Turn on thread page Beta

Design tech (unit 6) - research paper watch


    what actual page???

    in the 3 hour exam we are given a 5/6 page A3 booklet to fill in....

    Ok, regarding requests for people to share ideas: it would be kinda nice if people would post their own ideas as well as just asking for other peoples! (fair play to hwoo and people who are playing a team game!)

    I've been trying to do mine for ages, but the files too big to upload soooooo havin a hard time compressing it!sorrrrrrrrrry

    I managed to do it!!!!! wooo! Anyways i apologise for my bad drawings, but maybe u can see the view i've taken in my designs. I got 14/15 soooo musta done something right in my mock. xxx
    Attached Images

    3 designs in one page..whoa!!!

    it will be great if i can see the text

    (Original post by hwoo)
    it will be great if i can see the text
    what, are you blind?

    thanks for those pics Lauren do we have to colour our drawings in the exam?

    I wouldn't imagine we have to colour in, maybe take a highlighter or two in to makes things stand out but colouring in and shading seems a bit much for 30 minutes.
    Good designs, mine are limited so far. One is essentially a pushchair with a large basket space behind it. One is a trolley that is slightly thinner so not to obstruct the paths. And I had an idea to make a type of kiddy car out of injection molded plastic, but less embaressing to push about.
    Would band brakes be good to lock a back wheel, without it slipping off? I'll draw a pic soonish.

    (Original post by Zweig)
    what, are you blind?
    lol, maybe i'm blind or somethings wrong with my computer XD
    anywway , i just finished all my drawings , including development n the detail drawing :>:>:>:>:> ^^ !!! now i'm lefted with write up to do XD

    (Original post by hwoo)
    lol, maybe i'm blind or somethings wrong with my computer XD
    anywway , i just finished all my drawings , including development n the detail drawing :>:>:>:>:> ^^ !!! now i'm lefted with write up to do XD


    could you by any chance scan in your drawings? :adore:

    Aghh they're really good drawings. If someone did those kinda things in the exam, we wouldn't have a chance.
    I'm going to have real trouble with the detailed spec, like how to join the wheels and so forth. How in-depth do we have to go when explaining?

    Hello to you all, im nu to this whole thing so help may be required
    been going through this thread, there are some amazing clever ideas. Has any1 thought about the spec being for an attachment for an existing pram/trolley etc. some sort of platform or seat for a child, for example an existing product like this is a bike trailer, http://www.cyclesportandfitness.com/...rAlloy2006.jpg
    This would encompass all of the research we r told to get in the prelim sheet.
    Anthro data - kid standing sitting positions heights etc
    Wheels and bearings - it has wheels and these need bearings
    Braking systems - parking break to stop it going anywhere
    Prop of lightwieght materials- plastic injection moulding etc
    Just an idea anyway
    Also to "Stuart" u need to explain certain assemblies in ur design, but only in ur final design/ whilst ur developing it, not in ur intial designs
    Exploded diagrams are good for this, and with a side note on how u would assemble it. Depending on the wheels i suggest looking at bicycle wheels and how they are assembled

    If any1 wants to see the examiners roperts from last year heres the link, can help u with certain parts


    thanks peopel for the help..!
    anyone actually doen all 6 pages?
    ive managed to do dsoem research and thats about it

    (Original post by scottie12321)
    If any1 wants to see the examiners roperts from last year heres the link, can help u with certain parts
    thanks for the link

    Here is the info. incase you don't have PDF:
    GCE Design and Technology: Resistant Materials Technology
    Principal Examiner’s Report
    Unit 6 - Paper 6302/01
    The paper followed the same format that has been used in previous years’ 6302
    examination. It was evident that many candidates were well prepared with focused high
    quality work, showing a greater variety of outcomes ranging from 'French style' easel's to
    photographic style tripods. The majority of candidates are now putting forward workable
    products that could be manufactured on an industrial scale. It is evident that some centres
    had attended feedback meetings and taken on board comments from last year's reports as
    candidates were more aware of the mark scheme as it applies to this paper.
    The major disappointment was in section (a) where too many candidates simply reiterated
    specification points rather than explain their research under the analysis heading. The
    quality of visual communications with many of the sketches and drawings produced is often
    very weak as was the general quality of the handwriting and spelling. These were not easy
    products to show as a three-dimensional view but even simple side views lacked detail or
    Those students who had been guided after receiving the Design Research paper by visiting
    art shops and talking to artists were at a distinct advantage. It should never be necessary
    to use extra pages or write on the reverse of a page. Part of the discipline of this type of
    exam is to distil the information available and only include that which is entirely necessary
    to gain the marks available.
    It is also important to realise that a mark scheme for any exam in the series is not in itself
    worthy of marks. Rather it is an "aide-memoir" for the examiners marking the papers to
    remind them that they can award marks for justified answers that contain certain points.
    Unfortunately there appears to be an increased number of candidates using red pens.
    These are NOT allowed. Candidates should be encouraged to use another colour ink or an
    even better solution, highlight different aspects with the use of colouring crayons.
    There is also an increasing number of candidates not writing their name and candidate
    number on each page of their Design Paper, this could lead to lost pages. Centres are also
    encouraged to use treasury tags to secure the A3 sheets of paper together at the end of
    the exam. These are much stronger than staples and less likely to come apart.
    There is evidence that centres are encouraging candidates to take note of the suggested
    timings for each different aspect of the paper. This year saw very few candidates who
    failed to finish the final section due to lack of time
    Question (a)(i)
    In this section examiners were looking for a full analysis of the problem based on research
    carried out as a result of the Design Research paper. The most effective way of responding
    to this part of the question is by using a spider diagram with extension "legs" to explain
    their depth of knowledge. It should NOT be a specification using the headings given at the
    top of the page. The specification forms the second part of the page many candidates
    repeated themselves and so failed to gain the full range of marks available. More worrying
    were the small number of candidates who correctly identified anthropometric data when
    considering the use of the easel both sitting and standing. Similarly only a small
    percentage compared the densities or weights of materials such as plywood compared to a
    hardwood such as beech, or the strength of steel and aluminium tube in compression or
    Aspects that are highlighted in the Design Research paper are markers of the likely
    direction the design paper will take.
    There were less instances of candidates who just copied out previously prepared
    statements often identical to other students in the centre. Those who did not produce
    spider diagrams but who wrote in sentences, did in fact explain issues in more detail, but
    gained fewer marks. This was in part due to the fact that they repeated themselves and
    did not deal with the research issues put forward in the Design Research paper.
    Question (a)(ii)
    There are still too many candidates not using the headings from the top of this page.
    Even more common are the candidates who repeat points two or three times under
    different headings. If the point is valid, such as the size of the drawing board, it can only
    be credited once.
    The most concerning aspect is the lack of justification to points put forward. Single words
    such as "fold" will not gain marks. It is the sort of word that may appear in the mark
    scheme or even as a starting point put forward by a teacher for each individual in the
    group to expand and explain in their own way.
    Most candidates did score highly on this page with the majority of candidates gaining more
    than half marks.
    Question (b)
    This is by far the best answered section of the paper. The majority of candidates produced
    recognisable line drawings, mainly with the use of a sharp pencil or fine-liner but sadly
    lacking in colour.
    Annotation has improved with clear labelling of materials and processes that could be
    employed to realise their designs. Justification of their choice of material, industrial
    process, linkage or movement has also shown dramatic improvement. The majority of
    candidates gained more than two thirds of the marks available.
    A minority of candidates did not show three different ideas but rather a variation on a
    theme, such as a suitcase. This meant that they were not able to access all three marks
    awarded for ideas.
    Question (c)(i)
    Many candidates failed to show any development of their chosen design from (b). In fact
    some of the sketches were so poor and so small it was often difficult to understand their
    drawings due to lack of annotation.
    The use of colour could aid candidates in explaining their ideas to the examiner.
    Brief, concise, legible, technical notes are required to access full marks in this section.
    The majority of candidates did manage to show how a particular part of their design would
    work. It is not necessary or even desirable to re-draw the complete idea from section (b).
    Far better to show a part in detail and use colour to explain and justify the changes.
    Question (c)(ii)
    The majority of candidates scored well on this section. They were able to explain in detail
    how their particular design would perform and the materials and processes used to
    manufacture and assemble.
    Lack of justification was the main reason for not awarding marks with unsubstantiated
    statements such as "weld the tubes" without technical reasons for deciding a particular
    manufacturing method Justification was needed
    Question (d)
    A wealth of different ideas on display, drawn and sketched in a variety of different styles.
    The majority of sketches were well thought out, isometric projection used to show three
    dimensional views but with formal orthographic drawings also in evidence. Each and every
    different style had access to all the marks with the majority of candidates gaining half of
    the drawing marks available.
    Access to other marks varied considerably. The majority of candidates are still using nonstandard
    dimensioning. The use of feet and inches, metres and centimetres is not
    acceptable and did not gain marks. Often candidates mixed-up these measurements and
    included both metric and imperial measurements on the same drawing!
    Each drawing should state "all dimensions in millimetres". It is then not necessary to
    include "mm" each time a measurement is shown. These measurements can also gain marks
    within a table or cutting list. Again it is not acceptable to include "mm" after each
    measurement nor to give only two sizes for a particular part unless one is a diameter. The
    acid test for a cutting list is, could you order the component parts from the information
    available? Many candidates showed a lack of awareness of the width restrictions for solid
    timber. Many also chose timber sections that were too thin for their purpose.
    The marks for the process used to manufacture or fabricate the item again lacked depth.
    With four marks available the majority of candidates gained two for "extrusion" and
    "injection moulding" for correctly named materials such as aluminium and ABS.
    The assembly marks were gained by those candidates who either showed an exploded view
    of different parts of their device, or who explained a movement with the help of
    annotation. This still remains a section that could be improved by the vast majority of
    Question (e)
    As in last years paper this section highlights the differences between the more able and
    less able candidates. The product was again intended to be one that would be batch
    produced on an industrial scale and hence marks were awarded accordingly. The majority
    of candidates did look for the commercial pathway for production rather than a prototype
    constructed in the school workshop.
    Where candidates did fail to score highly was when they repeated the same process for
    different parts, or they repeated the same type of quality control again and again. There
    were less marks gained from the sequence of operations from such responses as "attach",
    ”glue” , “fix” or "join" rather than "rivet" or "bolt" followed by particular named parts.
    Those candidates who did not use a flow diagram generally scored lower marks by
    including long lists of health and safety aspects which belong in Unit 1.
    Question (f)
    A rather disappointing section both in the evaluation and improvement sections.
    In the evaluation section those candidates who completed a chart with a series of ticks to
    show that their design had met their criteria did not score any marks. Other candidates
    repeated their original specification without adding precisely how they had achieved the
    desired outcome. Justification was needed
    In the improvement section broad sweeping statements such as "make it lighter" also failed
    to gain marks. The best responses were from candidates who made quite simple
    modifications but explained their thoughts with a simple sketch. They had obviously given
    thought and preparation to the exam beforehand and were able to make suggestions and
    explain and justify their responses.

    I fort it would be a good idea for me to share information with all you guys sitting the units 6 paper.

    Basically senior teachers along side students have just been scanning and skimming through facts and possible design problems which we may face on the day. I have listed a few possible initial products which we might have to design bellow:

    > Child buggy
    > shopping trolley
    > A possible detachable storage unit which is ergonomically designed to be fixed on2 a pram or trolley in some way. (thinking of child safety)

    Personally I don’t think it will be a trolley (but it may well be) my only reason for this is, if you think about it realistically who in 2days day and age would want to put there child in a trolley there are important factors to consider such as personal hygiene for the child and the user.

    We also spoke about self aligning wheels. Most trolleys and prams now use self aligning wheels. So it may be a good idea to research these types of wheels also taking manufacturing of these types of wheels as well as technical data such as bearings.

    As for breaking systems many of us may have seen the braking systems they use at Heathrow Airport on thire trolleys. The way it work is extremely smart. The user pusher a bar down which allows them to more the trolley freely, but the moment the user releases the bar, brakes are automatically applied. Advantages of this system could be that when parents are shopping they can easily forget to apply the breaks, whereas this system is always locked and only moves when the bar is pressed. Again this type of trolley uses a self aligning wheeling system.

    We also looked at the fact that if it was a buggy and some how had to incorporate storage for shopping the use off balance would be important. For example if shopping was loaded at the back end of the trolley and the weight was balanced with the babies weight on the front it would stay balanced, but what if the child got out of the pram with the shopping still loaded at the back, the buggy will become unbalanced and may well fall over. So it might be a good idea thinking carefully about how the unit overall can be balanced (maybe an extra wheel which folds down for extra support?

    AS for anthropometric data of a child, a mate of mine actually designed a product for a child for his A2 design project so I will get the anthropometric data information from him and upload it ASAP.

    Ohh ye lol last thing my teacher mentioned as long as you have done your research you will have no problems in the exams. He also said if you actually do a practice paper of a trolley or buggy you could use is for the actual exam and whatever design situation we are given we can easily adapt the information already researched.

    If you guys have any information which I may be able to use please do upload it or email me I would much appreciate this. If you guys need any more info please do email me, I will try and do my best to help you guys out.

    Hope this helps you guys out.

    Good luck to all.

    Forgt 2 add this years exam paper for unit 6 design paper 2006, for those who aint seen it yet.

    The direct download link shown bellow

    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf unit 6_Design_Research[1].pdf (96.7 KB, 154 views)

    (Original post by roadkillhat)
    right got it up now - enjoy

    could you please tell us the source of these images (childrens anthropometrics) for proving research in the exam?

    Ps. Thank you, they're perfect.

    (Original post by Chhabs)
    Forgt 2 add this years exam paper for unit 6 design paper 2006, for those who aint seen it yet.

    The direct download link shown bellow


    thanks for the advice,

    haha i think people have seen the question paper already, i hope :p: , but cheers anyway
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.