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

DT2 - Design & Make Task - Food Technology
DT5+6 Legacy Specification
Principal Moderator:
Mrs Karen Brassington
Many centres have made a good start with the new specification. It appears that INSET is
helping centres to improve those areas which have been identified in previous years as
weaker: design specifications and evaluations in many centres have improved.
A wide range of briefs are being used at AS, with the majority being appropriate. Some
centres have obviously benefited considerably from the time saved not doing portfolios,
being able to devote more time and effort to the major project.
In many centres there is obvious progression from AS to A2 in project work. Generally there
is a greater level of detail and obvious understanding by AL candidates.
The level of presentation amongst food candidates remains generally high and it is common
for portfolios to be clear and easy to follow, with an obvious design process being carried
out. Most are providing good quality photographic evidence, though in a very few cases
candidates are providing little or even no evidence of practical work. Marks cannot be
awarded for practical work without evidence. A few centres are failing to include
photographic evidence of disassembly for the product analysis and in a small minority it
appears questionable whether actual disassembly is being carried out. It must be noted
that from the next round of moderation, visiting moderators will require to see actual
practical outcomes for final designs for AS, as well as AL. Photographic evidence will
continue to be used for experimental work, trialling, prototypes and design
development etc. but centres must keep practical outcomes for final designs.
Some centres have made a good attempt at tackling the new “Research and Product
Analysis” section of the new AS specification. However, a few centres appear to consider
that the new specification requires candidates to disassemble an existing product and little
else. It must be noted that this is only one aspect of the research that candidates need to
carry out. Research and product analysis should have breadth, depth and focus. It is
essential that candidates gain a clear understanding of the task and the target market from
their research section. The detailed analysis of an existing product / existing products is
intended to inform them more fully.
It is true to say that the quality and quantity of research has varied considerably this year,
particularly at AS. Some research seen is too generic or is not being analysed effectively in
order to inform the candidate. Some candidates have included information which is not
directly relevant to their topic and some are still failing to appreciate the real purpose of their
research. It is becoming much less common for copious amounts of unevaluated internet
research to be included, but still in some portfolios we continue to see some research
material included which has barely been analysed.
In some centres all of the candidates have disassembled the same existing product(s).
Whilst cost constraints are acknowledged, it is essential that each disassembles a food
product / products directly relevant to their own chosen task in order to be of real value. It is
important that candidates consider the ways food materials are used in existing products and
the reasons for particular materials being used. It is not sufficient for candidates to carry out
organoleptic testing of an existing product: analysis needs to be much more in depth and
inform them much more fully.
Some centres are choosing to do moodboards. These can be beneficial when done well to
enable candidates to gain a better feel for the target audience / product. A number of
candidates managed to convey a real “feel” for their target group, using a variety of means.
30