Btec Standards Verification Training: Engineering: Levels 1 To 3 (Module 2)

BTEC
Standards
Verification
Training
Engineering:
Levels 1 to 3
(Module 2)
October 2020
Module 2
Specific
qualification
training
Mark Shenton - Senior Standards Verifier
2
BTEC
Level 1/2
Tech
Award
(RQF)
3
Agenda
By the end of this training
session, you should:
• Know the structure of the
L1/2 Tech Award (RQF)
qualification and where you
can find key documentation
• Be aware of some specific
priorities and requirements
for this qualification
• Understand how to interpret
a Tech Award component
specification
• Have looked at a sample of
learner assessment evidence
to verify whether the
assessment decision can be
supported
The basics
• All required documentation is available at:

https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-tech-
awards/engineering.html
• 120 GLH - same size as a GCSE
• There are just two internal units (called ‘Components’) - both are mandatory
• Component 1: Exploring Engineering Sectors and Design Applications
• Component 2: Investigating an Engineering Project
• A full set of Authorised Assignment Briefs (AABs) and Sample Marked Learner
Work (SMLW) for both components, plus OSCA Materials for Component 2 are
available at: http://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-tech-
awards/engineering.coursematerials.html#filterQuery=Pearson-
UK:Category%2FInternal-assessments
• There is a Spotlight Report available at:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-tech-
awards/engineering.coursematerials.html#filterQuery=Pearson-
UK:Category%2FTeaching-and-learning-materials
5
Level 1 assessment criteria in the L1/2 Tech Award
Learners must provide suitable assessment evidence to achieve the

Level 1 criteria in Level 1/2 Tech Award; they cannot simply be
awarded Level 1 criteria if they have not achieved the related Level 2
criteria.
The generation of suitable assessment evidence to achieve the Level 1

criteria is especially important, as a Level 1 Merit grade is available; in
addition, the learner can achieve the said grade by providing evidence
that satisfies:
a) all of the Level 1 Merit criteria; or

b) all of the Level 1 Pass criteria and B.2P3/B.2P4.
6
Suitable use of contextual engineering information
• The internally assessed components for the Tech Award - Component

1 and Component 2 - require Assessors to provide their learners with
further information beyond that presented in the Authorised
Assignment Briefs (AABs).
• In general, the AABs do not contain, for example, engineering briefs,

drawings or product/s, as the BTEC Engineering team have no way of
knowing what resources/equipment/tools each centre has.
• Focusing on inappropriate engineering briefs, drawings or product/s

that are either too simple or unnecessarily complex often leads to
inaccurate assessment decisions, as learners have not been provided
with a suitable opportunity to achieve before they generate any
assessment evidence.
7
Component 1
The assessment requirements of Component 1 in the Tech Award

specification mean that learners need to (in summary):
• show their understanding of engineering sectors and organisations, and
how they interrelate, based around a given engineered product [for
Learning aim (LA) A]; and
• generate and review design ideas/proposals based on a given
client/engineering brief [for Learning aim B].
Given the statements in the EIAD (Essential information for assessment
decisions) for Component 1, it is clear that:
• the given product must be sufficiently complex to be produced by
engineers from at least two different sectors and by at least two different
engineering organisations of different sizes (for LA A); and
• learners must be provided with a client/engineering brief that, as an
absolute minimum, scopes a range of requirements that allows learners to
justify the materials, making processes and quality requirements they
have chosen for their final solution (for LA B).
8
Component 1
For Learning aim A, centres should be advised that learners could

focus on a whole engineered product or two of the major
components/assemblies of an engineered product. Examples of
suitable products include:
• e-bikes
• the articulated arm of a backhoe loader
• processing equipment.
9
Component 1
For Learning aim B, centres should be advised that the client/engineering

brief should contain a number of criteria with an engineering bias, for
example:
• ‘be able to be used outside in all weather conditions’ would allow
learners to justify their choice of materials;
• ‘be a prototype and only one is needed’ would allow learners to justify
their choice of making processes; and
• ‘allow the item to fit in the space available with a gap of no more than
2mm’ would allow learners to justify their choice of quality requirements
(such as tolerances).
Other engineering-based criteria should be evident and could relate to
function, size, safety, finish, performance, maintenance, ergonomics etc,
remembering that learners must ‘justify how [the chosen solution] relates
to all elements of the engineering brief’ (as per the EIAD), and therefore
the range of criteria should be suitably wide. The client/engineering briefs
could focus on products related to storage, lighting etc.
10
Component 1
Centres should also be advised that the EIAD for LA B states that
learners will:
• ‘model a physical 3D solution’ of their design and therefore this

should be present (via photographs etc) in learner assessment
evidence - simple materials such as cardboard, StyrofoamTM etc
can be used to produce the physical 3D model
• produce 3D CAD drawings of their design.
11
Component 2
The assessment requirements of Component 2 in the Tech Award

specification mean that learners need to (in summary):
• show their understanding of materials, proprietary components
and processes used for a given engineered product [for Learning
aim A];
• disassemble a given engineered product, show knowledge and
understanding of the purpose of the components and how they
link together and produce a product design specification (PDS)
for the product [for Learning aim B]; and
• plan for the manufacture of and safely reproduce/inspect a given
engineered component [for Learning aim C].
12
Component 2
Given the statements in the EIAD for Component 2, it is clear that:

• learners must be given a product that is made from range of
materials (including ferrous, non-ferrous and polymeric), includes
proprietary components and is assembled;
• the given product must be relatively straightforward (and safe) to
disassemble and that learners should be provided with an
assembly drawing so they are able too; and
• the component to be manufactured needs to have a suitable
amount of complexity and quality requirements that can be
measured/tested etc (note that the amount of processes is not
scoped in the Component 2 specification, but a ‘range’ is
generally considered to be three or more).
13
Component 2
• Centres should be advised that whilst it isn’t strictly necessary for each
learner to use the same product as a focus for all LA assessments for
Component 2, it seems to be very sensible to do so.
• Possible examples include bike lamps/mini-tripods as products - they

are assembled from items and proprietary components made from a
range of different materials (for Learning aim A), there are lots of parts
for simple disassembly (for Learning aim B) and also a range of
relatively straightforward engineered components (such as brackets)
for remanufacture in a school workshop with limited tools/equipment
(for Learning aim C).
• Please note that the use of either mechanical or electrical/electronic

components for LA C is acceptable.
14
Component interpretation
15
Component 2, Learning aim C - Assessment criteria
16
Component 2, Learning aim C - Essential information for
assessment decisions (EIAD)
17
Component 2, Learning aim C - Essential information for
assessment decisions (EIAD)
18
Sample - Component 2
The centre has used the AAB for Learning aim C.
The product to be manufactured:
The Assessor awarded C.1P4, C.1P5, C.1M4, C.1M5, C.2P4, C.2P5,

C.2M4 and C.2M5.
Can the assessment decision be supported or not? Why?
If no, what should the assessment decision be? Why?
19
Sample
The learner has produced a reasonably accurate and detailed plan

for the making of a spanner. The plan specifies the various
operations, materials, tools and equipment and inspection
requirements for the finished product. These are shown in a table
that has headings that broadly represent each of these categories.
The ‘How to make the spanner’ narrative, annotated photographs

and Observation Record provide evidence of the plan being
followed to produce the spanner to specification and there is little
evidence that the learner deviated from the plan (other than the
learner sawing the features of the spanner at times as well as
shearing).
20
Sample
The learner has successfully completed the manufacturing of the spanner,

as shown in the photographs and as described in the Observation Record.
The Observation Record does not state that the learner produced their
spanner independently but it seems reasonable to assume that they did,
given the level of detail in the ‘How to make the spanner’ narrative;
however, the Observation Record does confirm that the learner followed
correct safety procedures.
The learner has also recorded some inspection data and checked their
outcome against the quality standards, which has lead to some rework to
ensure compliance. The learner has stated what the issue was and what
they did to rectify the error.
21
Sample
As the learner has: a) produced a reasonably accurate and detailed plan

covering the content necessary; b) effectively produced the component
using a range of processes (drilling, sawing, filing and shearing); and c)
inspected the component to confirm compliance , both C.2M4 and C.2M5
have been achieved (and hence the Merit standard overall). The
assessment decision is therefore accurate and can be supported.
The learner has not evaluated the success of the planning or production
of the spanner. As stated previously, the ‘How to make the spanner’
section of the learner work is essentially a narrative of the process
undertaken. There are one or two evaluative comments within it (for
example, ‘If I didn’t use the scriber to mark out, my cuts would have been
inaccurate and my spanner wouldn’t be the correct size’) but the content
is primarily descriptive. Consequently, C.2D3 (and hence the Distinction
standard overall) has not been achieved.
22
You have now completed the
BTEC L1/2 Tech Award (RQF)
module.
23
Thank you!
24

Btec Standards Verification Training: Engineering: Levels 1 To 3 (Module 2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Btec Standards Verification Training: Engineering: Levels 1 To 3 (Module 2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BTEC

Mark Shenton - Senior Standards Verifier

• All required documentation is available at:

Learners must provide suitable assessment evidence to achieve the

The generation of suitable assessment evidence to achieve the Level 1

a) all of the Level 1 Merit criteria; or

• The internally assessed components for the Tech Award - Component

• In general, the AABs do not contain, for example, engineering briefs,

• Focusing on inappropriate engineering briefs, drawings or product/s

The assessment requirements of Component 1 in the Tech Award

For Learning aim A, centres should be advised that learners could

• the articulated arm of a backhoe loader

For Learning aim B, centres should be advised that the client/engineering

• ‘model a physical 3D solution’ of their design and therefore this

• produce 3D CAD drawings of their design.

The assessment requirements of Component 2 in the Tech Award

Given the statements in the EIAD for Component 2, it is clear that:

• Possible examples include bike lamps/mini-tripods as products - they

• Please note that the use of either mechanical or electrical/electronic

The centre has used the AAB for Learning aim C.

The product to be manufactured:

The Assessor awarded C.1P4, C.1P5, C.1M4, C.1M5, C.2P4, C.2P5,

Can the assessment decision be supported or not? Why?

If no, what should the assessment decision be? Why?

The learner has produced a reasonably accurate and detailed plan

The ‘How to make the spanner’ narrative, annotated photographs

The learner has successfully completed the manufacturing of the spanner,

As the learner has: a) produced a reasonably accurate and detailed plan

You might also like