Pancyprian Design & Tech common mistakes
Pancyprian Design & Tech · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to evaluate a design or product, the candidate lists features ("it has a rechargeable battery, it is lightweight") instead of making judgements supported by evidence ("the rechargeable battery reduces running cost for a heavy user but adds mass, which matters because the product is hand-held").
Candidates confuse description with evaluation. Under time pressure they write down everything they remember about the product and assume the marker will infer the judgement. The command word ('evaluate', 'assess', 'justify') is not unpacked into criteria before writing.
What to do instead
Before writing, create a two-column table of criteria (function, cost, safety, ergonomics, environmental impact, aesthetics) and for each write a judgement plus a reason ('good/bad because...'). Force every sentence to contain a comparative or a causal link. Practise converting five descriptive sentences into evaluative ones in a timed drill.
In the design-process questions, the candidate jumps straight to a single solution and describes it in detail, skipping the problem specification, constraints and evaluation of alternatives that the question actually rewards.
Candidates treat the exam as a memory test of products rather than a demonstration of process. Iterative design is learned as a list of stage names, so the candidate can name 'research' and 'specification' but does not know what content belongs in each stage.
What to do instead
Memorise a five-stage skeleton (brief, research, specification, ideation, develop/test, evaluate) with two required outputs per stage. In every practice answer, write the specification as measurable criteria (e.g. 'must support 15 kg', 'cost under EUR 20') before sketching. If a question says 'describe the stages', allocate one sentence to each stage rather than three to the first.
The candidate names a material property without linking it to the service condition, e.g. 'use aluminium because it is strong' or 'use plastic because it is cheap', with no comparison to an alternative or to the load, temperature or environment involved.
Property vocabulary is learned as isolated adjectives (strong, hard, ductile, tough) and candidates do not distinguish related terms. They also do not habitually ask 'compared with what, under what conditions?'
What to do instead
Write material justifications in a fixed frame: 'Choose X rather than Y because property P matters here since the part must [function under condition]'. Drill the confusing pairs explicitly: strength vs stiffness, hardness vs toughness, thermal conductivity vs heat capacity, ductility vs malleability. For each pair, give one product example where the distinction changes the choice.
When selecting a manufacturing process, the candidate picks one that cannot produce the described geometry or batch size, e.g. recommending injection moulding for a one-off large panel, or sand casting for a thin-walled precision electronic enclosure, without stating the tooling cost or quantity assumption.
Processes are memorised as a list with a single headline advantage (injection moulding = fast, cheap) without the economic and geometric boundary conditions. Candidates do not connect quantity and tooling cost to process choice.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table with columns for typical batch size, tooling cost, achievable wall thickness, surface finish, and suitable materials, and fill it for at least eight processes. In answers, always state the quantity assumption explicitly ('for 50,000 units, injection moulding amortises the mould cost; for 5 units, laser-cut sheet and folded joints are cheaper').
On drawing and communication questions the candidate produces a freehand sketch with no scale, no units, no third-angle projection convention, and dimension lines that do not follow standard practice (dimensions inside the view, missing overall dimensions, no centre lines for holes).
Candidates treat drawing as illustration rather than as a formal language. They have seen orthographic views but never practised producing a complete, standards-compliant set, so they omit conventions they were never drilled on.
What to do instead
Practise producing a full three-view third-angle layout for five simple parts with a title block, overall dimensions, and at least one hole with centre lines. Learn the rules as a checklist: dimensions outside the outline, no duplicated dimensions, units stated once, hidden detail as dashed lines. Time yourself so a complete view set takes under ten minutes.
In structures questions the candidate confuses the type of load or member (describing a beam as carrying tension when it is bending, or a truss member as bending when it carries axial force) and does not identify where the maximum bending moment or the failure is likely to occur.
Candidates learn member names (beam, strut, tie) without the force each carries. They also lack a routine for drawing a free-body diagram, so they reason from intuition about the shape rather than from the loads.
What to do instead
For every structure question, first draw the free-body diagram and label supports and reactions, then classify each member as tension, compression or bending. Practise identifying the point of maximum bending moment on simply supported and cantilever beams with a point load and with a uniform load, and state which surface is in tension.
For mechanisms and control questions the candidate describes what the mechanism does ("the arm moves up") without giving the input-output relationship, the type of motion conversion, or the sensing-and-actuation loop with a named sensor, controller and actuator.
Candidates describe observable behaviour instead of analysing the system. Control is often learned as a block diagram picture without practising writing the loop in words for a specific product.
What to do instead
Answer mechanism questions with the motion chain: input motion type, conversion element (e.g. crank and slider, rack and pinion), output motion type, and the effect of changing a dimension on speed or force. Answer control questions in the fixed order sensor, signal, controller, actuator, feedback, and name a real sensor (thermistor, LDR, microswitch, ultrasonic) for the specific application.
On energy and sustainability questions the candidate uses 'eco-friendly' or 'green' as a conclusion, or claims a product is sustainable because it can be recycled, without considering energy in use, material extraction, transport, or end-of-life separation.
Sustainability is absorbed as a slogan rather than as a set of measurable flows. Candidates also do not distinguish recyclability from actually being recycled, or a material's embodied energy from its use-phase energy.
What to do instead
Structure every sustainability answer as a life-cycle sequence (extraction, manufacture, distribution, use, disposal) and quantify at least one stage with a comparison (e.g. energy in use over a ten-year life dominates a kettle's impact, so efficiency outweighs the embodied energy of the casing). Learn the difference between embodied energy, recyclability and recycled content, and give one product example of each.
In design-in-society and ethics questions the candidate gives an opinion with no stakeholder analysis and no reference to a standard, regulation or accessibility principle, e.g. 'it is wrong to collect user data' with no mention of consent, data minimisation, or who is affected.
Ethics is treated as personal opinion, so candidates do not realise that marks come from identifying competing interests and applying a recognised principle. They also do not know the relevant standards or legislation by name.
What to do instead
Answer with an explicit stakeholder map (user, manufacturer, retailer, third party, environment) and one interest per stakeholder, then apply a named principle such as inclusive design, informed consent, or planned obsolescence. Keep a short list of standards and regulations you can cite accurately, and if you are unsure of a specific clause, describe the principle rather than inventing a number.
The candidate allocates time and length in proportion to interest rather than to marks, writing a long paragraph on the first part of a multi-part question and leaving the higher-mark evaluation section with one line, or failing to answer the last part at all.
Candidates answer sequentially and run out of time because they do not read the whole question and mark allocation before starting. Extended writing feels productive, so they over-invest in the opening descriptive part.
What to do instead
In the first two minutes, read all questions and write the mark value beside each part, then convert marks to minutes (roughly one minute per mark) and to sentences (roughly one substantive point per mark). Answer the highest-mark part first if it is independent, and leave a two-line space to return to any part you skip.