Learn the project process while keeping assessed work your own
Practise investigation, specification, design, planning, making and evaluation using separate fictional scenarios; recognise the centre-marked and moderated project boundary.
Exam scope and assessment notes
StudyForA provides original teaching and scenario-based practice, not Cambridge past papers, official marks or an authenticated practical course. It cannot assess a candidate's actual workshop skills, finished product or Component 2 portfolio. Component 2 is school-based, internally assessed and externally moderated; the teacher authenticates candidate work. Any real making requires centre facilities, risk controls and direct qualified supervision. Candidate project work must remain their own. Follow the syllabus for the exam year.
Before you begin
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
For the revised 2028–2030 Component 2, how many marks are allocated to Making?
What you will learn
- Explain the year-specific Component 2 project stages and the revised 2028 marking distribution.
- Use practice scenarios to learn reflection and criteria without generating or grading a candidate's assessed portfolio.
Know the assessment route
Component 2 is a school-based project, internally assessed and externally moderated, worth 100 marks and 50% in the published routes. For the 2028–2030 route, the criteria allocate 15 marks to Investigating, 35 to Designing, 38 to Making and 12 to Testing and Evaluating.
The candidate completes an individual project with a portfolio and final product; the made product itself is not submitted. The 2028 syllabus is the definitive assessment guide. Cambridge's support page says the updated 2028 coursework handbook is not yet available and the current handbook supports most sections while the syllabus remains authoritative.
Use a practice coach without outsourcing authorship
This lesson uses fictional examples only. For a real project, StudyForA may explain a criterion, ask reflective questions, help a student plan a test or point to a gap they should investigate. It must not produce a candidate's final idea, portfolio evidence, design text or making record for submission.
Cambridge's current Component 2 guidance says project work must be the candidate's own unaided work and authenticated by the teacher. Its 2028 guidance allows AI to support research if every use is acknowledged and full prompts/questions are recorded; students must verify cited sources. Teacher review and centre moderation remain essential, and StudyForA cannot award an official mark.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Who assesses and authenticates Component 2 project work?
Worked example
Use a fictional task: design a reusable desk organiser for a shared art room. Which four stages could an online practice coach discuss without writing the candidate's project?
Show the worked solution
- Ask what observations or user research would establish the need.
- Ask which measurable criteria should appear in a specification.
- Compare fictional concepts against the criteria and identify a model test.
- Review a mock test record and ask what it shows or cannot show.
Answer The coach can prompt the learner to gather evidence, explain why a criterion matters, compare a practice proposal and plan a safe model test. The learner supplies their own observations, sketches, decisions and records. A real assessed project must follow the candidate's current centre guidance and the work must remain their own.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
In the fictional organiser task, what questions could you ask to help a learner improve a specification without supplying their design?
Give me a hint
Ask about evidence, measurable criteria and how each requirement will be checked.
Compare my reasoning
- Ask what the intended user actually does.
- Ask which dimensions, access or stability conditions can be measured.
- Ask how the learner could test each condition and what evidence would count.
A coach could ask: who uses the organiser, what items and dimensions were observed, how quickly must items be reached, what desk area is available, and how will stability be tested? The learner uses their own evidence to write the criteria.
Look for these in your work
- Asks for learner evidence
- Makes criteria testable
- Leaves design authorship with learner
A candidate asks AI to draft the evaluation section of their assessed project. What should the coach say and offer instead?
Give me a hint
Preserve authorship while offering questions about their own tests and criteria.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain that the submitted evaluation must be the candidate's own work.
- Ask the candidate to share their own test result and specification criterion.
- Offer reflective questions, not a replacement paragraph or mark.
The coach should not draft the candidate's evaluation. It can ask which criterion was tested, what was measured, what happened, whether the result met the criterion and what the candidate personally concludes. The candidate writes their own response and records AI use according to Cambridge/centre rules.
Look for these in your work
- Protects candidate authorship
- Provides useful scaffolding
- Does not claim an official mark
A student shares a project screenshot and asks whether it deserves 30/35 design marks. How should an online tutor respond?
Give me a hint
Do not guess a mark; discuss published criteria and direct the student to teacher review.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain that a screenshot lacks process evidence and official context.
- Offer a criterion-based self-review question from the syllabus.
- Recommend the teacher review the actual portfolio and centre requirements.
The tutor should not predict a Cambridge mark from a screenshot. It can ask whether a range of distinct ideas is evidenced, how alternatives were assessed against the specification and what modelling informed the final proposal, then direct the candidate to the qualified teacher for official centre feedback.
Look for these in your work
- Avoids false grading precision
- Uses criteria for learning
- Refers actual work to the teacher
Common mistakes
- Using an AI-generated idea, paragraph or image as candidate-authored portfolio work
- Treating StudyForA feedback as a Cambridge mark
- Using the old coursework handbook as authority over a revised syllabus
What can you explain now?
Who assesses and authenticates Component 2 project work?
Compare with the explanation
The school/centre assesses it and Cambridge externally moderates the assessment; the teacher authenticates candidate authorship.
StudyForA can support learning but cannot replace the centre's assessment or authentication responsibilities.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Recall the main decision in “Learn the project process while keeping assessed work your own”, name the evidence that supports it, and identify one limitation that still needs checking.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.