What to know about SEAB Syllabus | G3 Design and Technology K345: 2027 22-Week Project and A3 Design Journal

How long is the 2027 SEC G3 Design and Technology project, and what does a student submit? The official SEAB G3 Design and Technology syllabus K345 requires two components. Paper 1 is a two-hour written examination, worth 80 marks and 40% of the subject. Paper 2 is an individual Design Project lasting 22 weeks from the examination question’s release, excluding school holidays, worth 60 marks and 60%. Coursework comprises a Design Journal, with A3-size securely fastened sheets or an A3 sketchpad, mock-ups and the working prototype, and a Presentation Board made on no more than two single-sided A2 boards. These are formal assessment requirements—not an invitation to submit a glossy portfolio created by someone else.

Students are assessed on how they investigate genuine user needs, formulate a design brief, develop ideas, test mock-ups, communicate their proposal and produce a working prototype. The project is marked internally and moderated externally; the responsible teacher supervises the candidate’s learning. A parent can help the student understand the process and manage ordinary study commitments, but cannot replace the student’s own design thinking, journal or workshop work. The strongest preparation begins with empathy and evidence: what problem is the user experiencing, why does it matter, and how could the proposed solution be tested safely and realistically?

• 2027 subject code: G3 Design and Technology K345; earlier O-Level code 7059.
• Paper 1: two-hour written examination, 80 marks, 40%; four compulsory questions.
• Paper 1 marks: Question 1 on Design is 26 marks; Questions 2–4 on structures, mechanisms and electronics total 54.
• Paper 2: 22-week individual design project, excluding school holidays; 60 marks, 60% of final grade.
• Journal: A3 design sheets or sketchpad, plans, researched evidence, sketches, mock-ups and prototype.
• Presentation Board: A2, one-sided, two pieces maximum; demonstrate solution’s function, suitability and relevant design specifications.
• Safety: prototyping and machinery use must follow approved school workshop supervision and procedures.
• Immediate first step: confirm K345, read the current 2027 syllabus and understand the user’s actual design need before selecting a product.

1. What is G3 Design and Technology K345?

Design and Technology develops the ability to improve everyday experiences through thoughtful design and appropriate technology. A student explores a need, investigates the situation, generates ideas, tests them and makes a prototype. The purpose is not simply to become good at drawing or using tools. It is to make practical decisions in response to a real person, a function and an environment. The 2027 SEC subject uses code K345 and follows earlier O-Level reference 7059.

Under Full Subject-Based Banding, the SEC combines G1, G2 and G3 examination subjects into one national certificate while preserving their respective assessed levels. A student’s Posting Group does not necessarily identify the level of every later subject. Before a family selects coursework resources or extra lessons, confirm the actual school entry and use the current official syllabus. A generic “2027 D&T portfolio” product may not match K345’s project structure or school assessment requirements.

A practical design education includes creativity and discipline. A learner may invent an attractive mechanism but fail to consider whether the intended user can operate it safely. Another may do extensive research but never translate the information into a working solution. The syllabus asks students to connect investigation, creative development and controlled making. That connection is the distinctive value of the course.

2. The two-paper assessment scheme

The subject’s assessment domains are Knowledge with Understanding (40% overall), Design Thinking Skills (30%) and Design Manipulating Skills (30%). The written paper focuses more on theoretical design and technology applications; the project shows the student working through a problem. A student cannot neglect Paper 1 because Paper 2 has the larger weighting. Likewise, written knowledge of materials is not enough to demonstrate competent prototyping in the supervised project.

Time management should reflect the two different timescales. A written exam needs careful reading and application in two hours. A twenty-two-week project needs progressive investigation, documentation, making and evaluation. Trying to finish the journal in the last fortnight may erase the very process the assessment is designed to observe.

3. Written Paper 1: four questions and no optional selection

Paper 1 comprises four compulsory design-centric questions. Question 1 focuses on Design and carries 26 of the 80 marks. Questions 2–4, worth 54 marks together, concern Technology—specifically structures, mechanisms and electronics. Candidates answer all four. This arrangement shows why a pupil who focuses only on sketching attractive products may be underprepared for the technical side of the written paper.

Questions require application of knowledge. A student may be shown a real-world product or design situation and asked to analyse how its structure, mechanism or control system contributes to function. The challenge is to understand why a particular choice fits the need, not merely to name a component in a picture. A strong answer can connect the technical concept with the user’s experience and relevant design constraints.

The teacher can help through short unfamiliar examples. Ask why a folding support might be stable under a given load, how a basic mechanism changes motion, or which material property matters for a stated application. The question should remain within the syllabus, and technical workshop demonstrations require proper school supervision. The point of the classroom task is to explain the design logic.

4. The design process is iterative, not a straight line

The K345 syllabus describes Needs Analysis, Idea Conceptualisation, Development and Prototyping, supported by Research. These stages can overlap and loop back. A mock-up may reveal that a proposed feature is too difficult for the user, requiring a revision to the brief or specifications. A prototype may show that an earlier material choice is unsuitable. This is not evidence that the student has failed; it is evidence that designing involves testing assumptions and adapting.

Students sometimes believe that their first sketch must be the final design. That leads them to justify an early preference rather than genuinely explore alternatives. The syllabus explicitly encourages multiple ways to represent and test ideas. A student should record why an idea changed, which observation informed the decision and what the revised solution does better. Honest design evolution is more meaningful than a fabricated sequence of perfect drawings made after the product is complete.

The aim is to create a practical and appropriate response to the stated need. “Innovative” does not necessarily mean complicated. A simple product that improves safety, access or convenience for a real user can demonstrate better design judgement than an elaborate mechanism whose purpose is unclear.

5. Needs Analysis: start with the user’s actual difficulty

Needs Analysis investigates everyday activities to identify meaningful design opportunities. A student may notice that an object is difficult to grip, a classroom resource is awkward to store or a shared space is confusing to navigate. The next step is to gather evidence: who experiences the difficulty, under what conditions, how often and with what consequences? An observed problem is more useful when the student can explain it precisely.

Consider an original, non-assessed illustration. A student observes that people in a classroom frequently misplace shared stationery. A weak design response immediately decides to make a box. A stronger approach investigates what is actually going wrong: are the items hard to identify, is storage too far away, or do different pupils need access simultaneously? The answers affect the solution. One product can be attractive while solving the wrong problem.

Research may include appropriate observations, interviews, surveys, images and product comparisons under school and privacy rules. Data collection should respect the people involved. Students should not collect sensitive personal details merely because a questionnaire is available. A good design investigation uses only the information necessary to understand the relevant need.

6. Design brief and specifications: separate goal from solution

A design brief states the opportunity and intended goal. Design specifications describe criteria that the proposed solution should satisfy. For example, a brief could concern helping users organise shared materials efficiently; specifications might address ease of access, suitability for the intended space, stability, durability and materials. The exact design brief for the national project must come from the official question and the candidate’s legitimate investigation, not from this illustration.

A common mistake is to write a specification that simply describes the product already imagined. If the student has decided to build a container, they may write “the solution must be a plastic box”, closing off useful alternatives. A better requirement concerns the underlying need, such as “the materials should remain visible and easily accessible”. Multiple potential designs can then be evaluated against it.

Specifications should be meaningful enough to guide testing. “The product must be good” cannot be measured or evaluated. “The user should be able to retrieve the required item without removing other objects” is a clearer functional criterion. The ability to state what success looks like is a powerful design skill that transfers to software, services and everyday problem-solving.

7. Research must change the design decision

The syllabus expects students to gather and analyse relevant information, including user, product, technological and contextual evidence. Product analysis can reveal what currently works and what limitations remain. Appropriate frameworks may include 5W1H questions, PIES, SWOT, PMI or other methods taught by the school. These are tools to organise thinking, not mandatory decorations to place on every page.

A student who writes pages of facts about plastic materials without using them to choose a suitable part has missed the main point. Research should answer a design question. If the prototype must be lightweight and easy to clean, the student’s material comparison should examine those properties alongside cost, environmental impact and workshop feasibility. The findings then inform a justified choice.

Parents can support ordinary curiosity by asking what evidence would change the pupil’s view. If a user interview contradicts the first sketch, will the student reconsider? A designer who treats research as confirmation of a predetermined idea may never identify a better solution. The project should show thinking developing in response to real observations.

8. Generating alternatives before narrowing the solution

Ideation methods in the syllabus include brainstorming, attribute listing, shape borrowing and SCAMPER. Their purpose is to explore possible responses before selecting one. A student can adapt the form, material, mechanism or interaction of an idea to test whether it better satisfies the brief. Creative thinking is not a competition to produce the greatest number of disconnected sketches; it is a way to discover useful possibilities.

For the fictional stationery-access problem, one possibility might use visible compartments, another a modular arrangement and a third a mechanism for returning items to a common location. Ask how each affects the user and what limitations need testing. The exercise remains conceptual. It does not provide a completed national coursework solution, because the real assessment question and the candidate’s own observations determine the appropriate direction.

Students benefit from identifying why an alternative was rejected. Perhaps it required too much workshop time, would be difficult to clean or created a safety concern. Such decisions show judgement. A single final drawing without the reasoning behind it reveals much less about the student’s design process.

9. Sketching is a thinking tool, not just a drawing exam

The syllabus emphasises doodling, sketching and drawing as ways to trigger and refine ideas. Freehand sketches can show the relationship among parts, how an object might be used and how a mechanism could operate. Later representations may include isometric, perspective, orthographic, exploded and sectional views, as appropriate to the design stage. Their purpose is to communicate relevant information.

A highly polished illustration can be visually impressive while omitting a critical functional detail. Conversely, a rough sketch with clear annotations may be useful for testing a mechanism. Students should learn which representation best explains the current decision. Early drawings help explore; later drawings help specify. Both stages have value.

Teach children to annotate with purpose. Instead of “this part is nice”, explain that a feature provides a larger grip or allows an object to be stored compactly, if that is actually supported by the design. An annotation should connect the drawing to the user, function, material or constraint. Decorative text does not replace evidence.

10. Mock-ups: inexpensive experiments with an idea

A mock-up is a quick physical representation used to explore, compare or test design ideas. The syllabus lists simple materials such as paper, cardboard, foam board, bottle caps and string for mock-ups. A good mock-up does not need to look like a finished retail product. Its value comes from revealing whether a concept works, fits the user or should be revised.

Suppose a student is investigating how a storage arrangement feels to use. A cardboard layout might reveal that a compartment is difficult to reach. That observation could justify changing dimensions before a more permanent prototype is made. The mock-up is evidence of learning, not evidence of incompetence. Recording what was tested and what changed helps the Design Journal tell the real story.

Parents should not secretly build mock-ups for an assessed project or replace a child’s evidence with a more attractive model. The official coursework rubric evaluates meaningful use of mock-ups in decision-making. A simple test performed and interpreted by the student may be more valuable than an elaborate adult-made object.

11. Prototyping: demonstrate the intended function

Prototyping realises the proposed solution through appropriate materials, workshop processes and technological understanding. The final product should demonstrate how the solution works in relation to the design brief and specifications. The syllabus assesses the quality of making and the degree to which the prototype functions as intended. A polished surface alone does not compensate for poor function.

Students may draw on structures, mechanisms and electronics within the taught syllabus. The right choice is determined by the need, not the desire to include every technology at once. A simple mechanical arrangement may solve a problem more reliably than an unnecessary electronic system. Another application may genuinely benefit from sensing or feedback. The design should explain why the chosen technology fits.

Actual workshop activity involves machines, tools and materials that can be hazardous without training. All making must follow school supervision and safety rules. This article does not give instructions for unapproved cutting, drilling, soldering or machining at home. The educational principles can be discussed safely, but formal practical work belongs in the authorised environment.

12. Materials: choose by evidence and constraints

The K345 technology scope includes selected plastics, natural and processed woods, and ferrous or non-ferrous metals. Students should understand relevant properties such as strength, stiffness, toughness, durability, hardness and elasticity, alongside appearance, cost and sustainability. A material is not inherently “best” without knowing what the intended product needs to do.

For an original example, consider a small item that needs to remain lightweight and withstand frequent handling. Different materials may offer trade-offs in weight, strength, cost or ease of shaping. The student should compare these requirements rather than always choose acrylic because it looks attractive or metal because it sounds strong. A choice is justified by the brief and specifications.

There are also environmental questions. A long-lived product might reduce replacement frequency, but its material and manufacturing process can have other impacts. A responsible design decision considers context and available evidence. Students should be prepared to explain trade-offs instead of claiming every recycled or natural material automatically has the lowest impact in all circumstances.

13. Structures: stability requires understanding forces

Design and Technology includes forces such as tension, compression, bending, torsion and shear, and methods of structural strengthening. A product must be stable and suitable for its expected use. Understanding forces helps explain why a support flexes, a joint weakens or an arrangement becomes unstable. Students should identify how a proposed design would behave, rather than simply draw a thick line and label it “strong”.

For instance, a simple shelf support might be affected by bending under a load. The student should consider the load location, support arrangement and material properties. Folds, ribs or braces may improve rigidity in some appropriate contexts. The exact design still needs proper evaluation; a principle named in the textbook is not proof that the student’s prototype is safe under all conditions.

Designers also consider users. A stable product that is too heavy or difficult for the intended user may not fulfil the brief. Structural decisions should be made alongside ergonomics, accessibility, cost and material limitations. The best response joins technical understanding with human context.

14. Mechanisms: convert or transmit motion for a purpose

The syllabus includes levers, linkages, screws, rack and pinion, pulleys, cams, gears and springs. These mechanisms can transmit, change or control motion. A student who can name a gear but cannot explain what motion or force relationship it produces has not yet connected the component to function. The learning task is to understand why the mechanism is appropriate in a particular design.

Consider an ordinary device that converts a turning input into a linear movement. The student should identify the input, the output and the transformation, then explain how that helps the user. Do not add an elaborate mechanism just because a prototype looks more impressive with moving parts. The decision should be guided by reliability, purpose and constraints.

Working physical mechanisms should be tested and built only within safe supervised arrangements when they form part of assessed coursework. At home, a parent may discuss examples in everyday products without instructing hazardous construction. The knowledge itself is valuable for understanding how many tools and machines work.

15. Electronics and feedback systems

K345 includes introductory electronic components and concepts related to sensing, counting and control. It also covers open-loop and closed-loop systems using examples from everyday products. An open-loop arrangement can operate without adjusting to feedback from its outcome; a closed-loop arrangement uses information to influence operation. Students should explain the input, process, output and any feedback, not simply draw a box diagram without understanding.

For a conceptual illustration, a temperature-controlled system responds to information about its conditions. The designer needs to decide which sensor information is relevant and what output should change. A control system also has limitations: unsuitable thresholds or sensor errors can reduce usefulness. The purpose of including electronics is to address a real user need, not to make a simple product unnecessarily complicated.

Students may adapt authorised electronic kits during school prototyping. This article does not provide circuit-building directions for unapproved equipment. Proper electrical safety, tool handling and assessment supervision belong with the school.

16. Ergonomics and anthropometric information

A good design should consider the person using it. Ergonomics concerns human interaction with objects and systems, while anthropometric data describe human body measurements that can inform design. A handle sized for one user may be difficult for another. A storage object placed too high may be inaccessible to some children. These are practical design challenges, not merely matters of visual taste.

When using such information, consider the intended user group and the range of needs rather than assuming one average body measurement fits everybody. A prototype test may reveal that an edge is uncomfortable or a control is difficult to reach. Those observations can justify revising the design. A change supported by user evidence is stronger than an unexplained aesthetic preference.

Students should respect user privacy and safety when collecting information. Surveys and observations should follow school guidance, and no candidate needs to collect sensitive personal data merely to demonstrate empathy. Good design research is proportionate to the problem.

17. The A3 Design Journal is a real-time record

SEAB describes the Design Journal as a real-time document showing the student’s attempt to manage the project. It includes time-stage plans, research, notes, sketches, drawings and calculations, culminating in the proposed solution. The syllabus advises candidates not to rework design sheets. That is a significant clue about academic integrity and process: the journal should show the genuine progression of thinking rather than a perfect narrative manufactured after the prototype is built.

Format requirements include securely fastened A3 sheets or an A3 sketchpad, mock-ups, the working prototype and any relevant mould, jig or former. Students should consult the school’s exact submission instructions for how physical components are handled. An online parent guide cannot replace those centre-specific arrangements.

What makes a journal useful? Each page should answer a meaningful question: what was discovered, why did a decision change, what did a sketch explore, what was tested and what result followed? A page filled with decorative headings but no evidence of reasoning does less work than a concise, honest account of a significant decision.

18. The A2 Presentation Board is not a second journal

The Presentation Board communicates the final proposed solution succinctly in relation to the design brief and specifications. The official format is A2, single-sided, with a maximum of two boards. The board should communicate functional and aesthetic details using appropriate graphical skills and show why the design is practical and suited to the user and environment.

Because the board is limited in space, it calls for selection and clarity. It should not simply repeat every research note. A reader needs to understand the final problem, key design features and how the proposal meets the requirements. Good communication here is similar to a strong engineering explanation: identify the purpose, show the mechanism and justify the choice.

Students may be tempted to add many colourful illustrations. Visual quality can help, but an attractive board that obscures how the prototype functions misses its purpose. The rubric rewards clear, convincing communication of the proposed design. Evidence and relevance should guide presentation decisions.

19. How the 60 project marks are distributed

The marks show that design investigation and idea development matter greatly. Generating and developing ideas carries fourteen marks, the highest single category; the prototype itself carries twelve. A student cannot make up for weak evidence throughout the process by presenting an elaborate final object. Likewise, a carefully researched idea that never becomes a functioning prototype leaves a major part of the assessment unmet.

The project is marked internally and moderated externally. Teachers may act as advisers while supervising coursework, but the assessment reflects the candidate’s own design work. Parents should not secretly build the prototype, replace a child’s drawings or hire somebody to produce an impressive board. Such intervention undermines the integrity and educational value of the project.

20. Twenty-two weeks: planning a long project without inventing a school timetable

The official period is twenty-two weeks from question release, excluding school holidays. The actual calendar depends on the examination centre’s instructions. Families should not invent a universal start date or convert the period into twenty-two consecutive calendar weeks regardless of holidays. Ask the school for its milestone schedule and the authorised coursework processes.

A sensible general plan moves through investigation, brief formulation, ideation, testing, development and prototyping, with evaluation throughout. However, the process is iterative. A failed mock-up may require revisiting research or a specification. The journal should record genuine changes rather than hide them to make the timeline appear perfect.

Long coursework also requires balance. A pupil may have English, Mathematics, Science, Humanities and CCA commitments. Protect regular, realistic work rather than a frantic final push. The value of a time-stage plan is that it helps the learner recognise priorities and adapt responsibly when a design problem takes longer than expected.

21. Gantt charts are useful only when updated

SEAB explicitly mentions a time-stages plan such as a Gantt chart and suitable sub-plans. A chart showing colourful bars for twenty-two weeks is not evidence of good project management if the student never checks it again. The plan should be used to monitor work, recognise delays and adjust the next steps. A truthful update explaining why a task changed can demonstrate stronger judgement than a perfect-looking chart created after the event.

Teach pupils to distinguish a milestone from a vague activity. “Work on prototype” may be too broad. A meaningful milestone might concern evaluating an idea’s function or deciding whether a certain material meets a specification. The specific milestones must reflect the student’s real project. Parents can help with general time-management concepts without supplying the actual assessed plan.

When a delay occurs, ask which later task depends on the unfinished work and how the student can respond under school guidance. Project management involves understanding consequences, not simply crossing out dates. These habits are useful in later education and employment.

22. Workshop safety and responsible prototyping

D&T can involve resistant materials, machinery, adhesives, tools and electronics. The syllabus explicitly aims to develop safe working habits. Actual workshop operations must use approved school procedures, qualified supervision and suitable protective arrangements. A public teaching article should not function as an instruction manual for unsupervised drilling, cutting, soldering or operating powered tools.

Students need to identify potential hazards and understand why a suitable method and material have been chosen. They should not use unfamiliar equipment merely to make a prototype look complex. Safe competence is a core part of design quality. A design that works only through unsafe handling does not meet the underlying goal of improving a user’s experience.

Families can discuss materials, product functions and general design reasoning at home using safe examples. If an assessed project needs a specialised process, the school should determine what is feasible and permitted. Practical design education must respect both creativity and safety.

23. Case study: the pupil builds the answer before finding the problem

A student loves mechanics and immediately chooses to create a motorised storage system. They then search for a user who might want it. Their teacher reverses the process: identify the actual access problem, interview users appropriately and compare simpler alternatives. The student discovers that a modest, reliable solution may serve the user better than a complex machine. This is an improvement in design judgement, not a reduction in ambition.

24. Case study: attractive drawings, no meaningful mock-ups

Another learner creates carefully rendered sketches but builds no mock-up until late in the project. When the product is tested, a key dimension proves unsuitable. The teacher explains how an early simple mock-up could have revealed that difficulty before significant prototype effort. The pupil learns that sketching and making are connected ways to ask questions. The project becomes more reliable because testing informs development.

25. Case study: a parent tries to perfect the journal

A parent notices that the child’s early sketches are untidy and offers to redraw them professionally. The student explains that the journal is meant to show genuine thinking and is not simply an art portfolio. Under teacher guidance, the child annotates the decisions clearly without fabricating a new chronology. The parent supports organisation instead of taking over assessed work. The student’s original contribution remains visible.

26. Twelve mistakes that weaken D&T learning

1. Confusing K345 with another G level or subject’s project requirements.
2. Assuming the written paper is optional because coursework carries sixty percent.
3. Beginning with a favourite product instead of a researched user need.
4. Writing specifications that merely describe an already chosen solution.
5. Collecting pages of research without using the evidence.
6. Generating only one idea and calling it the only possible answer.
7. Using drawings as decoration rather than tools for thinking and communication.
8. Making mock-ups too late to influence a design decision.
9. Selecting complex technology without explaining its purpose.
10. Fabricating a perfect journal after the prototype is complete.
11. Using A2 presentation space to repeat all the journal’s content.
12. Letting an adult build or redesign assessed work, or ignoring school workshop safety.

Each mistake suggests a different teaching response. A student with weak research needs help asking better questions; a student with weak prototyping needs supervised practice connecting mechanisms with function; a student with a poorly communicated solution needs to select relevant visual evidence. A generic instruction to work harder is not enough.

27. A four-week skills programme before the assessed project

Week 1: identify needs and write meaningful specifications

Use a fictional, non-assessed problem to practise describing a user’s difficulty. Ask what observations would help establish the need and which success criteria would be meaningful. Compare a vague requirement with one that can be evaluated. Keep the exercise separate from the live coursework question to protect independent assessment.

Week 2: explore ideas through drawings and safe mock-ups

Produce several conceptual alternatives for the fictional problem and explain what each might achieve. Use simple paper or cardboard illustrations where appropriate and safe. Ask what the mock-up reveals and what could change. The learning target is the relationship between representation, evidence and design decision, not a perfect model.

Week 3: connect materials and technology to function

Discuss the properties of relevant materials and the principles of structures, mechanisms or control systems using everyday objects and school-approved demonstrations. Ask why one solution better suits the user and constraints. Do not introduce unsafe workshop activities at home. The goal is to understand how the technological choice serves the design.

Week 4: communicate and evaluate a proposal

Ask the learner to explain the fictional solution through a short diagram, a design brief and supporting reasons. Test whether another person can understand how it works. Review the evidence, identify an unresolved limitation and propose a suitable next test. Apply these general skills independently when the teacher later releases the actual assessed project.

28. Frequently asked questions

What is the 2027 SEC G3 Design and Technology code?

K345, with earlier O-Level reference 7059.

How much is the project worth?

Paper 2 Design Project is worth sixty percent of the subject grade and sixty project marks.

How long is the coursework period?

Twenty-two weeks from the examination question’s release, excluding school holidays. Follow the school’s actual calendar.

How long is the written exam?

Two hours, eighty marks and forty percent of the subject.

Are the written questions compulsory?

Yes. Four questions are compulsory; Question 1 covers Design for 26 marks, and Questions 2–4 cover technology for 54 marks.

What does the journal contain?

Evidence of the candidate’s real-time design process, including planning, researched need, brief, specifications, sketches, development, mock-ups and prototype.

What paper size must the journal use?

Securely fastened A3 sheets or an A3 sketchpad, according to the syllabus. Relevant physical mock-ups and prototype are part of the submission.

How big is the Presentation Board?

A2, single-sided, with a maximum of two pieces. It should communicate the final proposed solution succinctly.

Can a parent redraw the child’s journal?

The journal is intended to show the student’s real-time design process, and SEAB advises against reworking design sheets. Parents should support general learning, not replace assessed work.

Is the project marked externally?

It is marked internally and moderated externally under the syllabus. Teachers act as coursework supervisors.

What counts as a good mock-up?

One that meaningfully explores or tests a design question and informs a decision. It need not resemble a polished final product.

Must the prototype use electronics?

Not automatically. The technological choice should suit the actual design brief and specifications. Structures, mechanisms and electronics are parts of the taught syllabus, not decorative requirements for every product.

How should a student prepare safely?

Learn design thinking and technical concepts through approved school teaching. Workshop processes and machinery must be handled under appropriate supervision.

29. Official sources and further eduKate reading

Official sources, checked 7 November 2026: SEAB 2027 SEC G3 Design and Technology K345 full syllabus and project rubrics; 2027 G3 school-candidate subject directory. The examples in this article are original educational illustrations, not answers to the official coursework assignment.

Related eduKate guides: Design and Technology across G1/G2/G3; changes to 2027 SEC subject offerings; and how a different SEC coursework subject structures evidence.

The value of design education lies in noticing a genuine need, testing ideas with care and building a useful response. The K345 project makes that process visible. Strong preparation protects the student’s curiosity, independence and ability to learn from evidence.