Qualifications Scotland (SQA) National 5 Art and Design Past Papers 2026

Art and design studies

Duration: 1 hour 20 minutes

Practical expressive portfolio

Duration: Coursework — produced over an extended period under some supervision and control

Practical design portfolio

Duration: Coursework — produced over an extended period under some supervision and control

Visual-element analysis — tone

In every year studied, tone was identified as one of the most poorly answered prompts. Candidates consistently confused it with literary mood and atmosphere, describing emotional qualities ('a sad tone', 'a gloomy tone') rather than the range and contrast of light and dark values in the artwork. Many did not connect colour use to tonality.

Question Paper

Visual-element analysis — style

Style was the prompt most likely to produce no-mark responses across all three years. Candidates described subject matter, media handling, or sources of inspiration instead of the characteristic visual approach or movement associated with the work. In 2025, most candidates did not access any marks in question 4(b) on style.

Question Paper

Visual-element analysis — composition

Composition was repeatedly answered by candidates as a description of what was in the artwork rather than how the elements were arranged. Candidates frequently stated that an object was 'the focal point' without explaining what visual devices create that focal point or what effect it has on the viewer.

Question Paper

Contextual knowledge — artist and designer research for mandatory questions

All three reports noted that some candidates selected artworks or designs about which they lacked sufficient knowledge. Speculative responses with factually incorrect information earned no marks. Candidates who chose very obscure works struggled when the question required detailed knowledge of influences, context, or working method.

Question Paper

Development-phase progression in the design folio

A consistent weakness across all three years was design development that showed minor variations rather than genuine problem-solving progression. Repeat pattern portfolios showing the same design in different colourways, and graphic portfolios making only subtle layout changes, were repeatedly cited as inadequate. Functionality was often neglected in favour of aesthetics alone.

Folio — Design

Folio annotation depth — labelling investigation, development, and solution clearly

In 2024 and 2025, markers noted that some portfolios featured ineffective layout and that it was difficult to identify what was being presented for investigation, development, or the final piece. Candidates who did not use labels, arrows, or annotations lost marks because the line of development was unclear.

Folio — Expressive, Folio — Design

Final-piece resolution — maintaining quality at larger scale

In 2023 and 2025, markers specifically noted that some final pieces were less resolved than earlier development studies, particularly where candidates attempted larger-scale work without adequate preparation. Incomplete pieces or portfolios with missing final pieces were also flagged in 2024.

Folio — Expressive, Folio — Design

Portfolio evaluation — evaluative versus descriptive language

The most persistent weakness across all three years in both folio components was evaluations that described the process or subject matter without reflecting on the quality of decisions made. In 2024, the marking teams for both portfolios commented on the descriptive nature of candidate evaluations, noting that many candidates did not provide evaluative comments and justification for decisions made in their portfolio work.

Folio — Expressive, Folio — Design