[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-623759-105":59,"doc-detail-623759-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-memorabilia-showcase","GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 - Memorabilia Showcase","","GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 assessment commentary for a Memorabilia Showcase design folder, reviewing multiple grids of evidence across investigation, research, specification, design ideas, and development. The commentary highlights that research and justification are often generic, with limited investigative depth, weak links between evidence and design context, and constrained technical measurability in specification tests. Design ideas show some historical references and five iterations, yet detail and measurable rationale are insufficient. Development uses models and client engagement to compare and select a solution.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-memorabilia-showcase/623759/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/gce-design-technology-unit-9dt01-memorabilia-showcase/623759.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Fans","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the overall assessment impression of the Memorabilia Showcase work?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The commentary indicates the work is of sound quality but lacks investigative depth and strong connections between research evidence and the design situation, leading to a mid-level outcome.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How is research evidence evaluated in the folder?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"A variety of research is evidenced, but the commentary notes unclear use of some evidence, generic material selections, and limited connection between certain material research slides and the proposal.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What shortcomings are identified in the specification and testing?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The specification includes valid points, but technical measurable tests are limited; some testing support is vague (e.g., relative terms without clear reference), and refined brief details connect only partially to research findings.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},623759,1792546931,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":29,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},5909892330395,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01  \nDownload Full Portfolio  \n\n| Topic: Memorabilia Showcase |  |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| General Description: The folder is 73 pages long and accesses all sections of the assessment criteria. Fifteen of the pages are photographic evidence of the manufacturing process. The candidate has designed a storage /display unit for historic military items. |  | Mod Mark |\n| Grid 1:\u003Cbr>Investigation\u003Cbr>Evidence | In this section the design possibilities must be triggered by the client. In this case a range of design possibilities were introduced, these were ‘narrowed down’ without justification, the client, the grandfather, was then introduced to comment on them. Slides 4 and 5. This gives the impression that the client was chosen to fit the outcome.\u003Cbr>More information on the client is introduced in slide 7, with three confirmed design possibilities. These are similar in their intent, with limited justification for the choice over the other possible areas of research, music, or gardening.\u003Cbr>The overall impression is that the work is of sound quality but is lacking in investigative depth, as essentially the candidate identified possibilities and attached clients. The award is a mid-level 2. | Level 2 |\n| Grid 2:\u003Cbr>Investigation / Research\u003Cbr>Evidence | In this section the candidate should use a range of research techniques and sources to find material that can be used to support and justify the development of the chosen design and its specification. This will demonstrate an understanding of related design problems and the needs of the client. The research plan. slide 8, gives relevance and reasoning to the types of research that will be undertaken, the last 3 points on this slide are more suited to a project plan.\u003Cbr>A variety of research is evidenced in the folder. Anthropometric data is seen in slide 13, however it isnot clear how the candidate will use this evidence, or how it relates to the product other than a small statement referencing height and weight.\u003Cbr>Material slides on slides 14 and 15 are generic, offering little to suggest which material should be used and why. There are other materials slides 17 and 18 that offer some pros and cons, but they have limited connection to the proposal. Further evidence can be seen in slide 39, 40 and 41, and is of a similar standard.\u003Cbr>Slide 20 gives a flavour of the display but it is difficult to see what was gleaned from this simple mood board. | Level 2 |\n\n\n|  | Prime research of the environment in which the product will be placed and a selection of the components to be stored are seen on slides 12 and 16. Dimensions are offered for the components, but not for the parameters of the available space. The candidate should look at limits of the footprint of the product and then have a meaningful dialogue with the client, this narrative can then inform the specification.\u003Cbr>Overall, several aspects of research are considered, but lack a strong connection to the design situation.\u003Cbr>The candidate has partially investigated the proposal, but the work is often too generic. This is a midlevel 2. |  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Grid 3:\u003Cbr>Specification\u003Cbr>Evidence | To gain high assessment marks the specification section should contain a refined brief, and the specification points should include technical measurable tests, to confirm the success of the product.\u003Cbr>A brief is seen at the top of slide 21, the inclusion of the dual purpose and mention of speakers, are not referenced in the research or the following specification. The best fit statement in the assessment criterion for this is level1 .\u003Cbr>A lot of the specification points are valid, slide 21, though the specific tests to measure how these have been achieved are limited. One reference to support the assessment of specific testing is seen in specification point D3 where weighing is mentioned, which is commendable. However, the point itself is vague with the use of the term ‘relatively’ without stating wha","cbCainBLqH2UP9SZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainBLqH2UP9SZ","pdf",151762,"English","# Memorabilia Showcase\n## General Description\n## Investigation Evidence\n## Investigation / Research Evidence\n## Specification Evidence\n## Design Ideas Evidence\n## Development Evidence","[{\"question\":\"What is the overall assessment impression of the Memorabilia Showcase work?\",\"answer\":\"The commentary indicates the work is of sound quality but lacks investigative depth and strong connections between research evidence and the design situation, leading to a mid-level outcome.\"},{\"question\":\"How is research evidence evaluated in the folder?\",\"answer\":\"A variety of research is evidenced, but the commentary notes unclear use of some evidence, generic material selections, and limited connection between certain material research slides and the proposal.\"},{\"question\":\"What shortcomings are identified in the specification and testing?\",\"answer\":\"The specification includes valid points, but technical measurable tests are limited; some testing support is vague (e.g., relative terms without clear reference), and refined brief details connect only partially to research findings.\"}]","GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 - Memorabilia Showcase | PDF",1792470748,15]