L3 Lead Examiner Report 1806

June 2018

Level 3 Nationals in
Engineering

Unit 6: Microcontroller
Systems for Engineers

(31725H)
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from Pearson, the world’s leading learning
company. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational,
occupational and specific programmes for employers. For further information visit
our qualifications websites at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk for our BTEC
qualifications.

Alternatively, you can get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page
at www.edexcel.com/contactus.

If you have any subject specific questions about this specification that require the
help of a subject specialist, you can speak directly to the subject team at Pearson.

Their contact details can be found on this link: www.edexcel.com/teachingservices.

You can also use our online Ask the Expert service at www.edexcel.com/ask. You
will need an Edexcel username and password to access this service.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Our aim is to help everyone progress in their lives through education. We believe
in every kind of learning, for all kinds of people, wherever they are in the world.
We’ve been involved in education for over 150 years, and by working across 70
countries, in 100 languages, we have built an international reputation for our
commitment to high standards and raising achievement through innovation in
education. Find out more about how we can help you and your learners at:
www.pearson.com/uk

June 2018
Publications Code 31725H_1806_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2018
Grade Boundaries

What is a grade boundary?

A grade boundary is where we set the level of achievement required to obtain a

certain grade for the externally assessed unit. We set grade boundaries for each
grade, Distinction, Merit and Pass.

Setting grade boundaries

When we set grade boundaries, we look at the performance of every learner who
took the external assessment. When we can see the full picture of performance,
our experts are then able to decide where best to place the grade boundaries –
this means that they decide what the lowest possible mark should be for a
particular grade.

When our experts set the grade boundaries, they make sure that learners receive
grades which reflect their ability. Awarding grade boundaries is conducted to
ensure learners achieve the grade they deserve to achieve, irrespective of
variation in the external assessment.

Variations in external assessments

Each external assessment we set asks different questions and may assess
different parts of the unit content outlined in the specification. It would be unfair
to learners if we set the same grade boundaries for each test, because then it
would not take into account that a test might be slightly easier or more difficult
than any other.

Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, are on the website via this link:

http://www.edexcel.com/iwantto/Pages/grade-boundaries.aspx

Unit 6: Microcontroller Systems for Engineers

Level 3
Grade Unclassified
D M P N

Boundary Mark 0 56 40 25 12
Introduction
Unit 6 (Microcontroller systems for engineers) is a mandatory unit that requires
learners to complete a set task to control a system using a microcontroller. There
are six activities to complete for the whole task. This was the first live task for this
unit and learners were required to produce a monitoring system for a supermarket
refrigerated storage area.

The external assessment task is structured to address the assessment outcomes

for the unit. The assessment outcomes are:

AO1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of computer coding principles,

electronic hardware
components and the development process

AO2 Apply knowledge and understanding of computer coding principles, electronic

hardware
components and of the development process to design and create a physical
computer system to
meet a client brief

AO3 Analyse test results and evaluate evidence to optimise the performance of a
physical computer
system throughout the development process

AO4 Be able to develop a physical computer system to meet a client brief with
appropriate
Justification

There is a marking grid for each of the six activities that make up the whole task.
Examiners allocate marks to the assessment evidence provided by the learners,
for each of the six activities, using a holistic ‘best-fit’ approach. They compare the
evidence for each activity to the corresponding marking grid and the
bands/descriptor bullet points within.

Please note that all of the examples of learner assessment evidence provided in
this report are extracts. As a result, they can only be considered to be
representative of evidence that would be awarded a mark from a certain band. In
reality, all of the assessment evidence for a given activity (which is generally quite
extensive) must be considered when awarding a mark for that activity.

Learners are required to submit the Part S task booklet for marking. This was in
the form of an electronic document saved as a PDF. In addition, learners submitted
an audio/visual recording showing the system in operation. A time limit of three
minutes is set for the audio/visual evidence.

Learners should ensure that the assessment evidence is placed in the correct
activity section of the booklet, as evidence will only be considered for each task
within the relevant section.
Introduction to the Overall Performance
of the Unit
Pleasingly, the majority of learners appeared to find the task accessible. The
examiners were able to award a full range of marks for each of the activities
and across the task as a whole. Most learners followed the instructions and
saved the electronic workbook and audio/visual file as required. In some
instances, several files were saved for learners and more than one
audio/visual file, to make up the three-minute limit, rather than one complete
file for each.

The written content provided by learners varied with some clear and well
organised responses, showing structure to the responses with subtitles for
some activities. For example, Activity 3, where some learners clearly
referenced the input and output devices, linked to descriptions of the
function. Some learners then provided sub headings to justify the use of each.
This is good practice and should be encouraged.

The program development varied in quality across the learners. However,

most provided a program that worked and annotated this to explain how it
worked.

It was pleasing to see the audio-visual recordings of the systems in operation.

Some learners built simple jigs to show how the system interacted within the
context. There are no available marks for this, so learners should be aware
of this and not spend too much time in building these. Similarly, some centres
provided a rig for the learners. This could have a negative impact on the
learner as the option to choose input and output devices may not be available
if the rig is purpose built with sensors, switches, LEDs etc.

In the most part, suitable responses were seen for Activities 2 to 6: however,
many learners provided an unsuitable response for Activity 1. Learners’
responses to all of the activities that make up the whole task are considered
in the next parts of this report.
Activity 1- Task Planning and system design changes

This activity is designed to test the learner’s ability to plan in advance of each
session and to review/justify the changes made during Activities 2 to 6, in order
to fulfil the requirements of the Part S Client brief. The assessment focus is to
‘Carry out an iterative development process’.

The record sheet should be completed during each session, describing what was
done, highlighting any difficulties/problems and how these were overcome.
Particular emphasis is placed on justifying the solution to any problems here. At
the end of each session, the learner should identify the tasks for the next session
and plan the order/priority of these. Some learners copied entire activities in to
the log book. This is not required as the record is an individual activity. Learners
can, however, copy extracts from other activities, for example program
development to show error codes and how they overcame these.

Many learners (including those of a higher ability) seemed to interpret this activity
as simply requiring a generic time plan and diary/reflective log, which mainly
resulted in marks from Band 1. For example:
To gain higher marks, learners should (please refer to the Activity 1 marking grid):

• Provide a more detailed outline time plan that refers to the problem (a
monitoring system for a refrigerated storage area in this case).

• Describe in detail what they did each session. This needs to be more
detailed than ‘I completed activity 2 and then started activity 3.

• Show clear planning with prioritised tasks for the next activity

Extract 1

Extract 1 shows a learner record for Activity 3. The learner has gone beyond a
simple record of what was done here. There is evidence of thinking ahead;
planning the input and output devices and prioritising the use of these. The learner
has described the labelled diagram for the hardware system and the flowchart to
get an outline plan. The record indicates that the learner is in control here and
fully understands what needs to be completed within activity 3. It is good to see
that the learner is aware that only an outline plan is required at this stage as the
program is developed in the next activity.

Extract 2
Extract 2 is a better example of the issues and solutions for the session. There is
evidence of what issues were met, such as the LCD problem and how this was
overcome with justifications supporting the solutions/fix at this stage. The learner
has shown that through trail and improvement of the development stages of the
program, that the process is iterative here.

Extract 3

The action points for the next session are well planned in Extract 3 (above). The
learner has identified the main tasks required for Activity 4. The program
development will be checked against the client brief to confirm it is meeting the
needs of this. The learner is also considering actions for unexpected events;
however, this may be related to the program not working here as there is a
recognition that solutions will need to be found for any errors in the program.

The type of response shown in these three extracts would be representative of

Band 3 evidence.

Most learners produced evidence in the intended way, completing the logs as they
progressed and maintaining the records in Activity 1. However, some copied the
log into each activity. This made marking difficult as an overall view of the activity
could not easily be seen. For future series, learners should be reminded to keep
the logs together within Activity 1.
Activity 2 – Analysis of the Brief

In this activity, learners need to interpret the client brief into operational
requirements and prepare a technical specification for a user friendly system that
can handle some unexpected events. Learners also need to consider how the
system will be checked so need to prepare a test plan to check the functionality
of the final solution against the technical specification and include some
unexpected events.

In both stages of this, unexpected events are important. Learners that do not
consider these will restrict the marks that they can achieve to at best Band 2.

Some learners simply repeated the client brief as the technical specification and
the test plan was generic, with simple tests that would confirm that an output
device, for example an LED worked, but not that it worked within the operational
requirements of the system.

Extract from an initial test plan

To achieve high marks in this activity, the client brief should be interpreted well
and a detailed specification produced. The test plan should cover a range that will
be used during the development to confirm the system is performing as intended.
Both the specification and the test plan should cover unexpected events in order
to achieve Band 3 marks
Extract 1

Extract 1 shows a sound understanding of the problem. The learner has

interpreted the brief well to show the operational requirements for the system.
The brief is met in full and there is evidence of enhanced user experience, for
example, the use of an LCD to display the time that the doors are open. The
learner has also considered the need for the system to reset once the door is
closed.

Extract 2
The test plan in Extract 2 shows a range of tests on the system. The learner has
identified tests that are in the context, referring to the doors being open. This is
expected to be shown on the two indicators. There is evidence of the learner
considering unexpected events, although at this stage it is not really clear what
the learner is considering as an unexpected event so this could have been clearer.
Some good examples included the need to override the system if maintenance is
scheduled for the doors. This would require additional programming at the
appropriate stage and some form of indicator to show that maintenance is being
done, hence the need to keep the doors open.

Activity 3 – System Design

In this activity, learners need to provide evidence that shows they are considering
the input and output devices for the system. To achieve high marks this should
go beyond simple identifications or lists that will restrict marks to the lower bands.
The input and output devices should be appropriate for the operational
requirements with justifications for the selection reflecting high band marks.
Learners should describe the function of the input and output devices. This should
also include the microcontroller connections. Many learners overlooked this, or
simply attached a screen shot of a microprocessor without any useful explanation
of its use. This resulted in marks from Band 1. For example;
Throughout this activity, learners should use technical terminology and industry
standard conventions within the descriptions. Finally and often overlooked, there
should be evidence of the program design. The extract above has no evidence
that the program design has been considered for the activity. At this stage in the
process, it should be evident, not a fully working program, but an outline of the
structure. A flowchart or pseudocode outline is ideal, with some annotation
showing how the program is broke down to the key areas and for example,
considerations of subroutines or variables.

Extract 1

Extract 1 shows part of a list of input and output devices for a learner. Note how
there are references to these being used to match up to the user requirements -
indication 1 for example. The components are also in context, such as the
reference to the switch on the door and what it is used for. This will achieve band
3 or band 4 marks. The learner has continued with some sound justification for
the use of the components.
Extract 2

Above, extract 2, shows the microcontroller connections from a learner work. This
shows the connections in context, with reference to the doors and shows the input
to this via the switch and the outputs for the LEDs and the LCD display.

Extract 3
Extract 3 shows a learner flow chart/ schematic within Activity 3. It is well
structured and the stages link together well and clearly show how the system
would work. It is logical and is easy to follow through the stages giving a good
indication of what the learner is intending to develop in the next activity. It is
essential to show consideration for the handling of unexpected events in the
program structure to access higher marks for this activity.

Activity 4- System assembly and programming.

This activity is the main development task undertaken by the learners. The
program should be developed from the outline in the previous activity to produce
a solution that meets the needs of the user. Two methods of developing the
program were seen in learner work; flowcharts and programing language.
Throughout the stages of developing the program learners should carry out tests
to confirm correct operation. Any changes or developments here show that the
learner is using an iterative approach to the problem. The programs were at times
simplistic producing part functioning systems that did not fully meet the brief. The
extract below shows a part complete program. It has few lines of actual coding as
the majority are initiation sequences in the program. The annotation does not
provide any useful indication of what is happening at the different stages of the
program. The audio visual recording for this learner, when viewed showed only a
flashing LED with no user input or other features evident.
For most learners there were good examples of developing the program to produce
working systems.

Learners achieving higher marks for this activity produced programs were well
constructed and that had the facility to deal with unexpected events. The
programs were organised, well annotated and easy to follow. This would make it
easy to make changes- even by another person.

Extract 1

Extract 1 shows part of a program for a learner. There was some annotation to
describe what was happening at the key stages although the learner did not
consider unexpected events, which would lint the marks awarded to Mark Band 3
here.
Extract 2

This shows a flowchart program for a learner with good supporting annotation to
explain what is happening at the key stages. It shows, for example where and
how a variable has been used in the context of the system.
This shows the program converted from a flowchart to program language. It is an
easy procedure to do using the convert command within the software. For this
learner, the annotation could have been improved by providing additional detailed
on how the calculations/variables are compared.

Activity 5- System testing and results analysis

In this activity, learners should update the initial test plan to show the actual
results from the tests. These should be used to check the outcome against the
client brief. For example the requirement of the indicator to get move noticeable
as the time increases. The quality of evidence varied here, depending on the initial
test plan and how well the tests and the outcomes were cried out and documented.
Some learners did not update the test plan and lost valuable marks.

For others, simple entries were seen that showed some test results such as
download success but did not evaluate the outcomes against the client brief. For
example;

It is important at this stage to cross reference/check the test outcomes with the
needs of the client and provide a summary of this within the activity. High marks
can be achieved by ensuring the testing is structured and includes some
unexpected events.
The extract below shows part of a Mark Band 3 response for this activity.

The learner has carried out structured testing in context and provided an
evaluation of each against the client brief. Evaluating the system against the client
brief should be clearly evident and supported by the test results in order to get
high marks here. Part of this learner evaluation is shown below relating to the
need for at least two indicators to show that the door is open;
Activity 6- System in operation.

This activity requires learners to demonstrate the system in operation and make
an audio-visual recording of no longer than three minutes long. The recoding
should be supported by a commentary to explain what is happening at the key
stages and use appropriate technical terminology during this. It must be
emphasised that even if the system does not work, or partly works, marks can
still be achieved as the learner is awarded marks for the commentary and technical
terminology. For example, if the learner had a non-working system and explained
this at the start or the recording (or it was evident from viewing) examiners will
still be awarding marks for the commentary explaining how the system works and
the technical terminology used. The quality of evidence for this activity varied
considerably across learners; some failing to show a working system, some
showing a part working system and many showing a fully operational system.

Learners should be reminded that the recording should show the system in
operation, i.e. the hardware showing how the inputs are operated and the outputs
from this such as LEDs, buzzer etc. Some learner recordings showed the program
with a commentary of this. This included the downloading of the program to the
microcontroller. However, they did not demonstrate the system working and
marks were lost here. An example of this is shown as a screen shot image from
one learner;

Here the learner provided a good commentary, using appropriate technical terms.
However, the system was not shown in operation, but as a simulation on the right
hand side of the screen. The learner downloaded the program to a microcontroller
but did not show the working system in operation. As a result marks were lost
here, limiting the learner to Mark Band 1.

In order to achieve high marks for this activity, learners should produce a fully
functioning system that shows consideration of the user experience. There should
be some handling of unexpected events demonstrated within the recording.
Learners should not overlook the role of the program and how it is working with
the system. Best marks are obtained when learners refer to what the program is
doing and how the system is responding at each stage. Learners can use prepared
notes to help them through the commentary but should not rely on these as the
sole resource. The best commentaries were seen from learners that has some
bullet point notes and described the system as it went through the various stages.
Finally, avoiding generic terms is beneficial here so learners should be encouraged
to use accurate terminology throughout the recording to demonstrate their
understanding further.

Extract 1

The audio visual file attached shows a successful outcome for Activity 6. It should
be noted that the learner makes some errors in the commentary. However this is
not an issue and is not limiting to the marks awarded. The learner has a good
understanding of the system and how the components work. This is demonstrated
as the variable resistor is adjusted during the demonstration to get the sound
output working. The learner explains how the program is working with the system
to control the LEDs etc. There are references to sub routines and variables
throughout. The system is fully functioning and has some enhanced features with
the use of the LCD showing the state of the doors and the time open. The image
below is a screen shot of the system indicating that the doors are open. There is
an LED illuminated and the LCD screen is providing information on the door
showing that it has been open for 7 seconds.

In the video, the learner demonstrates the planning for an unexpected event. This
did not feature in the program for this learner as it is a power failure event, which
has a battery backup and is appropriate for the system.

The audio-visual recording was awarded Mark Band 4 meeting all the requirements
for the activity. The audio-visual recording has been anonymised and can be
found in the zip file.
For more information on Edexcel qualifications, please visit
www.edexcel.com/quals

Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828

with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE