2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Design and Technology
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Design and Technology. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.
This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Design and Technology.
General comments
Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating the knowledge, understanding and skills they developed through studying the course.
Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper), are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing in excess of the space allocated may reduce the time available for answering other questions.
Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked, or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Major design project
Project proposal and project management
Identification and exploration of the need
In better projects, candidates expressed a genuine need, and demonstrated the application of critical analysis skills to the investigation of the need, and drew conclusions regarding the criteria for evaluation. Any exploration that was cited clearly related to the intended scope of the possible design solution.
In mid-range responses, candidates presented a range of alternative possibilities for their design project and then spent time articulating why they had chosen the final item. In such responses, candidates often commented upon why a range of projects was not going to be made. In these instances there was very little exploration, if any, of the need for the design.
Weaker responses tended to state simply what the candidate proposed to make: for example, I’m going to make this … citing a solution from the very start with a justification centred on, because I need one!
Areas of investigation
In better responses, candidates included a broad range of relevant areas to be investigated, with supporting discussion of the how and why of the intended design project. They also included a detailed analysis of the range of logical and relevant areas that could possibly be researched and the methodologies to be used to inform the development of the product, system or environment.
Weaker responses cited a few generic areas supported by definitions rather than explaining why that investigation would occur and would be carried out.
Criteria for evaluating success
In better responses, candidates employed functional and aesthetic criteria in determining the project’s success, closely linking the project proposal and the needs that the design should meet. Better responses identified and explained a range of additional criteria that specifically related to the project, system or environment.
Weaker responses did not distinguish between criteria for success and factors affecting design, tending simply to list a few criteria without any explanatory discussion.
Action, time and finance plans and their application
Responses generally included information relating to some kind of planning. In many cases this was displayed on computer spreadsheets. Plans were often presented as a simple record of what had taken place, rather than a forward anticipation of possibilities.
In better responses, candidates presented action, finance and time plans that generally supported the product, system or environmental. The plans were forward-looking and the finance sections showed a projected costing at the different stages of project development. The finance plans included estimated costs and then the actual costs together with supporting evaluative comments.
Better responses indicated clear and appropriate actions in their design and development process, tailored to the specific product or system, or the environmental needs. In these responses, candidates used the action plan to support the assessment of progress, and as a management tool to help them achieve success.
Many candidates presented timelines that, although presented clearly, did not give specific details about the project. In weaker responses, candidates completed a generic template after they completed the project, rather than using the timeline as a planning tool, thereby presenting an obviously false representation.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a genuine effort to develop a budget based on available financial resources and likely costs and expenses. Weaker responses simply supplied a collection of receipts after the event with no real evidence of financial planning or management.
In better responses, candidates showed aspects of development and realisation, investigation and experimentation, prototype development, production, implementation and evaluation in their planning. Some responses included an evaluation of why intended plans were modified, and made appropriate justification.
Project development and realisation
In better responses, candidates critically assessed existing designs and researched those relevant areas that ultimately had a positive effect on the success of the final project. In these responses, candidates analysed their findings and conducted relevant tests and experiments as described in their folio. Conveying this information in a succinct fashion was a feature of the best responses.
Weaker responses demonstrated little or no design development, but presented a predetermined project idea with little evidence of its source or of developmental research. The final design was shown from the outset without any apparent research or investigation into existing designs.
Evidence of creativity – ideas generation, degree of difference and exploration of existing ideas
In better responses, candidates displayed a range of ideas and showed creativity in their design concepts and thought-development process, model production and use of technology. They also included an analysis of a broad range of existing ideas that had assisted in realising the product, system or environment.
Weaker responses displayed simplistic notions about existing products, systems or environments, with no evidence of creativity. These projects did not state a genuine need and did not support the generation or development of their ideas.
Consideration of design factors relevant to the major design project
In better responses, candidates selected the most important design factors relating directly to their product, system or environment. Discussion included why and how these factors were important to the project, considering them in context rather than listing them in isolation.
In weaker responses, candidates did not explain which design factors were relevant to their design project. It should be noted that not all the factors listed in the syllabus have to be addressed in the product, system or environment. These responses simply made a list of design factors and wrote a definition of them, rather than relating them to the product, system or environment they were developing.
Appropriate research and experimentation of materials, tools, techniques and testing of design solutions
The best responses referred to the use of relevant and appropriate testing and created a broad range of model solutions to inform the design development. Appropriate testing techniques were selected and then applied to the product, system or environment. From these tests, the results were analysed and decisions were made as to further design development for improvement.
In weaker responses, candidates included far too much material in this section. Excessive and unnecessary experimentation material was a feature in many supporting folios. Research that can be extracted from external and well-respected sources can be referenced or summarised in projects, but should not simply be downloaded or duplicated by candidates.
Application of conclusions
In better responses, candidates carried out relevant developmental processes and provided evidence of their application of the conclusions drawn about their product, system or environment. In most cases, application of research, experimentation and testing was evident. Better responses often included a range of samples that had been tested, and provided a short explanation of the results and further direction. Weaker responses often included irrelevant testing, so that development based on those tests was difficult or impossible.
Identification and justification of ideas and resources used
In better responses, candidates identified the most relevant resources and justified their application and value. In weaker responses, candidates merely listed the resources used, or cited irrelevant resources that played no part in the development of the product, system or environment.
Use of communication and presentation techniques
Most candidates effectively communicated details about their product, system or environment, accessing a variety of technologies. Better responses included clear, concise communication that omitted unrelated or unnecessary information.
Evidence and application of practical skills to produce a quality project
In many of the better responses, candidates communicated their construction phase through the use of photographs, which showed them completing various phases. Some displayed a wide range of technical skills through their use of different materials in prototypes, models or the final product, system or environment. Little use was made of outsourcing; when used, it was well documented and justified.
In weaker projects, candidates displayed limited processes and technical skill, with several projects being presented incomplete, or that used unsafe work practices.
Project evaluation
In better responses, candidates made thorough ongoing and final evaluations of their project, using a variety of techniques to show where evaluation took place. Many candidates used an additional action plan and time plan to enter information.
In better responses, candidates included photographic evidence of the final product, system or environment in its environment. This clearly demonstrated a clear link between the final product, system or environment and their original project proposal. The use of professional evaluations enhanced the area of addressing functionality in terms of the intent of the project and added an extra dimension to evaluation.
Weaker responses cited simplistic phrases of general evaluation summations, indicating a limited understanding of the breadth of evaluative processes.
Recording and application of evaluation procedures throughout the design project
In better projects, candidates used referencing notes throughout the folio or attached to their models of design development to emphasise their efforts at evaluation. The presentation of developing models and prototypes communicated clearly to markers that ongoing evaluation had occurred. Some candidates used photographic evidence to support evaluation measures and referenced to further directions in the development of the project.
Analysis and evaluation of functional and aesthetic aspects of design
Better responses displayed a clear understanding of the aspects of design and related them to the design project. In several cases, these aspects were included in the professional statements and linked well to the intent of the product, system or environment.
Final evaluation with respect to the project proposal and the project’s impact on society and the environment
Weaker responses did not communicate the final evaluation of the impact of the product, system or environment on society and the environment. They cited general and non-specific issues but did not examine closely enough the impact of their final design. Often, general, broad sweeping statements were made that had little or no relationship to the design project.
Relationship of the final product, system or environment to the project proposal
The importance of this section centres upon the candidate’s ability to clearly articulate the relationship between the final design solution and the project proposal. Better responses contained discussion in point form, covering each aspect as cited in the initial project proposal and effectively addressed the criteria cited in the project proposal, providing a clear and detailed summation.
Weaker responses failed to draw a parallel between the product, system or environment and the criteria for success established in the project proposal. Candidates simply addressed one or two aspects in a limited way.
Written examination
Section II
Question 11
In better responses, candidates sketched in general terms the forms of communication used by designers, such as verbal, visual and technological.
Weaker responses simply identified only one form of communication, such as sketching.
Question 12
In better responses, candidates based their answer on a number of specific factors that a designer would consider when designing signage for a school. They provided the characteristics and features of these factors and clearly articulated how they were specific to the design of school signage.
Weaker responses identified a generic factor, without any link to school signage.
Question 13
In better responses, candidates clearly articulated a number of factors for consideration when interpreting and applying research data. These responses provided reasons why the designer would need to consider these factors. These responses also provided appropriate consequences if such factors were not considered.
In mid-range responses, candidates described factors such as data collection and reliability, with weak consideration to interpretation and application. These responses described research methodologies, such as quantitative and qualitative methods.
In weaker responses, candidates identified factors to consider when conducting research such as cost, timing and meeting needs.
Question 14
In better responses, candidates clearly showed how different presentation techniques, such as verbal, physical, graphical and multimedia, were used to successfully communicate design ideas to clients. These responses made direct reference to how these techniques influenced the client through the use of examples such as enticement or persuasion, technical and informative language, and drawing upon multi-sensory techniques.
In mid-range responses, candidates described types of communication used to present design ideas to clients, with some links to the effect this has on the client. Examples of these effects were based around simplistic statements such as: makes them feel good, shows them how it looks or works, and is easy to understand.
Weaker responses simply identified presentation techniques used when presenting to clients.
Section III
Question 15
In better responses, candidates drew upon a variety of new technologies to form the basis of their response. In these responses, candidates related the introduction of such technologies on the impact of the nature of work. Impacts discussed included increased efficiency, re-skilling/re-direction of the workforce, increased flexibility, greater complexity of work and safer working environments.
In mid-range responses, candidates focused upon describing new technologies, with some reference as to how they impacted upon work. These responses tended to emphasise the new technology, rather than the impact on work.
In weaker responses, candidates identified technologies, with little reference to the nature of work.
In better responses, candidates clearly showed how designers can use available and emerging technologies to drive and enhance innovation. Some candidates responded to this question by structuring their analysis around the use of technologies throughout the design process. Others focused on how technology can be integrated into new and innovative designs. In these responses, candidates supported their analysis by articulating the implications of the use of these technologies.
In mid-range responses, candidates described various available and emerging technologies and, in some cases, made specific links to how these technologies influenced the design process. These responses demonstrated a sound level of understanding of how technologies are used. However, they focused on use of the technology rather than how it is used to innovate or further develop designs.
In weaker responses, candidates outlined examples of emerging technologies. Some responses were based around a simple outline of how products were developed.
20110248
NSW Government