GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01 - Skate Sharp - Full Portfolio evidence - Mod Mark

Oct 20, 2026

GCE Design & Technology unit 9DT01 portfolio review for the project topic “Skate Sharp,” focused on an ice hockey and skating storage product with a skate sharpening workstation using bought-in and upcycled components. The moderation comments assess specifications, client-led investigation, analysis and research, design ideas, development, final design completeness for third-party manufacture, and review communication. Multiple grids award Level 1, with limited measurable specifications and research depth, and only partial linkage to client needs.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time8 min

AccessFree to download

GCE Design & Technology Unit 9DT01

Topic: Skate Sharp

Grid 3 - Specification Evidence

Grid 1 - Investigation Evidence

Grid 2 - Analysis/Research Evidence

Grid 4 - Design Ideas Evidence

Grid 5 - Development Evidence

Grid 6 - Final Design Evidence

Grid 7 - Review Evidence

Grid 8 - Communication Evidence Across Portfolio

Grid 9 - Tools and Equipment Evidence

GCE Design & Technology Unit: 9DT01 Topic: Skate Sharp Full Portfolio evidence General Description The candidate undertakes a project based around ice hockey and skating. The portfolio is 30 pages/slides in length, the candidate designs and develops a storage product for the storing of skating equipment. The product incorporates a skate sharpening workstation that has predominantly bought in/upcycled components. Mod Mark | 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 has submitted a simplistic specification (Slides 11-12) with little evidence for consideration of linkage to the research or indeed the needs of client. It is difficult to see any measurable elements in the specification but there is a slight balance to consider in terms of the justifications on Slides 9 and 10 and the specification points. Broadly the specification points are too generic, and we see little in terms of a re-worked design brief. The summary of the interview (Slide 10) does help somewhat in terms of the specification points and a partial design brief. The award in this case is therefore a high level 1. | Level 1 | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | 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 early selection of potential projects shows some level of wider thinking and a consideration of a range of project possibilities, Slide 4 including client identification. Design possibilities are outlined and some further discussion/justification takes place. (Slide5) The Alessi work is largely spurious,( Slide 2 and parts of 3), the section titled Designing for Has some merit. This does evidence some justification of proposals and a linkage to the client (Slide 5), this does culminate in a client description and some indication of the Needs, Wants and Values. This therefore elevates the work slightly and justifies a Level 2 award. | Level 2 | | Grid 2
Analysis/Research
Evidence | This section should be characterised by client led research that maintains the candidates focus on relevancy. The work should endeavor not to be descriptive or generic. The candidate does submit some limited evidence of wider research into needs of client and potential storage of other components such as the hand sharpener (Slide7) . However, the research is limited and indeed superficial, but the work of merit is to do with existing products, limited by quite descriptive annotation. However, there is some limited work on materials on Slide 18 which is included in this criterion. The work is superficial and fulfils the descriptors for level 1. | Level 1 | | Grid 4
Design ideas
Evidence | In this section we should see the candidates evidencing a range of ideas with sub assembly detail and informative ‘return to client’ discussions, maintaining the client designer relationship. There are a simple range of ideas that certainly fulfil the needs of the client in terms of functionality, but the ideas lack real sub assembly design and detail. They are holistic and have virtually no detail, but the overall concepts can be seen. There is little evidence of design strategies that trigger iterations and very limited client engagement. We do see some referral to technical detail such as adhesives and joints (Slide 14) In this case the ideas are basic but realistic, this is a Level 1 award. | Level 1 | | --- | --- | --- | | 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 are some developments in terms of the joint detail and the overall look of the product b

FAQs

What is the “Skate Sharp” project about in this portfolio?

The candidate develops a storage product for skating equipment, incorporating a skate sharpening workstation. The portfolio is 30 pages/slides and emphasizes storage and sharpening using predominantly bought-in/upcycled components.

Why are several assessment areas awarded Level 1?

Moderation notes limited evidence of measurable specification, superficial or constrained research, and basic design/development with limited client/user influence. Final design also omits working drawings, making third-party manufacture difficult.

What evidence is highlighted as missing or weak for final manufacture?

The cutting list and costs are credited, but working drawings are omitted. This omission reduces the feasibility of third-party manufacture because detailed workings drawings and a full manufacturing specification are not sufficiently provided.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Guten tag