[Design and Technology] Re PD&T SAT criteria

[Lisa Walsh]

Dear Leanne,

I would like to add another voice to Melissa’s recommendations. I too
believe that the weighting of the assessment criteria does not accurately
reflect the scope of work involved at each stage of the Product design
process as undertaken by each student. It would be much more logical if the
assessment criteria would better reflect the steps of Pdp and provide for a
higher weighting to the manufactured product. Clearly the VCAA does not
have a problem with making changes during the non review period. The SAT
assessment is flawed and should be reviewed before the next assessment
period.

Further to Melissa’s recommendations, I still find it bewildering that
students design capabilities are ultimately being re-assessed within the
frustrating, unrealistic time constraints of the examination. The
examination requires such a high volume of written responses on top of the
design task which requires extensive annotations. When students have been
encouraged to deliberate and refine during each stage of the Pdp throughout
Units 3&4, it seems inequitable to have the common design task potentially
compromise a student's SAT grades and the considered opinion of their
teacher’s assessments.

Thanks for you consideration,

*Lisa Walsh*
Design & Technology
Avila College




On 24 November 2014 21:16, Treverton, Melissa J <
treverton.melissa.j at edumail.vic.gov.au> wrote:

>  Hi Leanne,
>
>
>
> I would like to raise some issues I have found with the SAT criteria this
> year.
>
>
>
> Firstly I would like to say the 10 marks per criteria was much easier to
> use and allowed for clearer differentiation between students.
>
>
>
> However, the actual content the criteria cover do not align seamlessly
> with the Product Design Process.  This process is a core element of the
> course, I now introduce this process from Yr 10 and in a modified from in
> the junior years.  It is a clear process for the students to follow and
> helped them see the sequencing of tasks and how each directly impacts each
> other.
>
>
>
> I believe there should be 11 assessment criteria to reflect the 11
> stages.  As the criteria stand there is an uneven quantity and depth of
> work required for each criteria, yet they are all of equal value.
>
>
>
> If each of the eleven steps was given equal weighting then I believe this
> would create a fairer system.
>
>
>
> I also believe having one criteria dedicated to just the finished product;
> quality, function, innovation; would be a fair reflection on the amount of
> time required for production.  These are high school students who are
> learning as they go, so they require at least a full term of production
> time to complete their product, yet the actual product comprises of only
> part of one criteria (8) “*Skill in developing a quality product* *a**n**d
> communicating its features and care requirements to the client and/or end
> user(s).”*and slightly in criteria (6) “*Skill in the application of
> appropriate processes**, including risk management, and in gaining
> feedback, recording progress and justifying modifications” *  The written
> elements often disadvantage students who are highly skilled with tools,
> processes and project management but struggle with written language,
> therefore we are valuing one type of intelligence more highly than another.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> *Melissa Treverton *
>
> *Technology Domain Leader*
>
> *Textiles & Art Teacher*
>
> [image:
> http://www.parkdalesc.vic.edu.au/templates/parkdale/images/logo.png]
> <http://www.parkdalesc.vic.edu.au/index.php>
>
> Warren Road,
>
> Mordialloc East             3194
>
> Ph: 9580 6311
>
> Email:  *treverton.melissa.j at edumail.vic.gov.au
> <treverton.melissa.j at edumail.vic.gov.au>*
>
>
>
> *Important - *This email and any attachments may be confidential. If
> received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening
> or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any
> loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender
> or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files
> our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any
> representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender,
> and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early
> Childhood Development.
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> Design and Technology Mailing List kindly supported by
> http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/designtech/destechindex.html  -
> Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and
> DATTA Vic - Design and Technology Teachers' Association of Victoria
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/destech/attachments/20141124/51328977/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16297 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/destech/attachments/20141124/51328977/image001-0001.png