1. Home
2. HSC
3. HSC Exams
4. Pre-2016 HSC exam papers
5. 2009 HSC Notes from the marking centre
6. 2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Metal and Engineering

2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Metal and Engineering

Contents

• Section II
• Section III

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 2009 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 2009 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 Metal and Engineering.

Teachers and students are advised that, in December 2008, the Board of Studies approved changes to the examination specifications and assessment requirements for a number of courses. These changes will be implemented for the 2010 HSC cohort. Information on a course-by-course basis is available on the Board’s website.

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 a guide 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 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’.

Section II

Question 16

1. Better responses identified the drawing as being an exploded isometric.
2. In the better responses, candidates identified three 5 mm holes in the crank arm, two in the arm and one through the knob.

3. Candidates who understood the concept of ‘clearance’ provided better responses. They calculated the clearance showing the difference between the length of the pivot and the knob when the crank arm is assembled.

   Weaker responses failed to interpret the drawing properly or made errors in the calculation.

4. In the better responses, candidates read the drawing of the crank arm and completed the table provided.

5. In better responses, candidates used the information provided in the drawing and concluded that riveting or peining over the end of the pivot was the best option for permanently fixing the two parts together. They also provided a brief account of the process. Other possibilities mentioned in sound responses included brazing and silver soldering.

   Weaker responses either failed to consider the ‘permanent’ nature of the fastening or failed to complete an adequate description of the process.

Question 17

1. Better responses provided a clear and logical sequence of steps to mark out the crank arm. Most of the necessary marking-out tools were mentioned and the correct use of industry terminology was evident.

   Mid-range responses allowed the reader to logically follow the sequence, although not all the steps were given. Candidates often neglected the beginning marking out process of using a marking medium or finding an appropriate datum point, or the end of the processes such as deburring and cleaning up. Most of the basic marking-out tools were mentioned. These responses used general industry terminology.

   In weaker responses, the sequence of steps was incomplete or in incorrect order. Only a few tools were mentioned and/or incorrectly named.

2. Better responses outlined a quality check that could be used to verify the accuracy in the marking out process, using correct industry terminology. They named and then indicated the main features of the checking method.

   Weaker responses simply named or poorly outlined a quality checking procedure.

Question 18

1. 1. Better responses correctly listed the accuracy as 0.01 mm, with weaker responses indicating the accuracy as 0.1 mm, 0.02 mm.
   2. Better responses clearly demonstrated an understanding of how the labelled Part A was used, citing specific examples such as measuring depth and height.
2. Better responses outlined several appropriate issues in relation to storing measuring devices with a digital display including climatic effects such as moisture, the use of a storage case to avoid damage to the display screen and removing or switching off the battery to increase its life. Weaker responses often indicated one issue with little or no explanation.
3. Better responses listed a wide variety of advantages with a definite outline to justify their advantage. Common responses were to reduce errors through reading, no training required to read or use, much quicker through reading. Weaker responses tended to indicate that the use of a digital measuring device would be more accurate.

Question 19

1. Better responses clearly identified the tap shown in the diagram as a taper tap and gave a specific application to support their response. Mid-range responses incorrectly identified it as an intermediate or plug, but gave a specific application. Weaker responses did not know or recognise the tap nor did they give a specific application.
2. 1. Most candidates read and selected the correct drill size of 10.8 from the chart provided.
   2. Better responses calculated the speed of the rotating drill by correctly substituting the formula with the given data, showing all working. Some responses did indicate the correct calculation, but did not show all working. Weaker responses put incorrect data into the formula.

3. In better responses, candidates clearly named several precautions to prevent taps from breaking and linked them to reasons why it happens.

   Mid-range responses listed several precautions but did not articulate sufficient reasons to support the precautions.

   Weaker responses only listed one precaution with no reasons to support their response.

Section III

Question 20

In better responses, candidates related quality improvement strategies to benefits for both the company and its customers in a well-developed and logical manner. For each of the areas – planning, control, inspection and testing, these candidates described a wide range of examples and then related them to specific benefits. Using precise industry terminology, candidates examined strategies that could be employed before, during and after the production of an item and identified quality systems as providing continual improvement.

Good responses saw quality improvement strategies leading to benefits such as quality products and services, reduced cost, increased customer confidence and satisfaction, and increased competitiveness for the company.

In mid-range responses, candidates provided an adequate description of examples of some relevant strategies together with general benefits to the company and or customer. These responses displayed a basic understanding of quality concepts.

Candidates are reminded that they should attend to all facets of the question and organise their response to reflect this.

Weaker responses tended to be brief and limited, listing some strategies. Many of these responses consisted of poorly structured definitions or lists and did not relate the benefits of implementing quality systems.

Question 21

Better candidates presented a well-reasoned and cohesive response clearly explaining the relationship between employees’ attributes to do with workshop conduct, safety and communication, and the contribution that these make in creating an effective and productive workplace. These candidates named and then provided excellent descriptions of personal attributes together with the specific effect that these have on the workplace. Precise industry terminology was used in such responses.

Mid-range responses described a series of personal attributes, mainly from a conduct and safety perspective. Although candidates could adequately describe some of these attributes, the responses often lacked organisation and were couched in general terms. Many of these responses failed to clearly link the effect an employee’s personal attributes have on a workplace.

Weaker responses listed some personal attributes with little or no evidence of organisation. Candidates are reminded to respond to all areas of the question – in this case, candidates needed to refer to workshop conduct, safety and communications.

Question 22

Better responses clearly considered all aspects of how hazards and the risk of injury are reduced through the application of appropriate control measures when using a portable electric power drill. Candidates described each area in terms of pre-operation, use, and post-operation. These responses demonstrated extensive knowledge and understanding in explaining how hazards were linked to risk and the control measures needed to reduce injury in the workplace. They gave specific examples, using precise industrial terminology in a well-written cohesive response. Better responses did not limit their answer to just PPE, mentioning frayed or split cords, tagging, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) training, workplace area, drill chucks, drill bits and drill casing and they provided a direct link between all three major components. Better responses were well structured and began with a good introduction, elaborating with specific examples using appropriate industrial terminology and closing with a precise conclusion.

Mid-range responses did not link all three areas, often mentioning either hazards or control measures and linking them to risk of injury. Mid-range responses tended to be less well-structured and some were disjointed in their approach. Mid-range responses were satisfactory in their communication and used a general range of specific industrial terminology. Some mid-range responses only provided a detailed list of hazards or control measures with an occasional limited link to risk of injury in the workplace.

Weaker responses tended to be brief and limited in terms of demonstrating knowledge and understanding. Candidates often identified one area, usually control measures, and focused mainly on PPE with no link to hazards and risk of injury. These responses were often poorly written with little reference to industrial terminology. Candidates often just rewrote the question.

2010043