GCSE Design and Technology: Food Technology 45452 Report on the Examination 4545 2013 Version: 2

Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright © 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

General comments There was evidence of some excellent work produced by centres in 2013. The quality of work reflected the hard work and commitment by centres and candidates. The majority of the work moderated was of a high quality demonstrating a good understanding of the GCSE Food Technology specification and controlled assessment. There are some centres that have not fully understood the requirements of Controlled Assessment and should make use of the wealth of supportive information available via e-AQA. AQA provides Teacher Online Standardisation (TOLS) which can be found via e-AQA. There are some excellent resources available and the opportunity for all teachers within centres to carry out standardising. Evidence showed that where centres had used these materials work was accurately assessed to the AQA standard. More centres could make use of these materials in 2013/14 as part of continuous professional development. The following report indicates good practice and areas for development in 2013/14.

Criterion 1: Investigating the Design Context Task analysis  A good understanding of tasks and contexts was seen through mind mapping and explanation of key words, with the more able candidates elaborating and discussing the issues.  The more able candidates produced a comprehensive analysis that, in most cases, directed them to relevant and detailed research.  The new contexts were enthusiastically received, particularly The Great British Bake Off and Café Culture. Recommendations  Candidates can lose sight of the context; it is important that this is referred to throughout the project. This was particularly evident for the Ready-Made products context, with candidates failing to consider the Eatwell plate.  Several centres did not use the 2012-13 tasks. Centres are reminded that task setting is high control. Information on tasks is available on e-AQA and information was sent to centres via controlled assessment advisers. Research  The main focus of research should be related to existing products. This was particularly well done for the new contexts: Festivals, Great British Bake Off and Café Culture.  There was more evidence of research being carried out at various stages throughout the project, particularly before development, but this could be developed further.  Excellent research analysis was seen, particularly when presented in a table, which enabled candidates to link their findings to the design criteria.

3 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Recommendations  Research was poorly structured in some cases and not relevant to the task set. Setting clear aims for each piece of research allows candidates to have focus.  Many candidates produced the product analysis as part of initial research based on an unrelated product.  Product analysis/appraisal may be more appropriately undertaken after the generation of ideas or during development as it can then be based on the product to be developed and inform development of the chosen product.  Mood boards are only purposeful if annotated.  Discrimination needs to be shown when selecting the research material to use. Several centres did too much research and this impinged upon the 45 hour time limit. Too much research was particularly evident for the Celebration context.  Analysis of the research is essential. This is a high level skill and needs to be taught to candidates. The research findings must be explicit in the folder and used when generating design criteria.  Research should not be forgotten during the project and the expectation is that to be awarded the higher marks candidates make links to the research throughout the design and making process. Design criteria  There was very good evidence of design criteria reflecting the research analysis.  Design criteria were much improved and made more use of when generating and evaluating design ideas.  When candidates referred to the design criteria throughout the project they were able to access the higher marks for Criterion 4: Testing and Evaluation. Recommendations 

Clear design criteria resulting from the research must be produced to allow candidates to generate a range of design ideas. It is good practice to justify the design criteria showing a direct link to the research findings.  When design criteria are not produced it affects candidates’ performance for criteria 2 and 4.  To be awarded the top mark band candidates must use the research findings and design criteria throughout the project.

Target market  The quality of work involved in identifying a target market and producing a customer/user profile had developed from the previous year. When a customer profile had been produced it helped candidates to focus their thinking. The best centres use this both to evaluate each aspect of the process and to justify their choices.  Most candidates identified a target group. Recommendations  To achieve the 7-8 mark band a customer/user profile is required. This should be used when testing and evaluating and then provide the basis for evaluation.  Many candidates produced a consumer/user profile but failed to refer to this throughout the project and at the final solution stage.

4 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Criterion 2: Development of Design Proposals Designing  Imaginative and creative design ideas were generated by many candidates. There were some excellent examples of annotated images.  Candidates generated a wide range of design proposals, incorporating many different making skills, particularly when designing for the Café Culture and Great British Bake Off contexts.  Candidates scored well when the annotation included reference to sensory descriptions, ingredients, finishing techniques, implication of a wide range issues and suggestions about how the product offered the opportunity for development.  Good use of select and reject charts supported many candidates in justifying their choice of product to be taken to the making stage. Recommendations  Several centres failed to produce a page/s of design ideas, before moving on to making in the test kitchen. This prevented candidates from showing their creativity. Candidates should not just be listing recipes.  A range of ideas should be generated to show candidates’ design capabilities. Evidence suggests between 8-10 ideas may enable candidates to do this.  Many candidates made all of the design ideas and did not show any discrimination when selecting ideas to make. Social, Moral, Environmental and Sustainability  This area has improved since the previous year. Candidates achieved well when they made implicit reference to the issues when annotating design ideas and evaluating the products made. Recommendations  These issues need to be included throughout the designing and development process and not as a bolt on at the end of the project. Evidence suggests this could be achieved by considering the ingredients used for each design idea and consideration of the use of ingredients when making the product in the test kitchen.  Many centres did not include this aspect of designing within the project yet awarded candidates 26-32 marks.  This is an area for development in many centres. Product specifications  There was significant improvement in the quality of product specifications.  To achieve the top mark band candidates must justify the product specification. It was pleasing to see many candidates doing this well.

5 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Recommendations  Although product specifications were given for the chosen product, specific details might have enhanced the level of development work attempted.  The product specification should be produced before the development stage not before the final developed product.  Some product specifications were a repetition of the design criteria which encouraged a superficial level of development.  The product specification should be used to evaluate the final product. Development  There was some excellent evidence of candidates thinking on paper and planning their development, e.g. producing a mind map of potential developments.  There was some outstanding development work which was inclusive of experimental and investigative tasks. This is to be commended.  When centres had a clear understanding of development some superb work was seen.  There was more evidence of candidates working with component parts.  Good development work was seen based on the working properties of ingredients.  There was evidence of economical development work where small groups had worked together, e.g. fats in pastry, and then independently written up their work.  When candidates thoroughly understood how to develop their ideas, some creative final products were produced.  It was encouraging to see development work throughout the ability range; there were some very good development activities produced by lower ability candidates.  It is expected that lower ability candidates will modify rather than develop and this is reflected in the mark bands. Recommendations  Criterion 2 was sometimes over rewarded, particularly development of a solution.  The right choice of product is essential for success. When candidates select a simple product is can be difficult to show high level development skills.  Some centres are over rewarding simple modification, i.e. changing one ingredient at a time and remaking the product. In these cases it was difficult to support centre marks.  The concepts of challenge, demand and rigor in development work continue to elude many.  More creativity, innovation and imagination needs to be evidenced by centres to award top marks  To be awarded high marks a range of development activities must be evident. Development could involve many different approaches such as using and testing ingredients, processes and methods, changing the nutritional profile, changing sensory characteristics, changes sizes and shapes, reheating/storage tests, etc. Development should not just be about changing the sensory properties of the product.  Several centres carried out whole class development work. This is not in the spirit of the specification and should not take place. Small group work is allowed as part of the development process but students must provide an individual response.  The recommendation is that candidates aiming for the top mark bands should be producing a series of complex developments. It is essential that centres and candidates understand what is meant by development.  Candidates, who had chosen to develop products with storage implications e.g. chilling/freezing, rarely carried out trialling of these methods to check their effects. This meant they did not address a key point of the specification and task.

6 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Working properties of ingredients  There was some excellent evidence of candidates using technical language and demonstrating their understanding of the working properties of ingredients.  When candidates had studied the properties of ingredients as part of the teaching of the specification they were able to recall their knowledge and include this when evaluating. Recommendations  The working properties must be considered throughout the process, not just for the final product.  The expectation is that more able candidates should be using technical language, not just explaining the sensory function, e.g. adds texture.  Several candidates made no reference to the working properties of ingredients. This could be done successfully when evaluating, designing and developing.  Candidates who attempted tasks with a nutritional context rarely carried out any ongoing nutritional analysis work using ICT programmes. Where these had been used they were print-outs of nutritional information for a trial product with no indication as to how this may be used in subsequent development.  When the specification is taught by non-specialist teachers there is evidence that some candidates did not always have the understanding of the working properties of ingredients.

7 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Criterion 3: Making  There was some excellent making throughout the ability range. Candidates had produced some interesting and creative ideas.  An increased volume of making with high levels of demand and quality outcomes was seen this year.  The majority of centres had accurately assessed Criterion 3: Making.  Making which accompanied the design ideas section was often excellent and showed a good range of technical skills and good quality outcomes.  It was pleasing to see lower ability candidates often scoring proportionately more marks in this section.  The making was often supported with excellent photographic evidence.  There was evidence of good quality finish and a high standard of presentation. Candidates really did take pride in their completed practical work.  Centres did very well to complete the practical work to such a high standard when challenged with 1 hour lessons.  The production plans were done well and understood by candidates. This was a strength in many centres. Excellent photographic evidence was used to show the planning of production. Recommendations  

   

   

All candidates should be making a range of products. To achieve high Making marks candidates need to show a comprehensive range of making skills. Evidence suggests this might be achievable by making between 6-8 different/quality design ideas/trials. Top mark band candidates should have made demanding high quality products. When assessing work it is important to consider the quality and complexity of the making, not just the number of practical products made. If fewer making/development activities are carried out this might restrict the opportunities to gain marks. When an adjustment of a centre’s marks for making was required it was as a result of a lack of making or simplistic making being awarded high marks, e.g. fruit crumble, all-in-one buns, flapjack. A heavy reliance on standard components can prevent candidates from showing their making skills. There are still centres writing methods rather than concentrating on the working properties of ingredients. Candidates need to produce one method/production plan for the final product only inclusive of health and safety and quality control procedures. The choice of product to develop has a big influence on the skill levels that can be shown during development. Centres should make their candidates aware of the limitations of choosing a product that has little to offer both in terms of potential for development and opportunities for showing high challenge and demand. A minority of centres misinterpreted the assessment criteria and awarded the making mark based on the final product only. It is essential that all making carried out throughout the controlled assessment is credited in this section It is essential that photographic evidence has the name of the candidate evident to indicate authenticity. The production plans produced by the higher ability candidates should include technical quality points. There is no requirement to produce packaging or a label for any of the tasks.

8 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Criterion 4: Testing and Evaluation  There was good evidence of a range of evaluation techniques being used throughout the product development process.  The most successful candidates used a variety of testing/evaluation techniques which incorporated points from the criteria/specification. Candidates explained their methodologies, referred to the product specification, fully discussed the results and used these to inform the next steps.  There was evidence of some very good final design solutions. This must include a photograph of the final product. It might also include a full list of ingredients for all component parts, a review of the development process including: full justification and evaluation, a comprehensive comparison against the product specification, an explanation of how the outcome may need to be modified for commercial production and final testing results taking account of client/user or third party opinion.  There was good evidence that more able candidates had considered how the product could be produced commercially. Recommendations  The design criteria must be used when evaluating ideas, some candidates lost sight of this.  Sensory profiles continue to be less well done containing vague characteristics when testing, e.g. taste, texture, appearance and therefore add little information regarding their products.  The target group must be referred to throughout the design and make process.  Many missed out review of development and final testing against the specification when producing the final solution. This is essential to achieve marks in the higher bands.  A thorough evaluation against the product specification should be included.  Candidates must refer to the product specification throughout development.  An explanation with justification of how the final outcome may need to be modified for commercial production is required to achieve the higher mark band. This must relate to the design task/context. Centres were awarding full marks for this criterion and candidates were not addressing modification for commercial production.  The modifications related to commercial product should not be generic information copied material from text books but should be specific to the product.  Some candidates included a manufacturing specification, this is not required.

9 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Criterion 5: Communication  Excellent use of ICT and digital photography was used by the majority of centres, enhancing the quality of work even further this year.  This year candidates of all abilities adopted a much more coherent design strategy, with more evidence of planning ahead – a clear improvement.  Candidates achieved well when they included aims and conclusions in the relevant and key areas to successfully tell the product development story/design process.  Photographic evidence was used purposefully, particularly when linked to production plans.  Candidates achieved marks when the design folders reflected the product development story.  The majority of folders were concise and focused.  Some good use of technical language relating to the working properties of ingredients was seen, however, this is an area that could be developed further.

Recommendations  To access higher marks candidates must record their decisions throughout the folder to provide a link and coherence that will tell the 'product development story' clearly.  In a minority of cases higher ability candidates used writing frames which prevented extended commentary, creativity and innovation.  There was evidence of some poorly designed writing frames which limited candidates’ achievement.  Please see the JCQ guidelines on using writing frames. This can be found on the JCQ website. It is the centre’s responsibility to be able to authenticate that the work submitted is solely that of the candidate concerned. The Controlled assessment leaflet on the AQA GCSE D&T Food Technology website has further information on authentication of candidate work and third party involvement. Administration/Assessment  The detailed commentaries on the Candidate Record Forms were appreciated by moderators. These were exemplary in many centres.

Recommendations  Teacher annotation needs to provide qualitative comments related to the making ability of candidates. It can be difficult for moderators to validate the centre marks without qualitative comments on candidates’ making skills.  A list of making/development must be included on the Candidate Record Form.  Samples of work need to be sent to the moderator in rank order from the highest to the lowest.  If a centre is submitting 20 or fewer candidates’ work, all the work must be sent to the moderator in the first instance.

10 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Recommendations and focus for 2013/14  A target group must be selected at the outset with higher ability candidates producing a consumer/user profile. The target group must then be referred to throughout the design process.  Product analysis should be carried out just before development.  The implications of a wide range of issues including: social, moral, environmental and sustainability must be addressed throughout the project. Candidates need to weave references to social, moral, environmental and sustainability issues into the main body of the project.  The research and design criteria must be used throughout the project.  Candidates need to use specific food technology terminology related to the working properties of ingredients to access higher marks.  A product specification must be produced before development with the more able candidates justifying the statements.  To be awarded the top mark band for development candidates must include a range of development activities not just developments related to sensory characteristics.  The concept of investigative development work must be taught as part of the specification.  Making activities should be evidenced in the design folder. Encourage candidates to make a range of products where possible. Evidence suggests that 6-8 products may enable candidates to access the higher marks.  For high making marks candidates must include a range of complex making skills/products. Simple, unskilled making cannot achieve the higher mark bands.  Give credit for good quality making – do not under reward candidates at the lower end of the mark range if there is good evidence in the folder.  A range of testing techniques should be applied throughout the design process along with justifications by candidates at the higher ability levels.  The final solution must include a section explaining how the product would need to be modified for commercial production. This should not be copied notes from text books.  Centres must refer to the guidance materials available online through the Teacher Online Standardisation (TOLS) which is accessible through the e-AQA secure website. This ensures the requirements of controlled assessment are understood and followed thoroughly and the centre’s work is marked against the AQA standard. Centres might also consider using the support materials as part of centre/departments CPD/INSET.  Please see the JCQ website for advice on using writing frames.  Centres should make greater use of their Controlled Assessment Adviser.

New support materials will be produced for 2013-14 related to the above recommendations and will be available on TOLS in the autumn term.

The current AQA tasks for submission in Summer 2013 and Summer 2014 can be found on e-AQA. They are being reviewed for the next submission dates and will be available from the Autumn term.

11 of 12

REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – GCSE FOOD TECHNOLOGY – 45452 – 2013

Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator www.aqa.org.uk/umsconversion

12 of 12