER appears without any real modification to a design.
What to do: Apply a specific ideation operation and show the new idea it produced.
Worked design situation: Combining two storage functions might reduce space but can make cleaning harder.
Independent test: Apply one SCAMPER prompt to a real sketch and annotate the change.
Why this matters: An ideation tool is useful only when it affects a concept.
10. Pretty sketches without function
Common problem: A rendering is detailed but cannot explain how the product opens, holds or moves.
What to do: Use arrows, dimensions, labels and different views to communicate operations.
Worked design situation: A hinge location, clearance and access path can matter more than decorative shading.
Independent test: Ask another student to describe how the device operates from the drawing.
Why this matters: Good design graphics communicate mechanism.
11. No iteration after testing
Common problem: A prototype fails a test but the candidate keeps the original shape to preserve the picture.
What to do: Record the failed behaviour, its likely cause and a justified revision.
Worked design situation: A narrow base tipping under light load suggests reconsidering support geometry.
Independent test: Change one mock-up parameter and test again using the same measure.
Why this matters: Evidence-driven revision is central to the subject.
12. Mock-up mistaken for final prototype
Common problem: A cardboard model is presented as proof that a durable mechanism will work.
What to do: Use early mock-ups to explore shape and interaction; make claims about final performance only from appropriate tests.
Worked design situation: A folded-paper hinge demonstrates concept movement but not its long-term wear resistance.
Independent test: State what the mock-up can and cannot validly establish.
Why this matters: Models have limits and should not be overinterpreted.
13. Material selected only by appearance
Common problem: A student chooses acrylic or hardwood because it ‘looks premium’ without testing function.
What to do: Consider mechanical properties, cost, processing method, weight, user environment and sustainability.
Worked design situation: A material suitable for a static indoor display may be unsuitable for repeated bending.
Independent test: Make a material comparison table with four relevant criteria.
Why this matters: Material selection should follow the design brief.
14. Strength versus stiffness confused
Common problem: The student assumes a stiff part necessarily resists failure under every load.
What to do: Distinguish resistance to deformation from resistance to failure and consider geometry and forces.
Worked design situation: A rigid-looking component can still be brittle or fail at a stress concentration.
Independent test: Describe one test that would help distinguish the claimed properties.
Why this matters: Precise property language leads to safer decisions.
15. Ignoring compression, tension and bending
Common problem: A structure is drawn without identifying how forces act.
What to do: Sketch the load path and label relevant tension, compression, shear or bending actions.
Worked design situation: A shelf support may need to resist downward bending rather than only horizontal movement.
Independent test: Draw free-body-style arrows for one simplified product.
Why this matters: Structural behaviour can be explained, not merely guessed.
16. Weak joints and unexplained reinforcement
Common problem: The student adds a thick panel instead of considering braces, folds, ribs or joining details.
What to do: Investigate stability and rigidity using appropriate strengthening features and supervision.
Worked design situation: A triangular gusset can resist rotation at a joint in some structures.
Independent test: Make two safe mock-ups and compare deformation under a small controlled load.
Why this matters: Thoughtful structural design can reduce material waste.
17. Mechanism named but not understood
Common problem: The student writes ‘use gears’ without explaining input and output movement.
What to do: Identify whether the mechanism transmits, converts or controls motion, then sketch the path.
Worked design situation: A rack-and-pinion converts rotary input to linear movement, which may suit a sliding component.
Independent test: Draw input, moving links and output in a new mechanism.
Why this matters: The mechanism must serve the chosen function.
18. Open-loop versus closed-loop confusion
Common problem: A system with a button is automatically called closed-loop even without feedback.
What to do: Define input, process and output, then identify whether measured output feeds back to control action.
Worked design situation: An air conditioner using a temperature sensor to regulate operation involves feedback.
Independent test: Classify two everyday devices and draw their control paths.
Why this matters: Feedback, not complexity, is the decisive property.
19. Electronics without safe supervision
Common problem: A student improvises wiring or battery connections without understanding equipment limitations.
What to do: Use school-approved kits, follow trained supervision and check the design’s electrical safety constraints.
Worked design situation: A light-sensing demonstration can be valuable, but should use the authorised educational hardware and safe procedures.
Independent test: Explain the input and output without independently altering unsafe circuits.
Why this matters: Practical safety is part of good design.
20. Workshop tools used casually
Common problem: A learner attempts drilling, cutting, soldering or chemical finishing unsupervised to accelerate the project.
What to do: Use only approved tools, protective procedures and authorised workshop instruction.
Worked design situation: A rough prototype made safely under supervision is preferable to an attractive but hazardous shortcut.
Independent test: Create a risk checklist with the workshop supervisor before the next fabrication stage.
Why this matters: The examination does not reward unsafe conduct.
21. Dimensions missing from working drawings
Common problem: A presentation drawing appears finished but gives no useful fabrication information.
What to do: Add relevant dimensions, views and material or assembly details to the appropriate working drawing.
Worked design situation: A component may be impossible to fabricate accurately if hole centres and clearances are unspecified.
Independent test: Have a supervisor check whether the drawing communicates the required dimensions.
Why this matters: Working drawings turn concepts into buildable information.
22. Design Journal reconstructed at the end
Common problem: The learner assembles a polished story of the work after the prototype exists.
What to do: Maintain real-time A3 journal sheets and time-stage updates; preserve authentic decisions and failed tests.
Worked design situation: A documented early idea that was rejected for a reason is valuable evidence of thinking.
Independent test: Date and annotate the next decision as it occurs rather than reworking earlier sheets.
Why this matters: SEAB advises not to re-work design sheets; authenticity matters.
23. A Gantt chart that never changes
Common problem: The initial plan exists on paper but is not used to monitor progress.
What to do: Use milestones and sub-plans to compare planned and actual completion and respond realistically to delays.
Worked design situation: A delayed prototype test may require bringing forward other safe documentation work.
Independent test: Update the current plan with a grounded reason for a change.
Why this matters: Project management is assessed through use, not merely presence.
24. A2 Presentation Board overcrowded
Common problem: The student adds lengthy paragraphs and many images that obscure the final proposal.
What to do: Use concise graphical communication of user need, design features, functions, aesthetics and fit to the brief.
Worked design situation: One well-annotated exploded view may explain assembly better than several pages of generic statements.
Independent test: Ask a classmate to understand the solution from the board alone.
Why this matters: The board is communication, not the entire process journal.
25. Wrong sheet size or number of boards
Common problem: Extra boards are added or the journal uses an incompatible format.
What to do: Check A3 journal format and A2 single-sided presentation board maximum of two, following school submission rules.
Worked design situation: A beautiful third presentation board exceeds the stated limit even when its graphics are strong.
Independent test: Make a physical format checklist early and review it before final submission.
Why this matters: Administrative requirements cannot be repaired with better decoration.
26. Design brief never revised despite findings
Common problem: Research reveals a new safety or usability need but the candidate keeps obsolete specifications.
What to do: Reconsider the brief and specifications when authentic evidence supports the change.
Worked design situation: Testing may show that the intended user cannot operate a proposed grip safely.
Independent test: Record the finding, amended requirement and design response.
Why this matters: Iteration is an expected part of the process.
27. No real usability testing
Common problem: A candidate claims a product is ergonomic because it looks comfortable.
What to do: Choose measurable or observable criteria and test with suitable authorised users.
Worked design situation: A handle may look smooth but be too narrow for reliable use under load.
Independent test: Design a simple supervised user task and record observations honestly.
Why this matters: User claims should be evidence-based.
28. Sustainability treated as a slogan
Common problem: The project says ‘eco-friendly’ but gives no material, waste or repairability reasoning.
What to do: Discuss material use, longevity, disposal, repairability and trade-offs relevant to the solution.
Worked design situation: An inexpensive disposable component may have different lifetime impacts from a reusable one.
Independent test: Compare two plausible materials using the project’s real constraints.
Why this matters: Environmental reasoning should be concrete.
29. Written Paper 1 neglected because coursework dominates
Common problem: Students assume a strong journal can replace all written knowledge.
What to do: Rehearse four design-centric questions, including 26-mark design and 54-mark technology allocation.
Worked design situation: A thoughtful prototype does not automatically show understanding of electronics or mechanisms in writing.
Independent test: Complete a two-hour timed Paper 1 practice on fresh design examples.
Why this matters: Both assessment components are compulsory and measure distinct skills.
30. Project overcomplicated beyond available means
Common problem: A candidate plans advanced electronics or fabrication beyond safe school resources.
What to do: Select a feasible solution within timeframe, budget, skills and school supervision; request guidance early.
Worked design situation: A simpler mechanically reliable prototype can demonstrate good design thinking more clearly than an unbuildable gadget.
Independent test: Evaluate each concept against resource, time and risk constraints.
Why this matters: Completion and evidence are more valuable than grand promises.
A safe worked design case: improving an everyday study space
Imagine a student notices that people in a shared study area repeatedly lose track of charging cables and small stationery. The student should investigate exactly when the inconvenience occurs, who uses the area, how much space is available and whether the problem involves access, storage or safety. A vague brief such as ‘design a cool desk product’ would not guide testing. A stronger brief defines a user and a measurable improvement. Research might include approved interviews, observation of how items are handled and measurement of the available space.
Next, sketch multiple concepts, perhaps a detachable organiser, an under-shelf clip and a rotating holder. Compare stability, reach, material use and cleaning. Create safe paper or foam-board mock-ups under normal classroom conditions. If one concept obstructs access to a socket or causes a hazard, reject or revise it and record why. Only then choose appropriate materials and construction methods with the teacher’s workshop approval. The final journal should show the decisions and test results as they genuinely occurred, including unsuccessful trials.
A presentation board can then communicate the selected solution with labelled views and concise explanations. It should not misrepresent the mock-up as a tested durable prototype. This imaginary case demonstrates a process: user needs, research, alternatives, evaluation, refinement, prototyping and clear communication. The actual 2027 examination project brief is set by the examining authority; no online article can forecast its requirements or replace the school’s controlled project environment.
A practical 22-week project management framework
The 22-week window is prescribed from release of the examination question, excluding school holidays. The following is an illustrative planning framework, not a replacement for the official school schedule. In the earliest phase, establish the question’s boundaries, observe user needs and draft a justified brief. Next, generate alternatives and use quick models to evaluate them. During development, refine details and select technology based on function, constraints and safety. Later, realise the prototype under supervision, evaluate it and communicate the solution succinctly on the Presentation Board.
Do not treat these phases as a rigid sequence. Genuine design often loops back when a test reveals a weak assumption or a user explains a previously missed need. Maintain a live milestone plan and note what changed. A useful journal entry records the question being tested, what was tried, the observation and the resulting decision. Do not fabricate research participants, outcomes or timestamps to make the work seem smoother. The rubric values meaningful development and monitoring, not a fictional perfect path.
The 2-hour Paper 1: how to prepare without neglecting coursework
Question 1 contributes 26 of the 80 written marks and focuses on Section 1 Design. Questions 2–4 together contribute 54 marks and assess technology: structures, mechanisms and electronics. Use a weekly mixed practice: one short needs-analysis or sketching task, one forces-and-structures question, one mechanism explanation and one control-system problem. For each, connect knowledge to an actual design context rather than stating isolated definitions. Label sketches clearly and show why a particular solution suits a user.
The written paper requires all questions to be answered, so do not use a ‘choose your favourite’ strategy. Under timed practice, review where you misunderstand a mechanism, omit the relevant force or confuse open-loop with feedback control. Distinguish recognising a named material from explaining why its properties fit the use. When you correct an answer, write one new comparable example rather than copying the same diagram repeatedly. That transfer is the exam-ready skill.
A twelve-week written-paper preparation sequence alongside coursework
Weeks 12–9 before the written paper: assess design thinking and technology
Map the 2027 K345 content to three categories: design knowledge, technology mechanisms and the project process. Sit a short diagnostic on user needs, sketching, structural strength, motion transmission and simple feedback systems. Identify whether mistakes come from missing terminology, unsuitable design choices, misunderstood forces or weak communication. Continue authorised project work according to the teacher’s real schedule; do not move project tasks solely to suit this general revision calendar.
Weeks 8–5: mixed applied questions
Use new everyday products as practice situations. For a storage device, think about user dimensions, forces and material. For a mechanical device, identify motion input and output. For a sensor-based product, distinguish input, process, output and feedback. Every practice should include one design decision and one limitation. Use actual sketches and short explanation chains rather than memorising a page of component names that cannot be applied to a question.
Weeks 4–2: full Paper 1 rehearsals and project integrity
Sit complete two-hour Paper 1 mocks with all four questions. Log both correct marks and unanswered parts. Continue journal monitoring and appropriate project submission steps under school supervision. Do not attempt to reconstruct coursework at home in violation of school rules or use unsafe equipment unsupervised. The 60% coursework contribution means consistent authentic project management deserves care throughout the entire period, not just near the written paper.
Final week: stable methods, safety and logistics
Review the written-paper question map, common structures and mechanisms, control-system diagrams and a compact error log. Verify current SEAB and school reporting, the official K345 code and the actual written exam date. Handle coursework submission and moderation requirements only through authorised school channels. Preserve sleep and attention, and do not begin hazardous fabrication tasks at the last minute to make the prototype look more sophisticated.
Seven-day design and technology learning cycle
| Day | Study focus | Evidence of useful progress |
| Monday | User needs, design brief and specifications | One measurable, evidence-backed problem statement |
| Tuesday | Sketching and concept alternatives | Three labelled concepts compared against user needs |
| Wednesday | Structures and material properties | A force explanation and suitable material choice |
| Thursday | Mechanisms and electronics | Correct input-output or feedback diagram |
| Friday | Safe mock-up review and project journal | Authentic test results and a justified design decision |
| Saturday | Timed Paper 1 questions | All four design-centric tasks addressed |
| Sunday | Review, reflection and rest | One prior weakness retested with a new product |
What to do when a design or exam problem goes wrong
A mock-up that tips over or a mechanism that sticks is not automatically a disaster; it is information. Record what happened, the likely cause and the next safe test. Do not hide an unexpected result or imply an object works beyond the evidence obtained. If a project is falling behind schedule, bring that issue to the coursework supervisor and adjust the live plan with realistic, authorised steps. Do not attempt unapproved machine work, soldering or chemical finishing to catch up. A design solution should improve life without compromising safety.
If Paper 1 contains an unfamiliar product, identify the underlying need and then apply known structures, mechanisms, control or material principles. A clear diagram can organise your thinking, but must be technically meaningful. If examination or coursework administration goes wrong—illness, absence, a registered subject mismatch, software or equipment trouble, or an authenticity query—follow the school and SEAB’s official processes promptly. Do not assume a parent or tutor can authorise an exception or complete a candidate’s individual coursework.
Parents, teachers and small-group tutors: support the student without taking over
Parents can ask simple but powerful questions: Who is the user? What evidence shows this is a problem? How will you test whether it works? What did you change after the test? These questions encourage authentic design thought without creating or fabricating assessed coursework on behalf of the child. Teachers supervise the school’s workshop and coursework process; a private tutor can explain foundational mechanics, design principles or safe sketching outside restricted assessment activity, respecting the school’s authorship rules.
Small-group discussion can be useful when students compare how differently they respond to the same everyday difficulty. Each must still produce and document their own original individual design work. A tool, graphic or AI-generated suggestion should never be presented as the student’s personal investigation when it is not. The educational goal is the capacity to observe needs, evaluate constraints, iterate responsibly and communicate evidence-based design decisions. Those abilities transfer to engineering, product design, architecture, innovation and many ordinary home decisions.
Frequently asked questions: SEC 2027 Design and Technology K345
What is the 2027 G3 Design & Technology code?
K345. The old reference code was 7059.
What are the two assessment components?
Paper 1 Written Examination and Paper 2 Individual Design Project.
How much is the written paper worth?
40%, with 80 marks in two hours.
How many written questions are compulsory?
All four questions must be answered.
How many marks are in Paper 1 Question 1?
26 marks from Section 1 Design.
What do written Questions 2–4 test?
Section 2 Technology, including structures, mechanisms and electronics; 54 marks total.
How much is the project worth?
60% of the qualification, with a 60-mark coursework rubric.
How long is the Design Project?
22 weeks from question-paper release, excluding school holidays.
Is the project individual work?
Yes. It is individual coursework supervised and assessed by the school with external moderation.
What does the Design Journal contain?
Authentic time-stage plans, investigations, annotated sketches, development, testing and a record of the personal design process, with mock-ups and prototype.
Can I rewrite journal sheets after the project is complete?
SEAB advises not to re-work design sheets; keep a genuine real-time record and follow supervisor instructions.
What size is the Design Journal?
A3-size sheets securely fastened or an A3 sketch pad, plus the specified physical models and prototype.
What is the Presentation Board size?
A2, single-sided, at most two boards.
Is the Presentation Board the entire project?
No. It succinctly communicates the proposed solution; the Design Journal, mock-ups and prototype document development.
Do students have to use advanced electronics?
Not automatically. Design choices must meet the actual brief and remain safe and feasible within school resources.
Are all four design stages performed strictly once?
No. The syllabus explicitly describes an iterative process that may return to earlier stages.
What if my prototype fails a test?
Record the genuine observation, analyse the cause and revise safely under supervision.
Can I complete workshop operations unsupervised at home?
Do not attempt hazardous cutting, soldering, machining, chemical finishing or equipment work without qualified supervision and safety controls.
Can parents or tutors construct the assessed prototype?
The assessment is individual coursework. Support understanding and logistics without substituting for the candidate’s own assessed work.
How do I improve Paper 1 diagrams?
Use clear labels, relevant forces or input-output relationships and explain why the mechanism suits the proposed design.
Is G2 Design and Technology K234 the same paper?
No. Follow the registered G level and current relevant syllabus.
What if I am falling behind on coursework?
Inform the coursework supervisor early and update the real plan under their guidance, rather than falsify progress.
Can old 7059 resources help?
They may support aligned design and technology skills but cannot replace the 2027 K345 requirements.
What should I do the week before the written paper?
Review common technology mistakes, practise a complete paper, check school instructions and protect rest.
Official syllabus and further eduKate reading
The 2027 K345 code, 40%/60% weights, 22-week project, A3/A2 formats and assessment details follow SEAB’s official 2027 Design and Technology syllabus, checked 11 November 2026. Current school and SEAB instructions govern actual coursework submissions, safety, exam dates and candidate administration.
SEAB: Official 2027 G3 Design and Technology K345 syllabus, examination and project rubrics
SEAB: 2027 G3 school-candidate subject directory
eduKate: How to Prepare for SEC G3 Design and Technology K345
eduKate: How G3 Design and Technology Works — examination preparation
eduKate: G3 Design and Technology under Full SBB
eduKate: First-principles small-group learning and diagnostic teaching