GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 - Shoe storage Full Portfolio - Low A level standard commentary sheet

Oct 20, 2026

GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 portfolio commentary assesses a shoe storage design produced in 15 slides. The work is judged low A level, with reasonable manufacture scoring well in grids 9 and 10, but overall progression is limited: client input, research depth, and the specification are described as not sufficiently technical or measurable. Development shows some modelling/CAD and sub-assembly ideas, while final manufacturing detail (cutting lists and joinery) is inadequate. Review and communication are present but elementary, with evidence for each grid highlighted across slides 2 to 8.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

General Description

Grid 1 Investigation

Grid 2 Analysis/Research

Grid 3 Specification

Grid 4 Design ideas

Grid 5 Development

Grid 6 Final Design

Grid 7 Review

Grid 8 Communication

Grid 9 Tools and equipment

GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 | Topic: Shoe storage Full Portfolio | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | General Description
The candidate produced 15 slides, the work is at a low A level standard, with some reasonable quality manufacture which scores well in grid 9 and 10, this aids the candidate. It exemplifies a low-level pass. The folder is a little disjointed and so the evidence for each of the grids has been highlighted in the individual grid table cells. | | Centre Mark | Mod Mark | | Grid 1
Investigation
Evidence | To work in a client centred iterative way, candidates must first identify the problems or needs of a client or user group to develop a product that may fulfil their needs.
The candidate moved towards a design proposal quickly and did not explore different possibilities. Indeed, the candidate looked at one design scenario. On slide 2 the candidate’s opening statement indicate that the scenario will be shoe storage. The client input was rather limited making only passing reference to men and women and their shoe requirements and so the establishment of needs, want and values was limited.
This is a level 1 submission.
Evidence on.
Slides 2 and 3. | Level 2 | Level 1 | | Grid 2
Analysis/Research
Evidence | In this section, candidates should be identifying clear opportunities for research. In the best cases, this should be led by the client; and the client/relevant stakeholders should be offering opinions and suggestions at key points.
This research work is very textbook especially in terms of materials, slide 4 the annotation is often rather rambling, but here is some existing product analysis. The only other work that has any real relevancy is the seating height with regard to changing shoes the candidate does mention materials and so a cumulative assessment would be that the work is barely better than superficial. Evidence for this is found in slides 3,4,5 .
This is a low level 2. | Level 3 | Level 2 | | Grid 3
Specification
Evidence | In this section we are expecting to see evidence of technical and measurable specification points that are a product of the focussed research undertaken
The candidate’s specification lacks clarity it is not technical or measurable.
There is a simplistic specification with very limited measurable elements it is rather a description what shoe storage should look like; however, the centre assessment is a little harsh. This is an example of a basic specification achieving level 1. Evidence here is slide 4. | No award | Level 1 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Grid 4
Design ideas
Evidence | In order to achieve marks from the highest level, it is expected that a range of design strategies are used to produce a range of design ideas that address the specification criteria from the previous section.
Some of the written word describes the use of inspiration materials as a design strategy. There are some reasonable design idea sheets, illustrating a range of varied ideas we can therefore agree the centre assessment.
The evidence here is wholly on slide 6. | Level 2 | Level 2 | | Grid 5
Development
Evidence | On-going developmental changes are informed by technical application of research,
experimenting, and client/end user feedback in order to improve, refine and realise a design.
There is some development in terms of modelling and some CAD work which is helpful we also do see on the final works page some subassembly design work. The pattern design work suddenly appears with little in terms of development the only link that is found is in reference to the patterns of traditional Chinese wood carving the candidate has used for inspiration. Here we have used evidence from the right-hand side of slide 7.
Evidence on.
Slide 7 provides some evidence of sub assembly design. Slide 8 illustrates limited modelling | Level 2 | Level 2 | | Grid 6
Final Design
Evidence | In this section candidates are expecte

FAQs

How is the portfolio’s overall standard described?

The candidate produced 15 slides, assessed as a low A level standard and exemplifying a low-level pass.

What limitations are noted in the investigation and client input?

The scenario is explored quickly with only one design scenario, while client input is limited, so needs, wants, and values are not established in depth.

What prevents the work from reaching higher marks in the final manufacturing stage?

Manufacturing evidence lacks detail for a third-party maker, including insufficient joint detail and only basic dimensions and an attempted cutting list.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Guten tag