Section E: Evaluating Fitness for Purpose
GCSE — 2.2 NEA Guide (Core & In-depth Skills)
Overview
20 marks — AO2 (Assessment Objective 2: Design, make, evaluate and communicate)
This is your final section. You need to critically evaluate your prototype honestly and objectively, gather user feedback, and suggest realistic further developments. Aim for 2–3 pages.
Where it goes: your final evaluation, written as a report, goes in your formal presentation folio. Evaluation during the project (of ideas, models and development) is recorded as you go in your informal sketchbook.
What to include — page by page
Page numbers are a suggested order. WJEC sets no fixed format — see sketchbook and folio.
Page 21: Testing against the specification
Go back to your specification from Section B and test your prototype against every single point.
Wherever possible, test the prototype in situ, where it would really be used and by the person it was designed for. Photograph the testing.
Present this as a table for clarity:
| Spec point | Criteria | How tested | Result | Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Handle diameter 30–40mm | Measured with vernier calipers | 35mm | ✓ Yes |
| 2 | Holds at least 500g | Load tested with weights | Held 650g | ✓ Yes |
| 3 | No sharp edges | Visual inspection + touch test | One edge slightly sharp | ✗ Partially |
| … | … | … | … | … |
For any points not fully met, explain:
- Why the criterion was not achieved
- What changes would need to be made to meet it
Key: Be honest. A critical evaluation that acknowledges weaknesses and explains them scores more highly than a vague claim that everything is perfect.
Alongside the specification check, also evaluate:
- Functionality — does it work as intended? Did it perform reliably?
- Aesthetics — does it look as you intended? Does it appeal to the target user?
- Quality of making — are you happy with the level of finish and accuracy? What would you do differently?
Page 22: User feedback and response
Gather feedback from at least one other person — ideally a potential user or your client.
- User testing — ideally in situ, ask them to use or interact with the prototype and observe what happens
- Feedback form or interview — ask specific questions linked to your specification points
- Present the feedback clearly (quotes, summary, or ratings)
- Respond to the feedback — explain what it tells you and how it would inform further development
Tip: Frame questions around your specification: “On a scale of 1–10, how comfortable was the handle to use?” is more useful than “Did you like it?”
Page 23: Further development
Conclude with a thoughtful section on how the prototype could be developed further.
For each area of improvement, be specific. You can write it out, or show it as annotated sketches, which are often clearer:
- What would you change?
- Why (link to testing results or user feedback)?
- How would you make the change? (different material, different process, different dimension)
Also consider:
- Marketability — in its current form, could this prototype be developed for commercial production? What manufacturing process would be used at volume? Would the material choices change?
- Innovation — are there any innovative features you could add, such as smart materials, electronic components, or technical textiles?
Example: “User feedback indicated that the lid was difficult to remove with one hand. To address this, I would redesign the lid with a larger tab, made from a rubberised grip material. This would directly address specification point 7.”
Iterative evaluation throughout the NEA
Your teacher and the moderator also look for evidence of evaluation throughout your design process — not just at the end. This means:
- Evaluating initial ideas before developing them (Section C), recorded in your sketchbook
- Evaluating development iterations and explaining changes
- Evaluating making decisions as they happen (Section D)
- This final evaluation of the completed prototype
Strong portfolios show a continuous cycle of: Design → Test → Evaluate → Refine.
Marking criteria
Your teacher picks the band that best fits your work. A mark at the top of a band needs all of its descriptors met; missing evidence means a lower mark within the band. See how the marks are awarded.
| Band | Marks | What your work needs to show |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 16–20 | Critical, objective analysis and testing of ideas throughout the iterative process; critical and objective evaluation of final prototype taking into account user views; clear identification of further development with detailed modification suggestions |
| 3 | 11–15 | Objective analysis and testing throughout; objective evaluation of final prototype with some user consideration; potential for further development identified with suggestions for modifications |
| 2 | 6–10 | Some analysis and testing throughout; some evaluation of final prototype with partial user consideration; some further development identified with modification suggestions |
| 1 | 1–5 | Limited evaluation of ideas; limited evaluation of final prototype; partial identification of modifications |
Checklist for Band 4
- Every specification point tested with a clear method and result recorded
- Honest assessment of what was and was not achieved
- Prototype tested in situ where possible, with photos
- Final evaluation written up as a report in the formal folio
- User testing carried out and feedback recorded
- Response to feedback clearly explained
- Further development suggestions are specific (what, why and how), using annotated sketches where helpful
- Modifications linked directly to test results or user feedback
- Marketability and potential for production considered
- Evidence of evaluation throughout the whole portfolio, not just this section