Evaluating against a specification
Design & Technology · GCSE · The School
Point by point
An evaluation works through the specification one point at a time and says, with evidence, whether the product met it. "Must hold 2 kg without deflecting more than 5 mm" is answered by loading it and measuring. Points written as testable statements at the start are what make this possible at the end.
Third-party testing
Your own opinion of your product is the least reliable evidence available. Give it to the intended user, watch without explaining anything, and record what they do — where they hesitate, what they hold wrongly, what they ask. Watching someone use it badly tells you more than any amount of asking whether they like it.
Being critical
An evaluation claiming everything worked is not believed and does not score. Name what failed, why, and specifically what you would change — a dimension, a material, a join. Identifying a real weakness and proposing a specific fix demonstrates more understanding than a product that happened to work.
Take the desk lamp specification and test each point. (1) Footprint 140 × 140 mm — MET, measured. (2) 320 lux on an A4 page — MET, measured with a phone light meter. (3) Head adjusts 75° — NOT MET, target was 90°. (4) Standard bulb — MET. (5) Stable under a 5 N push — NOT MET, it tipped. (6) Cost £14.20 — NOT MET, target £12. Four out of six, with evidence for each. Now say what you would change and which points that would fix.
Testing, not admiring
An evaluation saying the product works well and looks good has tested nothing. Go through the specification point by point and record the result: point one required one-handed opening at 8kg grip — tested with the user, passed. Point four required it to fit a 70mm jar — measured, fits 70mm but not the 85mm jar the user also owns, so partly met. A table of met, partly met and not met, with the evidence beside each, is worth more than a page of prose.
Being critical without dismantling your own work
The top band wants genuine criticism, and candidates avoid it because it feels like admitting failure. It is the opposite: identifying a real weakness and saying precisely what you would change shows you understand the design better than someone who declares it finished. Name the weakness, explain why it happened, state the specific modification, and say how you would test that the modification worked. 'The lid fouled the handle because I fixed the hinge position before testing the grip' is a strong sentence, not a weak one.