New BTEC Level 3 National in Engineering · 2016. 10. 1. · BTEC Level 3 National in Engineering First teaching September 2016 Sample Marked Learner Work External Assessment Unit

BTEC Level 3 National in

Engineering

First teaching September 2016

Sample Marked Learner Work

External Assessment

Unit 3: Engineering Product Design and Manufacture

In preparation for the first teaching from September 2016 and as a part of the on-going

support that we offer to our centres, we have been developing support materials to help

you better understand the application of Nationals BTEC Level 3 qualification.

What is Sample Marked Learner Work (SMLW)?

The following learner work has been prepared as guidance for centres and learners. It

can be used as a helpful tool when teaching and preparing for external units.

Each question explores two responses; one good response, followed by a poor response.

These responses demonstrate how marks can be both attained and lost.

The SMLW includes examples of real learners’ work, accompanied with examiner tips and

comments based on the responses of how learners performed.

Below displays the format this booklet follows. Each question will show a learner

response, followed by comments on the command verbs and the content of the question.

Tips may be offered where possible.

The appendix has attached a mark scheme showing all the possible responses that

perhaps were not explored in the SMLW, but can still be attained.

Tips offer helpful hints that the learner may find useful. For example:

Recommended length of the answer

Reference to the amount of marks awarded

General advice for the learner when answering questions

The red box comments on the command verbs used in the question. Command

typically means; to instruct or order for something to be done. Likewise, in

assessments, learners are required to answer questions, with the help of a

command verb which gives them a sense of direction when answering a

question.

This box may choose to highlight the command verb used and comments if the

learner has successfully done this, or not.

The green box comments on the content words and phrases. Content makes

reference to subject knowledge that originates from the specification. Learners

are required to use subject specific knowledge to answer the questions in order to gain maximum marks.

The comments may include:

Any key words/phrases used in the learner’s answer.

Why has the learner gained x amount of marks? And why/how have they

not gained any further marks?

Any suggestions/ ideas regarding the structure of the answer.

If the answer meets full marks- why it is a strong answer? What part of

the content has been mentioned to gain these marks?

Activity 1: At the start of the task create a short project time plan in your task

book. During the development process you should also record in your task

book:

o Why changes were made to the design during each session

o action points for the next session [Total marks for Act.1= 6 marks]

The focus for Activity 1 is three-fold:

Firstly, there is the planning aspect that should be carried out at the beginning of

the task (‘create a short project time plan’);

Secondly, the record keeping that should be maintained during the other

activities (2 to 5) in order to fully complete the task; and

Finally, during the other activities (2 to 5), learners should also record in the

Activity 1 section of their task book evidence of justified reasons for making

changes to designs and action points for future sessions and activities.

This approach broadly indicates how the learner planned to spend the ten hours

allowed for the task and is appropriate as an initial plan.

The plan provides a structure around which the learner is able to focus their

activities in the redesign of the product. There are some notes to explain the

changes that have been made and how these will impact on the new design; as a

result, this response achieved a mark in Band 2 (please refer to the Marking Grid

for Activity 1). For a mark in Band 3, the learner would need to have thoroughly

justified changes that may have been made, giving reasons for prioritising action

points for subsequent sessions; in addition, the changes made must be relevant

and linked to the requirements of the brief.

The use of a tabular approach for Activity 1 can be effective to

show what is planned for each session and to provide

information about changes made; however, written justifications

of decisions are required for a mark in Band 3.

Typically, lower achieving learners may submit a reflective log as shown.

Reflective logs such as this do not gain any credit for planning; nonetheless, it is

possible that should such comments be justified with explanations for changes

made during Activities 2 to 5, then they could gain some credit. The above

example achieved 1 mark because it reflects a linear approach to the design

process (please refer to the Marking Grid for Activity 1) and there is little evidence

of justification of changes made to fulfil the requirements of the brief or any

further action points.

Planning should be completed before learners begin to address

the other Activities - this aspect should not be written

retrospectively.

As Activity 1 is worth 6 marks overall, the time spent on initial

planning should reflect this. Learners should also revisit the

Activity 1 section of their task book on completion of each

subsequent Activity (2 to 5) to add succinct and pertinent notes

to justify relevant changes.

Activity 2: Interpret the brief into operational requirement, to include:

o product requirement

o opportunities and constraints

o interpretation of numerical data

o key health and safety, regulatory and sustainability factors.

[Total marks for Act. 2= 6 marks]

The command word used in this activity is ‘interpret’. Learners are required to

identify clearly the key features of the client brief, and to use the aforesaid and the

other information available (including the numerical data and drawings), to

produce a set of suitable operational and product requirements. In doing so, they

must also consider and make relevant comments on opportunities and constraints

and key health and safety, regulatory and sustainability factors.

This response achieved a mark in Band 3, as there is evidence of suitable and

relevant interpretation/consideration of each of the aspects required (please refer

to the Marking Grid for Activity 2). The initial comments accurately reflect the

contents of the client brief and then consider the statistical information to identify

reasons for failure of the existing bracket. To achieve a mark in Band 3, learners

are expected to interpret any given data effectively, and to complete related

calculations accurately, in order to provide validation for the operational

requirements that they have identified. In the above response, this has been

achieved by calculating the mean time to failure (MTTF) for each bracket (based on

location) and summarising/interpreting the results.

There is evidence of opportunities being identified, such as the possibility of

reducing the amount of materials required and the scope to use materials that are

more sustainable. There is also some consideration of safety factors, such as the

requirement for the bracket not to fail in service or damage the cable. In addition,

there is some reference to the possibility of enhanced performance, with some

feasible opportunities (for example, ‘...to design a bracket that can be replaced

without removing the cable’) and constraints identified.

To achieve a mark in Band 3, learners must include content that

refers to each of the four bullet points in Activity 2. This could be

addressed using sub-headings in the response.

References to sustainability, regulatory and health and safety

considerations should not be generic in nature. Any consideration

of health and safety, regulatory and sustainability factors should

relate directly to the context.

This response achieves a mark in Band 1 as there is only a limited consideration of

each of the aspects required. There is some evidence of opportunities being

identified, such as using less materials to reduce the cost sustainable materials.

There is also some consideration of safety requirements, linked to the weight of

the cable. The only evidence of calculations relates to the weight of the cable, with

no consideration of the statistics.

There should be evidence of the interpretation of the provided

numerical data being used to identify product requirements.

Activity 3: Produce a range of initial ideas design based on the client brief, to

include:

o sketches

o annotations. [Total marks for Act. 3= 9 marks]

Activity 3 requires learners to produce a range of design ideas based on the client

brief. The unit specification (‘Key terms typically used in assessment’) states that

a design is ‘a drawing and/or specification to communicate the form, function

and/or operational workings of a product prior to it being made or maintained’.

Activity 3 directs learners to use a combination of sketches and annotations; as a

result, both must be present in order for learners to be able to achieve all of the

marks available.

To achieve marks in Band 2 or Band 3, learners are expected to generate a range of pocket sketches that offer a variety of possible approaches to solve the design

problem (client brief).

This response shows two ideas that are both different to each other and different in

their design approach to addressing the brief. Both of the ideas also address the

brief in a comprehensive fashion and are communicated with clarity. There are

concise and sensible annotations evident that use technical terms with accuracy,

and materials, manufacturing processes and features are all considered. The above

has attributes that are typical of a Band 3 response (please refer to the Marking

Grid for Activity 3).

Activity 3 requires a range of initial design ideas; learners

need to produce more than one initial idea if they are to

access marks from Band 2 or Band 3.

Research notes (from Part A) are not submitted to Pearson

with the Part B task book; therefore, any pertinent information

from research/preparatory work must be replicated within the

Part B task book if learners are to gain any credit for it.

It is not necessary for sketches to be drawn as 3D

representations if there is sufficient detail to be gained from a

front, plan or side elevation (for example), as shown above.

This response also has two ideas, although there is some similarity in the

concept/approach to addressing the brief. There are no annotations evident that

refer to, for example, materials, possible manufacturing processes or features. This

response has attributes that are typical of a high Band 1/low Band 2 response.

This learner has not achieved Band 3 due to a combination of reasons that include

producing ideas which are fundamentally similar in approach; however, the ideas

are feasible. In addition, there is a lack of clarity with one of the ideas and technical

annotations that link to the brief are not evident (please refer to the Marking Grid

for Activity 3).

Activity 4: Develop a modified product proposal with relevant design

documentation. The proposal must consider:

o a solution

o existing products

o materials

o manufacturing processes

o sustainability

o safety

o other relevant factors. [Total marks for Act. 4= 30 marks]

Activity 4 requires learners to develop a modified product proposal. There is clear

guidance as to what is required for a fully developed proposal (‘The proposal must

consider: a solution, existing products, materials, manufacturing processes,

sustainability, safety and other relevant factors’), and each of these should be

addressed in the response.

Learners should include a range of relevant design documentation to support their

proposals. These are exemplified in section C2 of the Unit 3 specification. As with

Activity 3, learners should use appropriate sketching and graphical techniques

along with written content to articulate fully their modified product proposal.

The above response makes use of a range of methods to communicate the design

proposal, including sketches and written information, but others could also have

been used (parts/materials list, production plan, flowchart etc).

The above response includes a range of drawings and sketches supported by

written information that not only shows clearly the proposed product solution, but

also provides content that helps to justify the decisions made in arriving at the

given solution. The drawings clearly indicate the features of the design, with

appropriate consideration of materials and manufacturing processes evident. The

modified proposal is an improvement when considering the original product and the

brief.

The response shows a range of views of the solution, with accurate but brief

technical annotations indicating the materials to be used and the majority of

dimensions. Whilst some features are missing, it would be possible for a competent

third party to effectively interpret the proposal and to be able to manufacture the

modified bracket. This is required to access Band 4 marks. There is evidence of

some justification of the materials and manufacturing processes suggested, with

some consideration of alternatives; in addition, there are some references to

sustainability and the ‘designing out’ of risks. As a result, this response has

attributes that are typical of a Band 3 response (please refer to the Marking Grid for

Activity 4).

In order to achieve marks from Band 4, learners should provide a justification for

the features of their designs, the materials used and the suggested manufacturing

processes with explicit references to existing products (in the form of sketches

and/or written content). In this response the justification of processes is limited. In

order to improve the response, the learner would need to explain why casting and

aluminium-magnesium alloy are suitable to be used for the modified bracket,

providing a justification that considers the possible alternatives. The response is

also missing some detail with reference to the consideration of sustainability at all

stages of the product life cycle (please refer to the Marking Grid for Activity 4).

ords/phrases

This response has been awarded a mark in Band 2. The solution provided is

feasible and shows some variation in form to the original bracket, with the

redesign being more of a ‘hook’. The design itself does represent a probable

improvement but the use of materials is not significantly reduced.

The written ‘justification’ associated with the design is very descriptive in parts

and refers to an alternative proposal (seen in the diagram) for use with multiple

cables; this is not required given the client brief and thus gains no credit.

Learners should make sure that their modified proposal addresses the client

brief, as this is what their solution will be judged against.

The learner has briefly considered existing products in their response, has noted

that polycarbonate could be a suitable material given that it is not affected by

humidity and has referred to the use of injection moulding. There is evidence of

some consideration of sustainability and the designing out of risk.

The learner has not considered alternative materials or manufacturing processes

which limits the opportunity to move into the higher bands.

There is one drawing submitted with annotation identifying some key features,

and this allows a competent third party to understand the purpose of the

solution. This, along with the limited but accurate use of technical terminology

has allowed the learner to be awarded marks from Band 2 for their

solution/design documentation (please refer to the Marking Grid for Activity 4).

The modified proposal should be optimised and be a justified

variation in form from the original design.

The design documentation should have enough information to

allow a competent third party to manufacture the solution.

Selection of materials and manufacturing processes should be

fully justified and include comparisons with alternatives.

Descriptions of the processes will not gain marks.

It is important that learners consider each of the points raised

in the brief during Activity 4 and are able to relate their

justifications back to them.

Learners should spend more time on this Activity than any

other, as detail is required for high marks.

To achieve marks from the higher bands, learners should use

technical terminology accurately in their design work,

annotations and written responses.

Activity 5: Your final task book entry should evaluate:

o success and limitations of the completed solutions

o indirect benefits and opportunities

o constraints

o opportunities for technology-led modifications.

[Total marks for Act. 5= 9 marks]

Activity 5 requires learners to evaluate their design proposal. To achieve marks

from Band 3 it is important that learners consider their own solution in relation to

the brief and the original design, in this case the bracket, providing a sound

rationale for why their solution is more effective.

The evaluation needs to consider several factors: the success and limitations of

the solution; the indirect benefits and opportunities of the solution; and any

constraints related to the solution.

The evaluation should be balanced, and should also consider the possibility of how

technology-led modifications could optimise the solution suggested.

The response above considers each of the points referred to in Activity 5. There are

explanations of how the redesigned bracket meets the requirements of the brief.

There is some indication of limitations/constraints, such as the expense of die

casting and high energy use when compared to machining. There is a sound

rationale as to why the redesigned bracket is more effective than the original; for

example: as it is manufactured from an aluminium-magnesium alloy it will have

consistent strength across the operating temperatures, be corrosion resistant and

thus not need any finishes to be applied (as stated above).

There is also some consideration of indirect benefits/opportunities and further

technology-led modifications, such as the potential to use polymers or additive

manufacture to optimise the solution in terms of manufacturing and the service life

of the bracket.

As a result, this response has attributes that are typical of a Band 3 response

(please refer to the Marking Grid for Activity 5).

Learners should make sure that their evaluation is balanced.

They also need to make sure that they cover each of the four headings

from Activity 5 (success and limitations of the completed solutions,

indirect benefits and opportunities, constraints and opportunities for

technology-led modifications). To achieve a mark from Band 3, each

aspect must be balanced and offer a full appraisal of the solution.

This response achieved a mark from Band 1. The brief comments are not evaluative

and are primarily related to the success/benefits of the learner’s solution, with some

basic limitations stated. The failure to include reference to, for example, further

technology-led modifications, along with the lack of detail in the written response

(especially in relation to the brief and the original design), restricts the learner to

low marks (please refer to the Marking Grid for Activity 5).

Learners should make sure that their evaluation is of the solution

that they have suggested as opposed to the process of redesigning

the bracket.

Unit 3: Engineering Product Design and Manufacture - Sample marking grid

General marking guidance

All learners must receive the same treatment. Examiners must mark the first learnerin exactly the same way as they mark the last.

Marking grids should be applied positively. Learners must be rewarded for what theyhave shown they can do rather than penalised for omissions.

Examiners should mark according to the marking grid not according to theirperception of where the grade boundaries may lie.

All marks on the marking grid should be used appropriately. All the marks on the marking grid are designed to be awarded. Examiners should

always award full marks if deserved. Examiners should also be prepared to awardzero marks if the learner’s response is not rewardable according to the marking grid.

Where judgement is required, a marking grid will provide the principles by whichmarks will be awarded.

When examiners are in doubt regarding the application of the marking grid to alearner’s response, a senior examiner should be consulted.

Specific marking guidance

The marking grids have been designed to assess learner work holistically. Rows within the grids identify the assessment focus/outcome being targeted. When using a marking grid, the ‘best fit’ approach should be used.

● Examiners should first make a holistic judgement on which band most closelymatches the learner response and place it within that band. Learners will beplaced in the band that best describes their answer.

● The mark awarded within the band will be decided based on the quality of theanswer in response to the assessment focus/outcome and will be modifiedaccording to how securely all bullet points are displayed at that band.

● Marks will be awarded towards the top or bottom of that band depending onhow they have evidenced each of the descriptor bullet points.

© Pearson Education Limited 2015

Activity 1: Planning and design changes made during the development process Assessment

focus Band 0 Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4

Carry out an iterative development process

0 1-2 3-4 5-6 n/a Level of response not worthy of credit

Entries demonstratean unstructured orlinear approach to thedesign process.

Development activitieslead to designrefinements that maynot be relevant to thebrief.

A limited justificationof the changes madein order to fulfil therequirements of thebrief.

Action points arevague, incomplete ornot present.

Entries demonstratesome evidence of aniterative approach tothe design process.

Development activitieslead to designrefinements that arepartially linked to therequirements of thebrief.

Some justification ofthe changes madethroughout thedevelopment processto fulfil therequirements of thebrief.

Action points for thenext externalassessment session areidentified but not welldefined or prioritised.

Entries demonstrate alogical and iterativeapproach to the designprocess.

Development activitieslead to designrefinements that arecoherently linked toresearch and therequirements of thebrief.

Thorough justification ofchanges madethroughout thedevelopment process tofulfil the requirements ofthe brief.

Well defined, logical andprioritised action pointsfor the next externalassessment session areidentified.

Pearson BTEC Level 3 Nationals in Business - Unit 2- Final Sample Assessment Materials - version 1.0 - Pre-publication document - August 2015© Pearson Education Limited 2015

Activity 2: Interpret the brief into operational requirements Assessment


Interpreting brief into operational requirements


Interpret the brief intosome key productrequirements,opportunities and/orconstraints that partiallymeet the brief and arenot cohesively linked.

Limited calculation andinterpretation ofnumerical data that mayinclude some errors.

Consideration of somehealth and safety,regulatory and/orsustainability factorswith limited relevance tothe given context.

Interpret the brief into acohesive set of productrequirements,opportunities andconstraints that meetsthe brief.

Mostly accuratecalculation andinterpretation ofnumerical data that mayinclude minor errors.

Consideration of keyhealth and safety,regulatory andsustainability factorswith some relevance tothe given context.

Interpret the brief into acohesive andcomprehensive set ofproduct requirements,feasible opportunitiesand constraints thatmeets the brief andconsiders enhancedproduct performance.

Accurate calculation andinterpretation ofnumerical data.

Consideration of keyhealth and safety,regulatory andsustainability factorswith relevance to thegiven context.


Activity 3: Produce a range of initial design ideas based on the client brief Assessment


Initial design ideas


Limited range of basicideas that address someaspects of the brief.

Ideas communicated ata simplistic level withlimited technical terms.

Ideas that have limitedfeasibility and may notbe fit for purpose.

A range of appropriateideas that address mostaspects of the brief.

Ideas communicatedclearly and suitable useof technical terms thatmostly link to the brief.

Ideas that are mostlyfeasible and fit forpurpose, but mayinclude some unrealisticdesign elements.

A range of appropriateideas thatcomprehensivelyaddress the brief.

Ideas communicatedwith clarity andconcisely andappropriate use oftechnical terms that linkto the brief.

Ideas that are feasibleand fit for purpose.


Activity 4: Develop a modified product proposal with relevant design documentation Assessment

focus Subtask Band 0 Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4

Develop a modified product proposal (form, materials and/or manufacturing processes)

Solution 0 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24

Level of response not worthy of credit

The solution shows asimple variation inform and/orapproach from thebrief.

The design proposalshows little or noreference to existingalternative products.

Appropriatematerial/s selectedthat meet therequirements of thebrief. Limitedinvestigation ofoptions.

Appropriate selectionof manufacturingprocess/es that meetthe requirements ofthe brief. Limitedinvestigation ofoptions.

Design proposalshow a limitedconsideration ofsustainability atsome stages of the

The solution is feasiblebut doesn’t represent animprovement from theoriginal product andshows variation in formand/or approach fromthe brief.

The design proposalshows some reference toexisting alternativeproducts.

Material/s selection isappropriate to the briefand partially justified byan investigation thatconsiders limitedoptions.

Selection ofmanufacturingprocess/es is appropriateto the brief and partiallyjustified by aninvestigation thatconsiders limitedoptions.

Design proposal showsome consideration ofsustainability at moststages of the product life

The solution is animprovement from theoriginal product,showing a clear variationin form and/or approachfrom the brief.

The design proposal isinformed, based onsome understanding ofexisting alternativeproducts.

Material/s selection isappropriate to the briefand mostly justified byan investigation ofoptions.

Selection ofmanufacturingprocess/es is appropriateto the brief and mostlyjustified by aninvestigation of options.

Design proposal showsome consideration ofsustainability at moststages of the product life

The solution is optimised,demonstrating a justifiedvariation in form and/orapproach from the brief.

The design proposal isinformed, based on athorough understanding ofexisting alternativeproducts.

Material/s selection isappropriate to the brief andfully justified by balancedinvestigation of options.

Selection of manufacturingprocess/es is appropriate tothe brief and fully justifiedby balanced investigation ofoptions.

Design proposal considerssustainability at all stagesof the product life cycle.

27


Assessment focus

Subtask Band 0 Band 1 Band 2 Band 3 Band 4

product life cycle. Ideas have little or

no reference to the safety of the design and/or designing out risks.

cycle. Ideas show some

reference to the safety of the design and designing out risks.

cycle. Ideas show some

reference to the safety of the design and designing out risks.

Ideas clearly reference thesafety of the design anddesigning out risks.

Design Documentation

0 1 2-3 4-5 6

Level of response not worthy of credit

Limited formaldocumentation usedto communicate thesolution.

Little or noannotation used.

The use of technicalterminology isattempted but it islargely inaccurate.

Formal documentationused to communicatethe solution.

Annotation used toidentify some keyfeatures of the solutionwhich would allow acompetent third party tounderstand the purposeof the solution.

Technical terminology islimited and accurate.

An appropriate range offormal documentationused to communicatethe solution effectively.

Sufficient annotation ofthe key features of thesolution which wouldallow a competent thirdparty to interpret how tomanufacture thesolution.

Some accurate technicalterminology is used.

A comprehensive range ofrelevant formaldocumentation tocommunicate the solutioneffectively.

Concise annotation of thesolution which would allowa competent third party toeffectively interpret how tomanufacture the solution.

Technical terminology isused accurately throughout.

28


Activity 5: Evaluate the design proposal Assessment


Validating the design proposal


Superficial appraisal of: Success and

limitations ofcompleted solutions

Indirect benefits andopportunities

Constraints.

Provides a limitedrationale for thedesign solution, whichmay not relate directlyto the brief.

Little or no furthertechnology-ledmodificationscommunicated.

Some appraisal, which may be unbalanced or incomplete, of: Success and

limitations ofcompleted solutions

Indirect benefits andopportunities

Constraints.

Provides a partialrationale for why thedesign solution is moreeffective in relation tosome aspects of thebrief.

Further technology-ledmodifications arecommunicated withsome evidence of howthey could improve theeffectiveness of thesolution.

Balanced and thorough appraisal of: Success and limitations

of completed solutions Indirect benefits and

opportunities Constraints.

Provides a soundrationale for why thedesign solution is moreeffective in relation tothe brief.

Further technology-ledmodifications arecommunicated withdetailed evidence of howthey could optimise thesolution.

29

Engineering U3MS-Sample-assessment-material-Unit-3-Product-Design-And-Manufacture

Documents

New BTEC Level 3 National in Engineering · 2016. 10. 1. · BTEC Level 3 National in Engineering First teaching September 2016 Sample Marked Learner Work External Assessment Unit