Silver - Unit 24 - Additive Manufacture (3 credits)
Relevant LINKS
Handbook home page
Overview
Additive Manufacture at Silver Level requires the candidate to plan and create a 3D element using manufacturing equipment and best practices. As a result of reviewing their work, they will be able to identify and use automated methods or alternative ways of working to improve the finished products. Unfamiliar aspects will require support and advice from other people.
A work activity will typically be ‘straightforward or routine’ because:
The task or context will be familiar and involve few variable aspects. The techniques used will be familiar or commonly undertaken.
Example of context – Creating a simple 3D product for a local primary school.
Support for the assessment of this award
Example of typical IT work at this level (coming)
Assessor's guide to interpreting the criteria (under development)
General Information
QCF general description for Level 1 qualifications
- Achievement at QCF level 1 (EQF Level 2) reflects the ability to use relevant knowledge, skills and procedures to complete routine tasks. It includes responsibility for completing tasks and procedures subject to direction or guidance.
-
Use knowledge of facts, procedures and ideas to complete well-defined, routine tasks. Be aware of information relevant to the area of study or work
-
Complete well-defined routine tasks. Use relevant skills and procedures. Select and use relevant information. Identify whether actions have been effective.
-
Take responsibility for completing tasks and procedures subject to direction or guidance as needed
Requirements
-
Standards must be confirmed by a trained Silver Level Assessor or higher
-
Assessors must at a minimum record assessment judgements as entries in the on-line mark book on the INGOTs.org certification site.
-
Routine evidence of work used for judging assessment outcomes in the candidates' records of their day to day work will be available from their e-portfolios and on-line work. Assessors should ensure that relevant web pages are available to their account manager on request by supply of the URL.
-
When the candidate provides evidence of matching all the criteria to the specification subject to the guidance below, the assessor can request the award using the link on the certification site. The Account Manager will request a random sample of evidence from candidates' work that verifies the assessor's judgement.
-
When the Account Manager is satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to safely make an award, the candidate's success will be confirmed and the unit certificate will be printable from the web site.
-
This unit should take an average level 1 learner 30 hours of work to complete.
Assessment Method
Assessors can score each of the criteria L, S, H. N indicates no evidence and is the default starting position. L indicates some capability but secure capability has not yet been achieved and some help is still required. S indicates that the candidate can match the criterion to its required specification. H indicates performance that goes beyond the expected in at least some aspects. Candidates are required to achieve at least S on all the criteria to achieve the unit. Candidates should be helped and encouraged to reference their work to the assessment criteria using assessment for learning process. e.g. IPU 1.1.2 for IPU Level 1 criterion 1.2. This will make it easier to provide the evidence required for the QA procedures when requested by the Account Manager. There is support for this from learner account profiles on the INGOT web site. PLTS is used to denote where there are opportunities to develop personal learning and thinking skills.
Expansion of the assessment criteria
1. The candidate will use a brief to design 3D objects
1.1 I can identify the need for a specified design
At the simplest level this is knowing that something needs to be made. Hopefully learners will have some notion that they can make things that do not currently exist.
Evidence: will be on web pages or documents.
Additional information and guidance
Candidates need to carry out their own investigation to find a "need". It could be something that was specified for them, though they will still need to check if it is possible. They can look at a range of small designs and see if they can either make something similar, with improvements, or make something new and valuable. It would be useful for them to see a range of objects that have been made by 3D printers to have a better sense of the possible.
1.2 I can identify design constraints
Once something is identified for design, candidates need to think about what aspects of it might be impossible or difficult and therefore stop the process.
1.3 I can select appropriate software to develop the design.
Candidates show evidence of choosing the right tools.
Evidence: Assessor comments or reflective journal comments.
Additional information and guidance.
In most cases, there will be recommended tools for software design for the printer itself, but printers should also deal with standard file types so any design software should be suitable and candidates can try out different packages for specific qualities: ease of use, features, flexibility, extension plug-ins etc.
1.4 I can gather information to support a design
Candidates should be able to accumulate and organise the range of items needed to complete the design.
Evidence: ePortfolios and web pages with commentary.
Additional information and guidance
This is a research criterion, of sorts, to show that candidates are aware of the holistic nature of the design process. The design will likely involve a range of people and each of these will need to be consulted and their opinions and concerns noted. Designs themselves might impact people other than the cl;ient, so these will need to be canvassed and checked. The materials could have some environmental impact, especially if the design is something that might be mass produced with a short shelf-life so end up in land fills etc.
1.5 I can create a design, starting from a template, image trace or pre-existing object
Candidates should show evidence of working with existing elements.
Evidence: Documentation of plans and processes either in web based or paper based formats.
Additional information and guidance
This criterion allows that candidates might not yet have the skills to carry out their own designs and in most cases people in industry do not always work from scratch. Working with existing designs and templates is a legitimate way to build up a final design. If the process is turning something like a metal toy into a plastic one, then candidates will need to re-draw the object for their own creations, and this is a valuable skill set.
1.6 I can make checks to ensure the model will print
3D printing is slow and somewhat wasteful of resources, so some pre-checks are essential.
1.7 I can amend errors and ensure design quality
Candidates need to look through their designs and look for any potential problems to eliminate them.
2. The candidate will enable 3D manufacture from a 3D design
2.1 I can follow instructions to export a file for additive manufacture
2.2 I can use appropriate file formats and dimensions
2.3 I can import files into additive manufacture software
2.4 I can use the appropriate settings to create a build file
2.5 I can identify issues related to print speed, quality, size and overall outcome
2.6 I can identify changes to machine settings to improve build quality
2.7 I can use the final product to identify possible improvements
2.8 I can identify how an additive manufacture design can be used alongside or to aid existing design and manufacture processes