2011 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 2011 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 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents 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 that are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Major design project
Design folio – general comments
Teachers and candidates should be aware of the 80-page limit that applies to the design folio. Supporting information to assist in preparing a design folio can be found on the Board of Studies website. Candidates are expected to submit major design projects that comply with these folio requirements. Mark penalties may apply if the limits are exceeded. For folios that contain both paper-based and multimedia material, the paper parts of the folio must comply with the format requirements and the multimedia parts of the folio must not exceed six minutes of viewing time in total.
This time limit does not apply to a multimedia product; however, it is strongly recommended that a multimedia product does not extend beyond 10 minutes. In many cases, the skills demonstrated in the first 10 minutes are sufficient for marking and longer presentations are unnecessary.
In clarification, if an e-folio is submitted, it should be accompanied by a paper version to ensure that the project can be marked even if there is a failure in the technology and so markers can easily determine if the folio is within the folio parameters.
Any hyperlinks included will be counted as part of the six-minutes maximum viewing time.
All pages of the folio should be numbered and count toward the page limit, including:
- title page
- index
- appendix
- journal or diary
- bibliography
- research
- samples of any surveys
- time, action and finance plans
- documentation of testing/experimentation
- evidence of specific practical activities or evaluative measures
- design ideas, concept sketches and detailed drawings
- any information presented on displays or noticeboards.
Better responses were able to select and synthesis material to communicate the design, development, realisation and evaluation aspects of the course. In the better responses, candidates were able to communicate the design process succinctly and clearly and adhere to the page limits.
Project proposal and project management
General comments
Weaker responses provided very generic information in this section, with some not relating the information well to their identified PSE. Simple statements were made with little investigation evident – or basic statements were attached to a heading. Some candidates used design-factor headings to set out their criteria in order to evaluate success. Many candidates presented time, action and finance plans as a diary, with little or no evidence of forward planning. Candidates who presented information in a table format were unable to provide in-depth discussion in the proposal.
Identification and exploration of the need
In the better responses, candidates identified a genuine need, demonstrated the application of critical analysis skills to the investigation of the need and drew conclusions regarding the criteria for evaluation.
In mid-range responses, candidates presented a range of alternative possibilities for their design project then spent time articulating why they chose the final item.
In weaker responses, candidates tended to simply state what the candidate proposed to make.
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.
In weaker responses, candidates cited areas that were generic and supported these by a definition rather than an explanation of why that investigation would occur and how it would be carried out.
Criteria to evaluate 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 project should meet.
In weaker responses, candidates displayed some difficulty in understanding the distinction between the criteria for success and factors affecting design. These responses tended to simply list a limited number of criteria without any explanatory discussion.
Action, time and finance plans and their application
In better responses, candidates indicated clear and appropriate actions in terms of the design and development process. These were not generic, but were tailored to the specific product, system or environmental needs. In these responses, candidates used the action plan to support the assessment of progress and a management tool to help them achieve success.
In weaker responses, candidates completed a generic template after the completion of the project, rather than using the timeline as a planning tool, thereby presenting an obviously false representation. In some weaker responses, candidates presented a generic form of plan, which generally lacked forward actions.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a genuine effort to develop a budget based on available financial resources and likely costs and expenses. Weaker responses were simply 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.
Project development and realisation
General comments
Quality projects were supported by appropriate project development along with relevant design solutions or modifications. This included idea generation and the development of these ideas in a logical and sequential manner. In better responses, candidates clearly supported their final product, system or environment in this way.
In better responses, candidates utilised alternate methods to communicate the experimentation and testing that took place, for example: the use of 3D models, samples and test items.
In the weaker responses, candidates did not undertake relevant research, experimentation or testing in areas that presented the opportunity to show further development or refinement in the design project.
Evidence of creativity – idea 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. These responses also included analysis of a range of existing ideas that assisted in the realisation of the product, system or environment.
In weaker responses, candidates displayed simplistic ideas about existing products, systems or environments with no evidence of creativity or superficial difference. These projects did not state a genuine need nor support their idea generation or development.
Consideration of design factors relevant to the major design project
In better responses, candidates selected the most important design factors that related directly to their product, system or environment. These were then discussed, including why and how these factors were important to the project.
In weaker responses, candidates were unsure of 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. Weaker responses did not relate the factors directly to their project, they simply listed these 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 and techniques, and testing of design solutions
In better responses, candidates 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 applied to the product, system or environment. From these tests, the results were analysed and decisions were made regarding further design development for improvement.
In weaker responses, candidates included far too much material in this section that was irrelevant and unrelated to the intended product, system or environment.
Application of conclusions
In better responses, candidates carried out relevant developmental processes and provided evidence of their application of the conclusions drawn to their product, system or environment. These responses often included a range of samples that were tested and provided a short explanation of the results and further direction. In weaker responses, candidates often included irrelevant testing, making any further design development – as a result of those tests – difficult or non-existent.
Identification and justification of ideas and resources used
In better responses, candidates identified the most relevant resources and justified their application and value while, in weaker responses, candidates just listed the resources used or cited resources that played no part in the development of the product, system or environment.
Use of communication and presentation techniques
In better responses, candidates were able to clearly and succinctly communicate their ideas and concepts and selected appropriate techniques to do so within the 80-page-folio requirement.
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 the use of multiple materials in prototypes, models or the final product, system or environment.
In weaker projects, candidates displayed limited processes and technical skill, with several projects being presented incomplete or using unsafe work practices.
Project evaluation
General comments
In the better responses, candidates displayed some critical analysis and demonstrated an understanding of the relationship between their product, system or environment, and society and the environment.
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 communicates clearly to markers that ongoing evaluation has occurred. Some candidates used multi-media evidence to support evaluation measures.
Analysis and evaluation of functional and aesthetic aspects of design
In better responses, candidates displayed a clear understanding of the aspects of design and related them to the design project. In many situations, 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
In weaker responses, candidates were unable to communicate the final evaluation of the effect of the products, systems or environments on society and the environment. They cited general and non-specific issues and did not examine closely enough the impact of their final design. Often, general and broad sweeping statements were made, offering 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 on the candidate’s ability to clearly articulate the relationship of the final design solution and the project proposal. In better responses, candidates presented discussions in point form, covering each aspect as cited in the initial project proposal.
In weaker responses, candidates simply addressed one or two aspects in a limited way. Better responses 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.
Written examination
Section II
Question 11
In better responses, candidates sketched, in general terms, occupational health and safety (OHS) factors to consider in the mass production of an office chair. These responses demonstrated the ability to draw on different factors, such as ergonomics, materials, construction, load and design.
Weaker responses simply identified a factor to consider, such as safety.
Question 12
In better responses, candidates made the relationship evident between a range of factors that contribute to the success of innovations and how these products enhance the quality of life. Candidates could express how a range of factors, such as timing, utilisation of emerging technologies and cost were related to the quality of life and gave effects, such as becoming more user-friendly, more energy-efficient and saving the consumer money.
In mid-range responses, candidates described factors, such as timing and features, with a link to enhancing the quality of life, such as user friendliness.
In weaker responses, candidates identified a feature of innovation or a factor contributing to the success of innovation.
Question 13
- In better responses, candidates provided reasons for developing new products with a limited lifespan. These responses focused on reasons, such as improving sales, increasing market share, opportunities to include new technologies and ensuring the need for consumers to replace the product.
In weaker responses, candidates identified a reason designers develop new products, such as to make more money.
- In better responses, candidates explained the relationship between the limited lifespan of a product and its effects on both society and the environment. These responses were able to provide details about products and their lifespan, such as sourcing materials from unsustainable sources and products that are easily replaceable. These responses demonstrated how limited product lifespan affected society and the environment such as lower expectations for care and maintenance of products creating more expense for consumers, the creation of waste and the concerns surrounding its disposal.
In mid-range responses, candidates provided the characteristics and features of the effects on society and/or the environment such as increased cost and increasing landfill due to the limited lifespan of a product.
In weaker responses, candidates outlined an effect on society or the environment, such as increased waste or the ability to buy one product instead of two, as a result of the limited lifespan of a product.
Section III
Question 14
- In better responses, candidates understood the relationship between how designers further develop existing products and the need for the redesigned product. In these responses, candidates provided examples of activities that designers may engage in to further develop existing products. Examples, such as evaluating existing products, conducting consumer or target-market surveys and analysing sales data were then related to the need for the product to be further developed.
In mid-range responses, candidates focused upon describing the types of activities undertaken when determining a need for a redesigned product. These responses tended to place more emphasis on the activities, as opposed to the need for a product’s development further.
In weaker responses, outlined activities undertaken by designers, with little or no reference to the need for further development of an existing product.
- In better responses, candidates clearly understood why designers further develop an existing functional and aesthetically appealing product and explained the need for the redesigned product. Some candidates responded to this question by analysing emerging trends in society including; energy saving, sustainable and cheaper materials, production processes that may affect the success of the product and a decline in sales requiring the product’s features to be evaluated and developed in order to remain competitive. Others responded by focussing on how emerging technology can be integrated into existing functional and aesthetically pleasing products. In these responses, candidates supported their analysis by articulating the implications, such as products’ increased sales, improved features and addressing societal expectations.
In mid-range responses, candidates provided various reasons for the further development of existing products, such as environmental friendliness, recyclability and cost. In some cases, candidates made specific reference to the function and aesthetics of a product and how it could be improved.
In weaker responses, candidates outlined a reason for further developing an existing product, such as being more user-friendly.
NSW Government