1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. 2011 HSC Exam papers
5. 2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Metal Engineering

2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Metal and Engineering

Contents

• Introduction
• Section II
• Section III
• Section IV

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Metal and Engineering. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2011 Higher School Certificate Examination, indicating the quality of candidate responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

It is essential for this document to be read in conjunction 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 the Metal and Engineering course.

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 their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.

Candidates need to be aware that the mark 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 far beyond the indicated space may reduce the time available for candidates to answer 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’.

Section II

Question 16

1. Candidates who understood tolerance concepts were able to calculate the correct dimension of the hole after boring.
   
   
2. While most candidates recognised the symbol at D2 as a common technical symbol, very few were able to identify it as a surface finish symbol. Most candidates incorrectly labeled the symbol as a welding symbol.
   
   
3. Most candidates were able to calculate the overall dimensions of the slot found at both A1 and D1.
   
   
4. In better responses, candidates identified that the additional drawing at C6 provided the only details of the position where the ANGLE was to be welded to the PLATE. In weaker responses, candidates included information that could be found on the other views of the BASE PLATE.
   
   
5. In better responses, candidates could name a suitable pictorial drawing, such as an isometric drawing, and described several features that would enable a better understanding of the assembled product. In weaker responses, candidates failed to address the question of pictorial drawings and simply listed general drawing concepts, such as lines and dimensions.

Question 17

1. In better responses, candidates showed a good understanding of sequencing and correctly nominated tools appropriate to each step. These answers were clearly written and precise, and included only the necessary number of steps. If followed, these responses would allow for the efficient manufacture of the slot. 
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates proposed most of the marking out and manufacturing steps. The intention of the sequence of steps was clear, although some critical steps were overlooked. Relevant tools were listed, but not necessarily aligned with the appropriate step.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates proposed an incomplete sequence of steps that would not allow for the manufacture of the slot. The list of tools was often minimal or not relevant.
   
   
2. In better responses, candidates identified a relevant potential hazard, outlined the likely risk to the operator and described an appropriate control measure. These identified hazards were specific to the task at hand, and the risks and control measures were appropriately chosen.
   
   In mid-range responses, many of the candidates named a hazard and provided a control measure. Common responses included examples such as flying swarf or metal filings and the need for the use of protective equipment while drilling.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates simply spoke of some general safety considerations such as personal protective equipment (PPE) safety goggles and apparel.

Question 18

1. Most candidates identified the measuring device as a micrometer but a significant number of students incorrectly identified it as a vernier caliper.
   
   
2. A significant number of candidates correctly identified the reading as 6.07 mm. A large number of candidates could correctly identify the 6 mm reading but did not complete the reading of the thimble as 0.07.
   
   
3. Few candidates correctly identified the purpose of the ratchet as that of providing constant pressure for the consistent accuracy of measurements. Many candidates indicated that the ratchet assisted accurate measuring, but did not link it to pressure.
   
   
4. Candidates who demonstrated an ability to identify and use the micrometer were clearly able to outline an extensive range of methods to ensure the accuracy of the precision instrument and to maintain its longevity. This indicated that candidates knew how to store and care for the precision instrument and the reasons why.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates only listed a few methods of care that were restricted to handling rather than storage and maintenance.

Question 19

1. Most candidates identified that the limitation of cordless hand-held power drills were that the battery life was limited and they had less power than corded hand-held drills and pedestal drills. In better responses, candidates provided a more substantial list.
   
   
2. A significant number of candidates linked safety tags to the prevention of employees using the drill, and the implications for safety. Many mentioned further possible damage to the tool itself. Most identified the purpose of the tag, which is to remind the employer that the hand-held drill needs repairs. Only a few candidates provided more reasons or relevant detail to access full marks. Almost no candidates identified the tagger as a significant factor in the tagging process.
   
   
3. Most candidates correctly identified that different holding devices had varying qualities that needed to be considered. In better responses, candidates outlined the exit clearance and interference with the drilling process, and indicated that the type, size and weight of the work piece were significant factors to be considered. Preventing damage to the project was also a common response.
   
   In weaker and mid-range responses, candidates’ answers were mostly limited to how to prevent the work piece from moving or spinning thus causing danger.

Section III

Question 20

In better responses, candidates described a substantial range of work instructions, policies and procedures and standard operating procedures with examples, which linked them to aspects of the production of quality products. Many of these candidates addressed the rubric in their response.

In mid-range responses, candidates described a limited range of work instructions, policies and standard operating procedures. These responses were framed in very general terms and the link to quality was not always apparent.

In weaker responses, candidates indicated a very basic understanding of workplace communication. While these responses acknowledged that instructions and procedures were necessary, neither were described in depth nor linked to quality.

Section IV

Question 21

1. In better responses, candidates clearly demonstrated their understanding of the role of occupational health and safety (OHS) in the workplace and linked it to various aspects, including employee safety and productivity.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates indicated only that OHS made the workplace safer.
   
   
2. This part of the question was generally less well answered by all candidates. Many did not clearly identify the difference between an OHS committee and the elected OHS representative in a small workplace.
   
   In better responses, candidates clearly indicated that the main difference was the size of the workplace, with high-end responses identifying that 20 or more employees required a committee to be formed. They also made mention of the fact that a committee can be formed if requested or if directed by WorkCover.
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates made mention of the size of a company but were not specific regarding numbers. They also made reference to representative characteristics and listed the basic roles of representatives. These responses named elected representatives as members of the OHS committee and not as representatives for small companies.
   
   In weaker responses, candidates displayed either limited or no knowledge or understanding of the formation of OHS committees or elected representatives.
   
   
3. In better responses, candidates clearly articulated a comprehensive proposal for good housekeeping practices and understood the reasons why it is important for a safe and productive workplace. They clearly addressed all four areas of housekeeping that were indicated in the question. 
   
   In mid-range responses, candidates outlined a proposal that encompassed the four areas but failed to exhibit a sound understanding of the relationship between housekeeping guidelines and OHS principles. Some candidates made sound statements relating to some of the four areas listed.
   
   In poorer responses, candidates listed housekeeping practices in some of the four named areas. Little mention was made of the link between good housekeeping and OHS.