Technology - National Moderator's Report 2024

Insights

91620: Implement complex procedures to integrate parts using resistant materials to make a specified product

Performance overview:

This standard requires students to implement complex procedures to integrate two or more assembled parts using resistant materials to make a specified product. Students are to use trialling and feedback to inform the selection of techniques or procedures.

The standard was able to be met when evidence included measurable specifications agreed prior to the product being made. Trialling and feedback to inform the selection of the most suitable complex techniques to use to integrate two or more assembled parts is crucial evidence.

A schedule of ongoing tests, reviewed at key reference points during development to reduce the chance of error, is needed. These reference points must be used to check the integration is precise. The implementation of the complex procedures to ensure the product meets specifications must comply with relevant health and safety regulations when undertaking preparation, integration and testing. Evidence of the final outcome to show the function of the integrated parts is also required.

Evidence of the skillful and efficient implementation of complex procedures to integrate parts is required to attain Merit and Excellence. Successful students provided evidence of the manner in which techniques were implemented, whether the specified product met specifications, and the quality of the finished product.

Where assessors provided evidence from observations and attested the student’s grade at Merit or Excellence, assessment decisions were generally reliable.

Large volumes of evidence are not required for this standard. Students should be encouraged to integrate visual and audio/video evidence, rather than providing written work only.

Practices that need strengthening:

Where grades were changed in moderation, assessors need to ensure that the procedures used were comparable to those listed in the standard in terms of complexity of techniques required. The degree of accuracy and precision required is what makes the procedure complex.

A lengthy work log is not required for this standard, but the evidence must demonstrate scheduling of techniques and tests for precise preparation and integration. The schedule should show the student has planned the order in which the item is to be made, and identified when testing for precise preparation and integration is to occur. These schedules should be established before construction begins.

Evidence of class projects where students are all producing similar products are more likely not to reach the standard. Students using teacher-led briefs and specifications may be disadvantaged in their ability to make an informed selection from the trialling of techniques.

Evidence of the integration environment is often insufficient, and therefore the student cannot achieve the standard. Photographic or written evidence of the preparation of the parts for integration and of the selection and set up of tools, equipment and assembly aids in the workshop is required, along with sufficient evidence of students’ undertaking preparation, integration and testing to comply with relevant health and safety. Lists of workshop rules or a tick on an assessment schedule by the assessor does not attest compliance. Where photographs of the individual student applying correct practices are used, the work is more likely to achieve the standard.

Some assessors are still using Version 3 of the standard. Since 2020, the standard has clarified the requirement for trialling of techniques and scheduling. The clarifications have been updated to reflect these changes. Assessors must also ensure that evidence clearly indicates how each student has executed complex procedures independently and accurately (Merit) and in a manner that economised time, effort and materials (Excellence). A tick in a box on the assessment schedule is not sufficient attestation for higher grades.

91621: Implement complex procedures using textile materials to make a specified product

Performance overview:

This standard requires students to implement at least two complex procedures using textile materials to make a specified product. Students are to use trialling and feedback to inform the selection of techniques or procedures.

The standard was able to be met when evidence included measurable specifications, including material specifications, that were agreed prior to the product being made. Students must explore alternative ways for implementing at least two complex procedures and the result of these trials and feedback will inform the selection of appropriate techniques for the materials, product size and style.

A construction plan (either fully developed by the student, or commercial instructions amended to reveal an appropriate order of construction) is needed. The student will then apply the order of construction and implement the complex procedures in a manner that complies with relevant health and safety regulations. During construction, appropriate tests are required to demonstrate the final product meets specifications. Photographs of the fit and style of the final outcome are needed.

Where assessors provided evidence from observations and attested the student grade at Merit or Excellence, assessment decisions were generally reliable.

Large volumes of evidence are not required for this standard. Students should be encouraged to integrate visual and audio/video evidence, rather than providing written work only.

Practices that need strengthening:

Where grades were changed in moderation, assessors need to ensure that the procedures used are comparable to those listed in the standard in terms of complexity of techniques required. At Level 3, evidence should focus on techniques for joining textile materials with different properties, changing the characteristics of the textile materials, managing special fabrics, or the inclusion of complex structural or style features.

Students who did not trial more than one way to implement a technique were less likely to reach the standard. Comparing the results of a series of trials and gathering relevant feedback allowed for more robust evidence of informed decision-making.

A lengthy work log is not required for this standard, but the evidence must demonstrate a construction plan has been developed and followed. Where students have used a commercial plan, annotations are required to reveal how the student confirmed or altered the order of procedures.

Achievement also requires sufficient evidence of students’ applying techniques to comply with relevant health and safety. Lists of textile workshop rules or a tick on an assessment schedule by the assessor do not attest compliance. Where photographs of the individual student applying correct practices are used, the work is more likely to achieve the standard.

Assessors need to ensure that evidence clearly indicates how each student has executed complex procedures independently and accurately (Merit) and in a manner that economised time, effort and materials (Excellence). A tick in a box on the assessment schedule is not sufficient attestation for higher grades.

91643: Implement complex procedures to process a specified product

Performance overview:

This standard requires students to implement complex procedures that require a diverse range of processing operations to be performed in a particular order. This order is based on knowledge of techniques and operations, and feedback on the testing must inform the selection of those techniques or procedures.

The standard was able to be met when evidence included measurable specifications, including material specifications, that were agreed prior to the product being made. Students must show they have used the flow diagram to execute the processing operations and tests.

The flow chart must also show how the student has modified the processing operations after reflecting on the feedback. A flow diagram developed by the student should include feedback loops, interactions between processing operations and testing to ensure the quality of the final outcome is controlled and consistent. Evidence of testing beyond a single sample is required. Students should randomly select samples, test them for desired properties and then repeat the process, exactly replicating the measurements in an identical production run. This allows for students to gather evidence of how the quality of the end product is assured in further production runs.

Yield and financial costs, including the cost of energy and labour, must be calculated. For Merit, the student must predict these factors and compare them to actual per unit costs. All testing and implementation of the complex procedures must be undertaken in a manner that complies with relevant health and safety regulations. Photographs of the final outcome are needed.

Where assessors provided evidence from observations and attested the student grade at Merit or Excellence, assessment decisions were generally reliable.

Large volumes of evidence are not required for this standard. Students should be encouraged to integrate visual and audio/video evidence rather than written work only.

Practices that need strengthening:

Where grades were changed in moderation, assessors need to ensure that the processing procedures used are comparable to those listed in the standard in terms of complexity of techniques required. At Level 3, evidence should focus on techniques that require a diverse range of processing operations to be performed in a particular order based on knowledge of techniques, operations and testing feedback.

Evidence of replicant testing is required to reach the standard. This does not involve trialling different recipes, substituting ingredients or changing quantities. Replicant testing is trialling exactly the same procedures and measurements, more than once, to test a sample across two batches. This practice checks for consistency in quality assurance.

A lengthy work log is not required for this standard, but the evidence must demonstrate a flow chart has been developed and followed. A well-structured flow diagram should incorporate multi-tasking of operations and quality control. The students who annotated/modified their flow diagram in response to feedback and test results to show corrective action where needed were more likely to achieve the standard.

The standard also requires sufficient evidence of students’ applying techniques to comply with relevant health and safety. Lists of kitchen rules or a tick on an assessment schedule by the assessor do not attest compliance. Where photographs of the individual student applying correct practices are used, the work is more likely to achieve the standard.

Assessors need to ensure that evidence clearly indicates how each student has executed complex procedures independently and accurately (Merit) and in a manner that economised time, effort and materials (Excellence). A tick in a box on the assessment schedule is not sufficient attestation for higher grades.

Feedback

Give us feedback on this report (external link)