Moderators’ Report/ Principal Moderator Feedback January 2012 · 5. EG305 – Maintaining Engineering Plant, Equipment and Systems 13 6. EG306 – Investigating Modern Manufacturing

Moderators’ Report /

Principal Moderator Feedback

January 2012

Principal Learning

Engineering

Level 3 Cont rolled Assessm ents

Edexcel and BTEC Qualificat ions

Edexcel and BTEC qualificat ions com e from Pearson, the world’s leading learning

com pany. We provide a wide range of qualificat ions including academ ic,

vocat ional, occupat ional and specific program m es for em ployers. For further

inform at ion, please call our GCE line on 0844 576 0025, our GCSE team on 0844

576 0027, or visit our qualificat ions website at www.edexcel.com . For

inform at ion about our BTEC qualificat ions, please call 0844 576 0026, or visit

our website at www.btec.co.uk.

I f you have any subject specific quest ions about this specificat ion that require

the help of a subject specialist , you m ay find our Ask The Expert em ail service

helpful.

Ask The Expert can be accessed online at the following link:

ht tp: / / www.edexcel.com / Aboutus/ contact -us/

Pearson: helping people progress, everyw here

Our aim is to help everyone progress in their lives through educat ion. We believe

in every kind of learning, for all k inds of people, wherever they are in the world.

We’ve been involved in educat ion for over 150 years, and by working across 70

count r ies, in 100 languages, we have built an internat ional reputat ion for raising

achievem ent through innovat ion in educat ion. Find out m ore about how we can

help you and your students at : www.pearson.com / uk

January 2012

Publicat ions Code DP030354

All the m ater ial in this publicat ion is copyright

© Pearson Educat ion Ltd 2012

3

Contents

1. I nt roduct ion 4

2. EG302 – Applicat ions of Com puter Aided Designing 6

3. EG303 – Select ion and Applicat ion of Engineering Materials 9

4. EG304 – I nst rum entat ion and Cont rol Engineering 11

5. EG305 – Maintaining Engineering Plant , Equipm ent

and System s 13

6. EG306 – I nvest igat ing Modern Manufacturing Techniques Used

in Engineering 15

7. EG307 – I nnovat ive Design and Enterprise 17

8. EG309 – Principles and Applicat ion of Engineering Science 19

9. Grade Boundaries 20

4

I nt roduct ion

Units EG3 0 2 , EG3 0 3 and EG3 0 7

A range of candidate perform ance was noted for these three units with som e

candidates present ing very lim ited port folios whilst others provided substant ial

pieces of work.

Consequent ly the quality of work subm it ted was varied, often being largely

dependent upon the suitabilit y of the act ivit ies undertaken and assessm ent

inst rum ents being used.

As noted in previous series, where cent res develop robust assessm ent

inst rum ents that are inform ed by the requirem ents of the unit specificat ions,

candidates often provide evidence that allows them to access the full range of

m arks. Where inappropriate assessm ents are used, candidates often provide

substant ial port folios that are not sufficient ly focused and do not m eet the

requirem ents of the assessm ent gr ids.

Most candidate evidence was presented in such a way that it was a sim ple task

to find the evidence for each learning outcom e. Unfortunately a few cent res did

not include copies of assignm ent br iefs, including these briefs would indicate the

tasks/ act ivit ies expected of candidates and would aid in the m oderat ion process.

Although not always clearly ident ified som e cent res are including an indicat ion of

internal m oderat ion/ verificat ion act ivit ies, often using the Candidate Record

Sheet (CRS) to record this process. This is a pract ice that is encouraged as an

opportunity to internally quality check the validity of assessm ent decisions.

For the m ost part cent res provided the correct sam ples in a t im ely m anner.

Tracking of the learning outcom es was m ixed with som e very clear signpost ing,

usually on the CRS, m aking for a st raight forward m oderat ion process. I n a few

cases the cross- referencing and t racking of candidate evidence was less than

obvious, leading to a substant ial am ount of t im e being required to t rack and

verify that the evidence provided was being assessed correct ly.

The m ajor ity of assessors are doing a good job of indicat ing where credit is

being given and t racking candidate evidence, however on occasion there are st ill

som e issues with the annotat ion of candidate work. I t would be helpful for

assessors to annotate port folios, indicat ing where m arks have been awarded;

this should be linked to the appropriate m arking gr id. I ndicat ions such as LO1

(MB2) , LO3 (MB1) etc. are very helpful to m oderators. Using this annotat ion

along with subdividing units into separate learning outcom es, and using the page

references on the CRS, prom otes reliable and fair m oderat ion of work.

Cent res are rem inded that each unit specificat ion has a sect ion ent it led

‘guidance for allocat ing m arks’, which should be referred to when

designing/ com plet ing sum m at ive assessm ents. The “what you need to learn”

sect ion is also helpful in determ ining the content and evidence requirem ents of

assessm ents. These elem ents art iculate with the m arking gr id, which is the key

com ponent that assessors and m oderators should refer to when allocat ing m arks

for each learning outcom e and m ark band.

5

During this series it is evident that m any cent res are adapt ing the use of

m aterials, such as the Tutor Support Materials, for this qualificat ion. Som e good

exam ples of extension act ivit ies and m odificat ion of tasks has been undertaken.

This allows candidates to provide evidence that addresses all of the assessm ent

requirem ents, in each of the three m ark bands, for each learning outcom e.

I n som e port folios assessors are not ing the use of plagiar ism and, r ight ly, not

awarding m arks for this type of evidence. Most candidates do not sufficient ly

indicate references used and it is expected that candidates should acknowledge

reference m aterials and websites, where used.

Units EG3 0 4 , EG3 0 5 , EG3 0 6 and EG3 0 9

The num ber of cent res subm it t ing port folios for m oderat ion this series was

typical of any January series, with the total num ber of cent res ranging from

three to eight across these units. The work seen covered a broad range of

perform ance by both candidate and assessor, although m any cent res now

dem onst rate a fuller understanding of what is required throughout the delivery

of the unit contents and preparat ion, com plet ion and m arking of the cont rolled

assessm ent .

Many of the cent res which subm it ted work provided lit t le evidence of the work

being done as ‘applied delivery’ or ‘applied assessm ent ’. I t appeared for the

m ost part , that cent res had taken a theoret ical approach to the course, with lit t le

involvem ent of real indust ry. This is m ore obvious in certain units, and these are

m ent ioned in the respect ive sect ions of this report .

Presentat ion was generally good, with m any of the port folios now being com piled

as port folios, with page num bers and references to the locat ion of the work

being m ade on the Candidate Record Sheets (CRSs) at the front of each one,

accom panied by relevant annotat ion alongside the candidates’ work to indicate

where evidence of, say, ‘j ust if icat ion – MB3’ for that respect ive unit . This kind of

annotat ion is helpful for a rem ote m oderator, enabling them to readily locate the

evidence awarded m arks by the assessor.

6

Unit EG3 0 2 _ 0 1

Applicat ions of Com puter Aided Designing

Assessm ent of this unit usually consists of a port folio, containing a series of

individual assignm ents that target specific learning outcom es. As seen in

previous series the standard of assessm ent across cent res is m ixed. This ser ies

heralded an im provem ent in accuracy of assessm ent by cent re assessors. There

are a few occasions where assessors are awarding m arks often in m ark bands

far above the standard of work presented. Where this over assessm ent occurs it

is frequent ly due to flawed assessm ent inst rum ents being used that do not

m atch the requirem ents of the m arking gr id.

Learning Outcom e 1

Most candidates were able to ident ify the com ponent parts of a com puter system

(Mark Band 1) and descr ibe their funct ion/ role. A key elem ent to this first m ark

band is the relat ionship with data storage, which was not always clearly linked

by candidates. The requirem ents of Mark Band 2 cont inue to be som ewhat

challenging with candidates unable to describe typical applicat ions of data

storage, part icular ly with reference to com puter aided design. This requirem ent

often results in a descript ion of data storage devices and a com parison in term s

of storage capacity and data ret r ieval speed, which adequately addresses Mark

Band 3. Very often candidates m oderated were assessed as being in Mark Band

2 using the best - fit approach.

Using a CAD system as a case study, part icular ly with reference to storage and

t ransfer of data, could assist candidates in accessing m arks across the three

m ark bands and put the data storage elem ent in context .

Learning Outcom e 2

A descr ipt ion of CAD software, in m any cases the specific software being used by

the candidates to generate evidence for Learning Outcom e 3 and Learning

Outcom e 4, is often at tem pted. Whilst there is som e evidence of invest igat ion

with sim ulat ion techniques, realist ic visuals and CAD/ CAM packages being

described; the requirem ent to ident ify software packages that are used in

design, presentat ion, test ing and analysis often requires several packages to be

invest igated and this range is often not seen in candidate port folios (Mark Band

1) . Mark Band 2 requires candidates to prepare a case study of how software

can be used in the pre-product ion of a sim ple engineered product . Very few

candidates were able to provide evidence of this with m any discussing how CAD

system s are used m ore generally. Sim ilar ly the Mark Band 3 requirem ent to

ident ify how software can be used for m ore com plex products, which involve

m ore than one engineering process, was also poorly addressed.

Learning Outcom e 3

This elem ent is supported by evidence of 2D drawings, with a wide range of

abilit ies result ing in som e good and som e poor exam ples of layout and

presentat ion. All candidates used appropriate tem plates, often with t it le blocks

7

and project ion sym bols. The use of appropriate project ion system s and suitable

dim ensioning style was often m issing or not in adherence with BS convent ions

(Mark Band 1) . Assem bly drawings are often fully dim ensioned and candidates

should understand that balloon referencing and parts lists are norm ally required

with dim ensions indicated if they relate to the fit of com ponents.

I som etr ic drawings were well presented in the vast m ajor it y of exam ples (Mark

Band 2) . There is, however often insufficient evidence of circuit const ruct ion; as

there is an expectat ion that an elect r ical/ elect ronic diagram and a

hydraulic/ pneum at ic diagram will be present to achieve all the m arks in Mark

Band 3. This is clearly defined in the “what you need to cover” sect ion and

“guidance for allocat ing m arks” elem ent in the unit specificat ion.

Learning Outcom e 4

I n this ser ies it is not iceable that m any cent res have extended the tasks required

of candidates to allow access to all three m ark bands. The use of 3D software is

often dem onst rated, with relat ively st raight forward com ponents reproduced in

different or ientat ions and visual styles (Mark Band 1) . Having produced a very

st raight forward 3D m odel, candidates often at tem pt to extend this to produce

m ore com plex m odels (Mark Band 2) with som e 3D representat ion of an

indust r ial com ponent (Mark Band 3) being evidenced.

Learning Outcom e 5

I n the m ajority of sam ples m oderated candidates com pleted the test required in

Mark Band 1 and generally perform ed a suitable analysis (such as st ress

analysis) of a given product . The com parison with a specified standard is often

not clearly stated or very br ief (Mark Band 2) however som e evidence is usually

present . Evaluat ion and explanat ion of the approach taken in the case of non-

com pliance (Mark Band 3) is generally not sufficient ly discussed, however it

often goes som ewhat beyond the t r ial and error process seen in previous series.

8

9

Unit EG3 0 3 _ 0 1

Select ion and Applicat ion of Engineering Materia l

The standard of assessm ent across cent res was generally appropriate, although

there is st ill lim ited evidence of som e lenient assessm ent .


assignm ents that target specific learning outcom es.

Learning Outcom e 1

Most candidates are able to provide an overview of the st ructure of m etals and

polym ers and consequent ly address Mark Band 1, although som et im es forget t ing

to consider their effect on m echanical propert ies. Most candidates started to

consider the elect r ical propert ies, required to access m arks in Mark Band 2, and

the therm al propert ies required of Mark Band 3. I t is st ill surprising however to

see these elem ents som et im es not being considered. Cent res m ight consider

inst ruct ing candidates to produce a table in order to encourage them to consider

the propert ies required for Mark Band 1, Mark Band 2 and Mark Band 3.

Learning Outcom e 2 .1

The m ajor ity of candidates described a form of supply of a m etal, polym er and

com posite. This allowed m arks from Mark Band 1 to be awarded. The propert ies

and applicat ion elem ent , required for Mark Band 2, proved m ore challenging

although m ost candidates provided responses allowing som e m arks to be

awarded. Although candidates were able to provide som e level of just ificat ion,

required to access m arks in Mark Band 3, the just ificat ion of the form of supply

of m ater ial st ill proves to be challenging.


This learning outcom e requires candidates to use a given inform at ion source, in

order to select m aterial for a given purpose. Previously the evidence of this

source being used has been som ewhat lim ited however and consequent ly it has

been difficult to just ify any m arks being awarded from Mark Band 1. This issue

has been largely resolved with som e good exam ples/ screen-shots of given and

chosen sources (Mark Band 2) . Discussion of the ease of use and relevance of

the chosen source often allowed significant m arks from Mark Band 3 to be

awarded.


Candidates were usually able to describe work hardening, grain growth in m etals

and glass t ransit ion tem perature in polym ers. This allows considerable m arks to

be awarded from Mark Band 1. This should follow on to a descript ion of the

change in propert ies (Mark Band 2) and a reference to the m icro-st ructure of the

m aterials (Mark Band 3) . Som e candidates elaborated on the often useful

descript ions provided for Mark Band 1 and consequent ly were unable to achieve

m arks in the higher m ark bands.

10


Many candidates provided descript ions of heat t reatm ent techniques in a

reasonable am ount of detail (Mark Band 1) and started to address the associated

property changes (Mark Band 2) . The descript ion of property changes often

lacked depth however, and the m aterials to which the heat t reatm ent processes

apply were either not m ent ioned or sim ply referred to as “m etal” in m any cases.

The requirem ent to different iate, between st ructural changes that occur during

heat t reatm ent (Mark Band 3) , has proven challenging for all but the m ost able

candidates.


This learning outcom e requires a series of calculat ions to be perform ed to

achieve m arks across all three m ark bands. Perhaps surprisingly not all

candidates addressed all of the m ark bands. Those that did, were able to access

the full range of m arks by correct ly perform ing calculat ions for direct st ress,

factor of safety and shear st ress (Mark Band 1) , direct and shear st rain (Mark

Band 2) , and m odulus of elast icity and shear m odulus (Mark Band 3) . Full m arks

were often achieved with ar ithm et ical errors usually being the m ain discr im inator

for this learning outcom e.


Mark Band 1 requires m odes of failure to be described and m ost candidates were

able to provide br ief descript ions. The service condit ions under which this occurs

(Mark Band 2) and the character ist ic appearance of two failure m odes (Mark

Band 3) proved m ore challenging with the expected annotated diagram s not

being used as often as would be ant icipated for Mark Band 3. Cent res m ight

consider indust r ial visits or artefacts in order to contextualise this learning

outcom e.


Most candidates provided evidence of dest ruct ive and non-dest ruct ive test ing,

which is the key requirem ent of Mark Band 1. An issue that arose in m any

cent res is the use of shared data, which is obtained by candidates seem ingly

observing a test being carr ied out . I t is im portant to recognise that carrying out

pract ical act ivit ies is a key com ponent of this learning outcom e. The analysis of

the test data, by com paring test results with expected values for exam ple, was

often m issing from port folios (Mark Band 2) . The indust r ial set t ings, where such

tests m ight be used (Mark Band 3) , also proved beyond the m ajority of

candidates. Relat ively sim ple tests can be used or a visit to a local provider who

has the appropriate resources; such as an em ployer, College, or University could

be considered.

11

Unit EG3 0 4 _ 0 1

I nst rum entat ion and Control Engineering

Many cent res t reat this unit with a general theory approach, and the few who t ry

to link it with real indust ry or real applicat ions always perform bet ter. Som e t ry

to use a scenario, which m ay be relevant in part , but the candidates then tend

not to focus on the topic, result ing in a report about the scenario, which m ay not

include appropriate evidence for the assessm ent gr ids. Som e assessors, then,

tend to assess the port folios against their tasks or quest ions, when assessm ent

m ust be against the assessm ent gr ids only, supported by the ‘guidance for

allocat ing m arks’ sect ion.

There seem s to be a shortage of appropriate resources and subject experience

reflected in the port folios subm it ted from som e cent res, with m any candidates

apparent ly relying on internet searches to find item s which appear to look like

the m aterial required. For the benefit of all future candidates, please be aware

that an analogue signal does not necessarily have to be sinusoidal in nature, nor

does it need to be alternat ing. I t is a signal which is analogous to the quant ity

that it is represent ing. A digital signal is not analogous to the quant ity it is

represent ing, because it is digit ised in step values and the signal can only have a

value which approxim ates to the actual quant ity, depending on the num ber of

bits used by the system in quest ion.

The m ajority of assessm ent decisions were generally accurate. Som e cent res

appear to have lim ited resources and tend to rely on internet research work, not

indust r ial visits and involvem ent with real engineers, which m akes it difficult for

candidates to relate to the topic. A copy of the assessm ent tasks used is always

helpful for a rem ote m oderator to see what the candidates have been asked to

do, but not all cent res subm it these. Som e cent res produce port folios, at least

half of which contain paperwork associated with the tasks which have been set ,

the assessm ent cr iter ia, support and guidance details, etc, when only one copy

per pack is necessary.

Marks awarded ranged across the full spect rum , from just above single figures to

scores in the higher m ark bands. Very lit t le evidence of internal

m oderat ion/ dom ain assessor m onitor ing, etc, was seen in the sam ples

m oderated.

12

13

Unit EG3 0 5 _ 1 A

Maintaining Engineering Plant , Equipm ent and System s

Som e cent res appear to be developing som e good, realist ic, applied tasks for

this, but m any st ill use a range of theoret ical ‘what ifs’ which offer scenarios

which are rather lim ited in term s of developm ent . Fortunately, fewer cent res are

addressing sim ple car m aintenance tasks, but at least one did this, which lim its

the candidates’ potent ial to evidence the full breadth of the learning outcom es.

Som e port folios contained work which com bined Learning Outcom e 1.1 and

Learning Outcom e 1.2, etc, and a com bined m ark was recorded. When

assessing, cent res need to provide a score for each individual assessm ent

cr iter ion/ learning outcom e to allow a m oderator to understand where the m arks

have been awarded.

For Learning Outcom e 2.2, m any port folios contained a sim ple checklist for a

m aintenance act ivit y. This is only a very sm all part of a m aintenance plan, as

required for this learning outcom e. Som e cent res are start ing to develop a bet ter

understanding of what a m aintenance plan should contain – as indicated in this

unit of the specificat ion.

Learning Outcom e 4 requires work to be carr ied out on a closed loop engineering

system . Many provide act ivit ies which involve real m aintenance tasks to be

carr ied out on elect r ic m otors, lathe gearboxes, sensors, etc, and where good

links are established with local indust ry, any real indust r ial m aintenance

program m e would provide a m ore than adequate solut ion for invest igat ion.

Assessm ent tended to be a lit t le inaccurate across m ost of the unit , with cent res

awarding m arks for sim ply m ent ioning a part icular item , when a descript ion or

explanat ion and just ificat ion is required.

Som e port folios suggest that candidates are being given open ended tasks, and

som e seem to have been given the specificat ion and asked to find their own

m aterial/ topic to write about , and these result in a ‘all I could find out about .. . . ’,

at t ract ing few m arks.

14

15

Unit EG3 0 6 _ 1 A

I nvest igat ing Modern Manufacturing Techniques used in

Engineering

As with other units, m ost of the tasks set in the assessm ent did not relate to

engineering outside of the cent res and the not ion of ‘applied learning’ and

‘applied assessm ent ’ were not generally witnessed. Many port folios contained

details which appeared to be addressing tasks which were not ‘applied’ to real

indust ry, m ost being tasks which required internet / theory research.

With regards to the ‘data’ sect ion cent res are advised to ensure that they fully

understand what is required by this unit – according to the detail provided within

the specificat ion – and avoid the r isk of good candidates t rying their hardest to

m ake good use of weak or inappropriate and inadequate data.

Learning Outcom e 1 ( Marking Grid A)

There was very lit t le detail of the num ber of products, volum e of product ion, real

engineered product layout and processes, flow of m aterials and the processes –

as indicated in the contents of the specificat ion. Work was generally quite br ief

and lim ited to overviews of what the term s and types of engineering

m anufacture m ean, with no explanat ion or an invest igat ion of ‘engineered

products’, other than by internet searches.


For this outcom e, candidates have to explain real engineering processes used in

two indust r ies and the level of CAM used by each. Many candidates tended to

provide general statem ents about using robots or com puters, with no

explanat ion of any real processes which they had observed or experienced. Many

included several suggest ions about what “would” be done, im plying very lim ited

actual knowledge or details relat ing to the engineering indust ry itself.


The learning outcom e was addressed in a range of ways, and m any of the

required details were seen, but very few included everything required to

evidence the whole learning outcom e. Som e had no product ion plan, som e

detailed plans. Som e gave good int roduct ions/ overviews, followed by a

product ion plan or project network diagram , or even a review. Som e included a

project network analysis, but som e of the projects tended to be sm all scale and

even t r iv ial, not allowing candidates to dem onst rate their fuller understanding.

Som e planned for, and m ade, a single item – not a quant ity of them , as required

by the specificat ion.

16


Stat ist ical product ion charts should be produced, and this provides good links

with Learning Outcom e 3.

Som e candidates produced good descript ions of their graphs, but few went on to

do any real analysis which could have explained any variat ions that occurred or

how they could be addressed. None included any real evidence of m aking use of

relevant parts of I SO9001, although som e provided som e detail of it , for no

m arks. Assessm ent proved to contain a m ix of accuracies for Learning Outcom e

4, and cent res are rem inded that a general discussion of Quality Assurance (QA)

system s and processes is not sufficient .

Project network analysis appears to have been lit t le understood by m ost of the

cent res which subm it ted port folios for this series, and m ay be an area for

t raining/ research and developm ent .

17

Unit EG3 0 7 _ 1 A

I nnovat ive Design and Enterprise


assignm ents that target specific learning outcom es.


Candidates were often able to ident ify two innovat ive products and consider the

design/ operat ion of these. As previously seen som e candidates did not

sufficient ly focus on the m ethod of m anufactur ing and the m arket ing approach,

required for Mark Band 1. I t is worthy of note that not all candidates were able

to com pare the chosen products with t radit ional counterparts. By cont rast the

innovat ive features of the chosen products were often discussed in som e detail

(Mark Band 2) , but the factors that m ade these products a success (Mark Band

3) was, frequent ly, not clearly ident ified.


Although individuals have often been ident ified and their career histor ies

described (Mark Band 1) , candidates cont inue to consider ent repreneurs who do

not have a significant engineering background. Key factors that led to the

success of the chosen ent repreneurs often focused on the products they

developed rather than the individuals concerned (Mark Band 2) . I n general

candidates did not sufficient ly analyse the reasons for success in their chosen

ent repreneurs' careers (Mark Band 3) .


There is st ill som e confusion between engineering act ivit ies and engineering

com panies or projects. Consequent ly the expected engineering act ivit ies,

required for Mark Band 1, were often case studies of specific events or

organisat ions. This som ewhat rest r icted the scope and im pact of the social

act ivity and behaviour aspects. Environm ental analysis however, was often fair ly

detailed (Mark Band 1) . Given that environmental issues are often ident ified it is

perhaps surprising that a significant num ber of candidates were unable to

ident ify how these environm ental issues are being addressed, by the use of

innovat ive technology for exam ple (Mark Band 2) . The case studies required for

Mark Band 3 were often m issing, lim ited or confused with Mark Band 1 evidence.


During this series it was notable that m uch of the evidence presented by

candidates displayed elem ents of innovat ion, although this was often in only one

key product feature (Mark Band 1) . Often candidates provided design sketches,

CAD m odels or annotated diagram s and a significant am ount of creat ive and

innovat ive design was dem onst rated. These innovat ive features were not always

well described (Mark Band 2) however the research and thinking process was

often evidenced in som e detail (Mark Band 3) .

18


Many candidates answered the process of how products are brought to m arket in

varying degrees of com plexity, with som e im provem ent in the variety of factors

considered. The ‘guidance for allocat ing m arks’ indicates the expected range of

act ivit ies with few candidates able to provide the am ount of detail required to

achieve full m arks (Mark Band 1) . Examples of successful products were

generally well described with analysis, and com parisons (Mark Band 2) . Whilst

product features are often discussed, the m ajority of candidates need to

understand that the focus of this learning outcom e is on how the products were

brought to the m arket and the different approaches taken in m arket ing term s

(Mark Band 3) .

19

Unit EG3 0 9 _ 0 1

Principles and Applicat ions of Engineering Science

As with m ost other units, there were only a few cent res registered, and not all

those subm it ted work for m oderat ion. Cent res are rem inded to ensure that all

the learning outcom es are being covered across the full m ark bands. Principal

Moderator reports such as this, and cent re feedback (E9 m oderator report ) ,

highlight the issues presented when all the learning outcom es are not covered

across all the m ark bands – this can cost a few m arks, part icular ly for Learning

Outcom e 1, where no ‘beam react ions’ tasks were produced and for Learning

Outcom e 3, where the task offered for considerat ion did not ask for single

source/ load problem solving, thus m issing Mark Band 1. Cent res should always

ensure that any task they use is fit for purpose, whatever the source of the task.

Occasionally, a cent re will provide a copy of the m ark schem e used by the

assessor(s) . This allows a rem ote m oderator to evaluate the effect iveness of the

processes used and provide feedback to help lead to im provem ents, where

necessary. One com m on issue is that a cent re m ay set a series of relevant tasks

then assess each candidate against the m ark schem e only, when they should be

assessed solely against the assessm ent gr ids. Mark schem es are helpful, but

som e subject ivit y can be allowed, without , for instance, knocking off a m ark for

not using SI units.

At least one cent re used fract ional m arks, such as 7.5 when the work was not

quite deserving of 8 m arks. I f the work is not deserving of 8 m arks, then it

should be awarded 7 m arks.

Cent res tend to assess this unit in four sect ions – Learning Outcom es 1 and 2,

Learning Outcom e 3, Learning Outcom es 4 and 6, then Learning Outcom e 5, in

the form of phase tests following the teaching. For this unit , the study of, say,

Learning Outcom e 3 will add lit t le ext ra learning for Learning Outcom es 1 and 2,

so this is acceptable.

When learning outcom es are com bined together, the individual scores for each

single learning outcom e m ust be recorded separately on the Candidate Record

Sheet as this is useful to the m oderat ion process.

20

Grade Boundaries

Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, can be found on the website on

this link:

ht tp: / / www.edexcel.com / iwant to/ Pages/ grade-boundaries.aspx

21

Further copies of this publicat ion are available from

Edexcel Publicat ions, Adam sway, Mansfield, Not ts, NG18 4FN

Telephone 01623 467467

Fax 01623 450481

Email publicat [email protected]

Order Code DP030354 January 2012

For more informat ion on Edexcel qualificat ions, please v isit

www.edexcel.com / quals

Pearson Educat ion Lim ited. Registered com pany number 872828

with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE

Documents

Moderators’ Report/ Principal Moderator Feedback January 2012 · 5. EG305 – Maintaining Engineering Plant, Equipment and Systems 13 6. EG306 – Investigating Modern Manufacturing