How IGCSE Design & Technology (0445) is really marked
Design & Technology 0445 covers written theory papers (11–13), design papers (31–33), and resistant materials/systems/graphics option papers (41–43, 51–53). Most questions across the syllabus are points-marked (1,692), but a meaningful share — 78 — are points-with-levels, concentrated on the design papers (11, 12, 13), where design and evaluation responses are judged partly by quality as well as by specific content points.
The option papers (41–43) add a calculation component (56 questions in total) on top of points-marked theory, covering mechanisms, structures and electronics-style working. These follow the standard method-plus-answer convention, so showing your working matters even when the final figure is wrong.
A recurring feature of this syllabus is that many points-marked questions penalise vagueness specifically: naming a material as 'plastic' or 'metal' rather than a specific type, or naming a tool generically rather than by its correct name, does not get credit even though the general idea is right. The mark scheme wants the precise term, not the category.
Where candidates actually lose marks
- Naming materials too generically — saying 'plastic' or 'wood' rather than the specific type of material required — which is not awarded marks even when the general choice would be reasonable. (try the question)
- Omitting the correct names of tools and equipment, or naming them imprecisely, which limits access to full marks even when the process described is otherwise correct. (try the question)
- In design-idea evaluation, simply describing the ideas rather than evaluating them, or repeating the same generic evaluation point for every idea instead of assessing each on its own merits. (try the question)
- Making unsupported evaluative statements like 'it would work well' instead of giving a justified reason why a design decision is or isn't effective. (try the question)
- Repeating information already given in the question (such as a stated design requirement) as if it were an original answer point, which is not creditworthy. (try the question)
- Misidentifying an electronic component — for example naming a transistor as a diode, or confusing the prefixes mega and milli, or not recognising the symbol for micro. (try the question)
- Giving vague answers about CAD/CAM processes rather than specific, named steps — this is described as a recurring weakness. (try the question)
- Confusing the terminology of a technique with the underlying process — for example naming a software program instead of the specific editing command used to alter an image. (try the question)
- In construction/drawing questions, plotting too few points when constructing a curve such as an ellipse, leading to an inaccurate or uneven shape. (try the question)
- Citing a benefit or drawback of a manufacturing method that would apply equally to the alternative method being compared against, rather than one that is actually specific to the method named in the question. (try the question)
Command words in IGCSE Design & Technology
| Command word | Times in our bank | What it demands |
|---|---|---|
| State | 263 | Give a fact, feature or specification briefly and directly, with no explanation required. |
| Complete | 247 | Fill in a missing part of a drawing, table or circuit, matching the style and precision of what's already given. |
| Sketch | 237 | Produce a freehand but recognisable and proportionate drawing of a design idea or component, usually with annotation. |
| Give | 198 | State a specific answer directly — similar to State, often used for naming a reason, material or feature. |
| Name | 188 | Provide the correct, specific term for a material, tool, process or component — generic terms are not credited. |
| Explain | 118 | Give the reasoning behind a design or manufacturing decision, not just what was done. |
| Describe | 114 | Give an accurate account of a process, feature or sequence of steps. |
| Draw | 113 | Produce an accurate, correctly proportioned diagram or circuit using appropriate drawing conventions and equipment. |
How to revise with past papers
Because this syllabus repeatedly penalises vague naming, build a habit during past-paper practice of checking every material, tool, component and process name against the mark scheme's exact wording — 'plastic' versus the specific polymer, or a generic tool name versus its correct name, is a recurring and avoidable loss of marks.
For the design and evaluation questions on Papers 11–13, practise writing justified evaluation rather than descriptive summary: for each idea, state a specific reason it does or doesn't meet a requirement, rather than a general judgement like 'it would work well'. On the option papers, rehearse calculation questions with full working shown, including any conversions needed.
This is general technique advice but suits a drawing-heavy subject like this: when a question asks you to sketch or draw, use the equipment and time allowance sensibly rather than rushing a freehand sketch that becomes illegible — accuracy and proportion are specifically assessed, so timed practice on real past papers is the best way to calibrate how much time each drawing question actually needs.
Practise real 0445 questions with AI marking →FAQs
Is Design & Technology 0445 mostly written theory or practical design work?
Both. Most questions (1,692) are points-marked theory-style content, but 78 on the design papers are points-with-levels, and the option papers add 56 calculation questions.
Why do I lose marks for naming a material as 'plastic' or a tool generically?
The mark scheme requires the specific, correct term. Generic category names like 'plastic', 'metal' or 'wood' are not credited even when the underlying choice is reasonable.
What's the difference between describing and evaluating a design idea?
Describing says what the idea is; evaluating says whether and why it meets the requirements, with a specific justified reason rather than a general judgement.
Do the option papers (41–43) involve calculation?
Yes — 56 marks across the syllabus are calculation-style, covering mechanisms, structures and electronics-type working, on top of the largely points-marked theory content.