(28-03-2010, 11:07 AM)adikarina Wrote: Hi!
I have attempted Q7 from 2008 Module 5 paper.
Please review and provide feedback.
Thanks
Regards
Aditi
Further to my previous feedback, please find attached your answer with my comments inserted. Basically you will see this is in the form of questions that occur to me when reading your answer for an environment with which i am not familiar. Hence these aren't "mistakes" as such, but show you where I feel that you could have explained more / better. I think I'd have made similar comments had I known more re LU eenvironment- because it is YOUR job to explain, whether or not the examiner happens to know the answer. Of course had this been a subject area for which had deeper knowledge I may have felt that it as reasonable that you hadn't explained as I would have shared the same unwritten assumption / knowledge; on the other hand I may have been more critical if your answer fell short of perfection as less likely to "give benefit of the doubt".
An answer which didn't leave the "open ends" to which my comments allude would have been a better answer; you'd have explained the underlying assumptions and demonstrated your thought process to lead the unfamiliar reader to help them follow your argument.
What I have done in "track changes" is to give a demonstration of the sort of summary that I think would demonstrate wide experience and make the examiner think in terms of awarding a Distinction. Try to show how the answer given fits into the "bigger picture" of railway signal engineering- even though this is a module 5 paper, don't forget to make the connection to other knowledge perhaps more associated with mod1, mod3 or mod7.
When it comes to scoring, I think as an examiner I'd be struggling to award sufficient marks to substantiate my gut reaction of "Credit"; on average you'd need to be scoring at least 3 out of 5 for each of the sections. Where advantages of one equals disadvantages of the other I wouldn't give the same mark twice, so there would need to be more justification as to WHY you are claiming what you are- you did this sometimes but not consistently.
- Indeed I think that getting the 5 marks for "design" is actually very difficult- can't really see how to improve your answer to get much more (in the NR environment in which lamps are lamp proved but LEDs arguably don't need to be, it is a bit easier).
- The 5 marks for "maintenance / installation" seem much easier.
- It is the 5 marks for "reliability" where I feel that your answer wouldn't actually have got many but can see where those marks should have come from- see the comments in my previous response re the various potential failure modes.
Have a critical look at your answer and evaluate how many marks you would award yourself in each of the categories given on the question paper. Of course it does say consider those three angles "as a minimum", so the examiners would definitely need to reallocate some marks if you tackled from a wider perspective- hence you could compensate for not getting the 5 marks re "design" and I think that would be my approach.
Given that your other module this year is mod7, I suspect you ought to be studying more on reliability topics and systems engineering because I think you may be weak in these areas; I am guessing that you don't have much of an understanding of faults, failures, maintenance policy, maintenance interventions etc since you didn't display it in your answer.
PJW