[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-623686-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-623686-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-child-storage-full-portfolio","GCE Design & Technology Unit - 9DT01 - Child storage - Full Portfolio","","Evaluation commentary on a GCE Design & Technology portfolio for “Child storage”. Assesses a 66-page candidate submission, judging strengths in design brief creation, concept exploration, and early research planning, while noting limited depth in some client needs and missing links between interview responses, research comments, and later design evidence. Covers analysis, material selection, life cycle and anthropometric data usage, space planning, product disassembly insights, specification measurability gaps, and the need for clearer tests and iterativeness in design ideas.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-child-storage-full-portfolio/623686/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-child-storage-full-portfolio/623686.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Bulrr","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",6,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"How many pages are included in the candidate’s portfolio?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The commentary states the candidate produced a well-presented portfolio of 66 pages.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What is identified as a limitation in slides 4–5?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Slides 4–5 show four potential clients with single needs/problems, but the depth of exploration is limited and suited to a level 2 assessment.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What key issue is raised about the specification and testing?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The specification needs specific measurability tests with named parameters for pass/fail, since stronger, research-linked measurable points would improve assessment in that section.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},623686,1792758257,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,100,104,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":96,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},5909892115043,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01  \n\n| Topic: Child storage  Full Portfolio  |  |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| General Description\u003Cbr>The candidate produced a portfolio of 66 pages, well-presented and considered pages. The candidate explored the possibility of a child’s storage and desk unit. |  | Centre Mark | Mod Mark |\n| Grid 1\u003Cbr>Investigation\u003Cbr>Evidence | In this section we are looking for the candidate to generate a design brief after liaising with a client and exploring possible design solutions to a range of problems.\u003Cbr>Slides 4-5, clearly shows 4 potential clients. Each client has a single need/problem that the candidate considers. The depth of exploration into each of these design possibilities is a limited, however a possible design solution is offered and some of the client’s needs are explored. These slides lack a depth and are suited to a level 2 assessment.\u003Cbr>Slide 6, and 7, takes one of these potential ideas and explores the client and potential product in more depth. Key elements are not examined, such as frequency of use, types of play, accessibility etc. The interview on slide 7, is an exploration of both the client, and the end user, the child. This is a positive way of handling the needs and the function of the product. The responses to the questions from both themum and child are informative, however, a higher assessment grade would have been achieved if the candidate responded to their comments, suggesting how the comment might affect the design, or examine the differences between user and client and suggest a balance/compromise.\u003Cbr>The level of questions could have been designed to be more informative, and a note suggesting how the interviewees response could affect the design outcome would have added more value. Likewise, a comparison of the user and clients |  | Level 2 |\n| Grid 2\u003Cbr>Analysis/Research\u003Cbr>Evidence | At this stage candidates should be planning a range of research strategies, the outcomes of which can be analysed to forward the design proposal. This could be looking at markets and further identifying their client’s needs.\u003Cbr>The task analysis on slide 9, is a good trigger for planning the research, The comments in the bubbles are relevant, however additional value would be given to these if a summative statement was linked to them. For example, after the comment in the method of manufacturing box, how might this impact the size, type of material or processes that are available for the candidate to use. |  | Level 3 |\n\n\n|  | Slides 11 and 12, show a fairly comprehensive list of possible materials. Most of the materials have a comment linking them to the needs of the design project and a client review is also given. For example, ‘plywood is impact resistant, kids can play rough a durable surface is required,’\u003Cbr>The life cycle analysis on slide 13, is relevant to the product with some good key points that can be used to inform the specification.\u003Cbr>Slide 14 shows that the anthropometric data has been collected both as a prime source and from research data. The data gathered is relevant and would support the design and development sections of the folder. However, little evidence is found in these sections to show that the data has been used.\u003Cbr>Slide 15 looks at the space that is available for the product to be sited. The information has a direct impact on the design outcome. The client responds to this information and justifies the best position to place the product. A comment in the form section on slide 13 states that it must‘fit the aesthetic of the room’ This would have been an opportunity for décor and aesthetics to be looked at in the candidate’s research to trigger design inspiration. This additional depth and connectivity would have moved the marking to a higher assessment point.\u003Cbr>Slide 16 and 17 are product disassembles of existing products. Some key issues are discussed, adjustability, storage, wipe clean etc. These are good iterative trigger points that are not evide","cbCaip9XVXqOZmO5","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaip9XVXqOZmO5","pdf",240825,"English","# General Description\n# Grid 1 Investigation and Evidence\n# Grid 2 Analysis/Research Evidence\n# Grid 3 Specification Evidence\n# Grid 4 Design Ideas Evidence","[{\"question\":\"How many pages are included in the candidate’s portfolio?\",\"answer\":\"The commentary states the candidate produced a well-presented portfolio of 66 pages.\"},{\"question\":\"What is identified as a limitation in slides 4–5?\",\"answer\":\"Slides 4–5 show four potential clients with single needs/problems, but the depth of exploration is limited and suited to a level 2 assessment.\"},{\"question\":\"What key issue is raised about the specification and testing?\",\"answer\":\"The specification needs specific measurability tests with named parameters for pass/fail, since stronger, research-linked measurable points would improve assessment in that section.\"}]","GCE Design & Technology Unit - 9DT01 - Child storage - Full Portfolio | PDF",1792469532,13]