GCE D&T Legacy Examiners Report 2009 - kcse past papers | 2013 ...

DT3B – PRODUCT ANALYSIS
Principal Examiner:
Mr David Jones
General comments
From the cohort of candidates who entered this unit and it was evident by the work of the
majority of candidates that they were aware of the requirements as set out in the guidance to
examiners.
There was again a good range of products selected by candidates for analysis, some with
complex mechanical components to a number of intricate textile products and food products.
Some candidates lost marks due to no evidence of planning in their analysis and also failed
to indicate the structure that the report will take.
There were some instances of product analysis being completely descriptive, with little or no
graphic images. The report then becomes difficult for candidates where they are describing
or analysing features that require some form of graphic and consequently fail to access the
higher mark ranges.
Research Strategy
In some cases candidates did not include communication methods to gain information about
the product being analysed. Examiners were looking for candidates to evcidence
communication with the manufacturers, suppliers or users of the product.
Some form of timeline with dates was present in most research strategies, this was
sometimes in the form of a flow chart or table, but mainly GANNT charts but where no dates
were given no marks were awarded. These tables also gained marks for use of ICT.
Candidates must include evidence of planning for the various sections of the product
analysis. The aims and objectives for the task should arise out of this planning. Knowledge
of specification content was often missing in the research strategies.
Effectiveness of strategy
Aims/objectives not included in the research were then not mentioned in the body of the
product analysis. Most candidates described the product to be analysed, in the form of a
brief product overview. Many candidates took the opportunity to discuss the target audience
or similar products demonstrating the level of understanding the candidate has of how the
various elements of the product are inter-related.
Only when aspects of the specification are evidenced in more than three areas was a mark
allocated to candidates. Planned evaluation activities were again often omitted, where they
could have included the evaluation of the product and/or its component parts. Survey’s
asking peoples’ opinions and user trips were some of the strategies candidates employed.
16