A-LEVEL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY: FOOD TECHNOLOGY

Transcription

1 A-LEVEL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY: FOOD TECHNOLOGY FOOD4 Report on the Examination 2540 June 2016 Version: 1.0

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2016 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

3 Principal Moderator s Report on the Coursework for GCE Food Technology (FOOD4) The Principal Moderator would like to congratulate centres and candidates for producing good quality work in The standard of work has risen again this year and evidence was seen of work throughout the ability range. Design folders were generally well presented and most met the assessment criteria of the GCE D&T Food Technology specification. A lot of candidates had included material which did not meet the assessment criteria and therefore was unrewarded. It is not necessary to write out the method of making for initial ideas, include lists of equipment, the functions of the ingredients, any social, cultural and moral considerations or a review of development; the requirement is to show how well the product meets the design specification. A larger proportion of the work seen this year was more accurate in its assessment, especially where the Teacher Assessment Record Sheets had been used to assist with marking. The Teacher Assessment Record Sheet can be found on the AQA website and on the Teacher Online Standardisation (TOLS) system via e-aqa. Very few centres had not fully understood the requirements of Coursework and should make use of the wealth of supportive information available via e-aqa. The Teacher Online Standardisation materials (TOLS) are updated on an annual basis and provide centres with the opportunity to mark controlled assessment project against the AQA standard. Centres are reminded that an AQA Coursework Adviser is allocated to each centre and is available for help and guidance throughout the year. The following report highlights the positive elements of Coursework seen in and areas for further development. 3 of 7

4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1 There was evidence of some very interesting starting points this year which enabled the candidates to successfully set their objectives; however, many centres still do not fully understand the requirements of AC1. Candidates are required to base their work on producing a new product for a gap in the market and set objectives to achieve this. Most of the contexts seen were suitable, however, where the context was vague, it led to work that lacked focus. There was evidence that some centres began their work with a design brief and so failed to gain marks. In many folders the objectives set were often just a description of the design process. The objectives need to state the research necessary to aid the development of the new product. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 2 Evidence was seen of some excellent work. Folders were concise with well analysed research and detailed design specifications. However some candidates failed to complete essential aspects of the assessment criteria. The Plan of Action is an important element and needs to demonstrate how the candidate plans to achieve the objects set in assessment criteria 1. Plans were often weak and didn t include the stated objectives; a Gantt chart does not contain the detail required to achieve the top mark band. Some centres continue to waste time presenting research; all that is required is a perceptive analysis of the research undertaken. Evidence was seen of poor research analysis which then gives rise to a weak specification. It was encouraging to see measurable criteria in many of the design specifications, however, to achieve high marks, the criteria need to be appropriate to the product and target market. Evidence was seen of specifications that contained far too many measurable criteria, often with inappropriate level of nutrients and kcals. Unfortunately there are still some centres which do not include measurable criteria in the specifications. Some centres included evidence of product analysis as part of research; however, this activity is better carried out once the product for development has been established to help inspire development activities. 4 of 7

5 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 3 There was evidence of some excellently annotated initial ideas. It is acceptable to annotate downloaded images rather than drawing sketches when generating ideas. To achieve the top mark bands, the ideas need to be imaginative and show sufficient high level practical skills. The annotation should also state how the ideas link to the design specification. Initial ideas should reflect the specification, however, this was not always the case, eg evidence was seen of egg based products being produced for vegans. High level development work was seen in some folders, however, some candidates focus too much on the changing of ingredients and carry out simple modifications to the product rather than development. Development work often does not look at proportion of ingredients and their function, methods of production and construction, nor does it allow the product to meet the specification. Development of a product is not complete until the specification is achieved, as in industry. Development should not be preplanned and should be sequential. Plan for Manufacture is another area for development. The plan should be for the manufacture of the final product, not for making in the test kitchen. Plans showed some good sequenced work however they often omitted timing and did not provided adequate Quality Controls to award high marks. The plans need to include specific timing, temperature, quantities etc to allow a third party to manufacture the product successfully. One Plan for Manufacture is all that is required. Centres should consider the layout of work to show the plan along side HACCP and Quality Control to avoid repetition. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 4 A variable range of practical work was seen, most of a good standard. Evidence was seen of a wide range of ideas being tested which demonstrated some high culinary skills. Many centres misunderstand HACCP. It is not about tying hair back and washing hands nor should it be generic. HACCP should be detailed and related to the final product stating how it will manufactered safely in industy. There was little evidence of applied industrial practice; again, this must be related to the product. Generic work is not rewarded. Quality Control points need to be specific and should include timing, temperatures, sizes and measurements, all the points required for accurate making by a third party. 5 of 7

6 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 5 A variety of testing methods should be used to evaluate the work, however, limited types of testing was seen in some work. Often one type was used to test initial ideas then another in development. All results from testing need to be analysed this was often not the case, especially where star diagrams were used. The majority of candidates completed an evaluation of their final product, however, to achieve the top mark band, they must include a critical analysis of BOTH the final product and the design process. Many folders omitted the critical analysis of the design process and were unable to achieve high marks. Testing against the specification is an area to be developed. The majority of candidates stated their final product matched the design specification, however, few actually proved or provided evidence of this. Candidates with a very detailed nutritional specification who didn t test food value but managed to achieve the specification concerned moderators as to how they could be that successful. Candidates often failed to consider Industrial Practice when evaluating. Extension of product is an area for development; too many candidates did not address this aspect of the assessment criteria. Candidates should consider how the final product can be improved and extended to maintain its viability in the market. It is good practice to include a recipe for the final product. Again, this prevented candidates achieving high marks. Criterion 5 was marked too leniently in most centres. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6 Many centres showed a good use of ICT and this enhanced the presentation of the work. There was an increase in the amount of work submitted on CD and pen drives which aided moderation. Unfortunately, some centres continue to send work in bulky, heavy folders, which prove difficult to handle. Writing frames, scaffolds and common layouts may aid the less able but too often restrict the more able who especially at A2 level should have freedom as to what they present and how they present it. All too often centres' layouts missed out important aspects of work and penalised candidates. Care should be taken to ensure work is legible; font size should not be below 10. Work was seen on both A3 and A4 format. If work is submitted on A4 it is not necessary to stick the sheets onto A3 paper. Candidates should use landscape to aid the production of a design sheet. Once the orientation of the page is decided that should be used throughout the folder. 6 of 7

7 Recommendations and focus for 2016/17 It is good practice to share the assessment criteria with candidates. Writing frames, scaffolds and common layouts may aid the less able but too often restrict the more able who especially at A2 level should have freedom as to what they present and how they present it. All too often centres' layouts missed out important aspects of work and penalised candidates. Candidates should be encouraged to include more technical language. The plan of action should be detailed and state how the objectives will be achieved. Research should not be included in the folders, just a detailed analysis of the findings. Design specifications should contain measurable criteria and be well explained. Candidates need to consider portion size. The final outcome should be served in the format it would be sold with the correct portion size for the target consumer. Industrial practices need to be applied to the product, rather than being generic notes. An extension of the final product needs to be considered. A critical analysis of the design process and the final product needs to be included. Use of the Teacher Assessment Form from the AQA website aids moderation and cuts down on the amount of annotation needed. Centres should routinely use TOLS and make more use of their Coursework Adviser. Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 7 of 7