Examiners’ Report

Lead Examiner Feedback

January 2021

Pearson BTEC Nationals

In Engineering (31725H)
Unit 6: Microcontroller System for
Engineering
 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 website at
http://qualifications.pearson.com/en/home.html for our BTEC qualifications.

Alternatively, you can get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page
at http://qualifications.pearson.com/en/contact-us.html

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:
http://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-for-you/teachers.html

You can also use our online Ask the Expert service at
https://www.edexcelonline.com. You will need an Edexcel Online 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

January 2021
Publications Code 31725H_2101_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2021
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. In the January 2021 series,
learners were required to produce a control system for a temporary set of traffic
lights to follow a given sequence.

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

The January 2021 task was a control system for a set of traffic lights whilst
roadworks are in place.

Learners had to create a system that would control a set of temporary traffic
lights so that the movement of vehicles could be done safely through some
roadworks. The prototype system would require two sets of traffic lights to
operate in a given sequence with suggested timings for these. In addition, the
system required an option to override the operational sequence and change
both sets of traffic lights to red, e.g. to stop all traffic on both sides of the
roadworks when delivery vehicles need to enter or leave the repair area.

The basic outputs using LEDs and timings should have been practised by
candidates and it is possible that they may have produced solutions to similar
scenarios, such as pedestrian crossings as these are sometimes in training
materials. Early introductions to programming microcontrollers often use light
sequences and timings.

Previous tasks have had timing elements and the use of previous assessment
tasks and the sample assessment material is always recommended as practice
tasks and for preparation ahead of the external assessment.

There were some common approaches to the solution with learners using the
available resources within the centre. The system would require at least 6 LED
outputs, and the option of other outputs for enhancements. When constructing
the system hardware, candidates tended to use breadboards with LEDs,
resistors and switches attached as most of the trainer or project boards would
not have enough outputs for this.
The full list of resources is provided in the specification and centres should
ensure they have these available for learners when delivering this unit.

The majority of learners completed the tasks well with only a few prototype
systems that were not working or part functioning. Across the work some
innovative solutions were seen and 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. However, some of the electronic files were
not saved as pdfs which made some parts of accessing the evidence difficult
particularly when there were annotated text boxes that ended up outside of
the page limits.

Learners should be reminded to convert the workbook to pdf and this

should be checked before the centre sends the work to examiners.

In presenting evidence for Activity 6, some centres exceeded the three minute
limit for the audio/visual recording and others used simulations here rather than
showing the system in operating. Examiners did not consider any evidence that
went outside of the three minute limit for the audio/visual recordings as this
would have given some learners an advantage over those that kept to the timed
limit.

Centres are reminded to submit the electronic workbook in pdf format and limit
the audio/visual recording to a single file of no longer than three minutes
and that prompting/questioning of the learners during the recording is not
allowed.

Most learner work was well organised and well presented. Learners should
be reminded to ensure that all the evidence for an activity is completed. For
example Activity 3 should have detail on input and output devices, including
microcontroller connections and plan for the program structure. Often the
evidence relating to microcontroller connections was minimal or
overlooked and for some the program structure was not evident.

The program development varied in quality across the learners using

programming language and flowcharts. Most provided a program that
worked and annotated this to explain the main features.

This series, no candidate used (inappropriate) basic programming languages,

like Scratch and Picaxe Blockly.
Audio-visual recordings of the systems in operation showed a generally
successful outcome.

In most of the learner work, suitable responses were seen across all
activities. For the systems that did not work fully, or where learners did not
demonstrate the system in operation (Activity 6), useful descriptions of the
operation were evident so marks could still be allocated here. In addition,
the standard of response across other activities, particularly Activity 3 and
Activity 4 balanced out some of the lower performance in Activity 6. This
extends the improvement identified in the previous series and shows a
continual improvement of standards in learner work.

Learners’ responses to all of the activities that make up the whole task are
considered in the next part 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 sheets 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.

Some outline time plans were updated during the activities to show progression,
although many were generic or simple. Evidence of this type mainly resulted in
marks from Band 1. For example:

Activity logs were sometimes limited to a single entry for some learners, being
brief and lacking specific detail:
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
control system for a set of traffic lights 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 Activities 3 and 4. The learner has described
the different stages of working in the session. The learner is considering the
hardware selection and how the flow chart and pseudo code is used. The log is
in a logical order and show good progression through the activities.

The record also reflects on the success and gives some reasons for changes and
improvements made in the selection of components and to the program.
Extract 2

Extract 2 is an example of the issues and solutions for the session. The first
considers the efficiency of the hardware and how it will impact the system and
make it more user friendly. There is also evidence of the iterative process here,
with the learner deciding on the use of the timer and void loops, indicating the
learner is considering the efficiency of the program.

Extract 3

The above extract from another learner show the action points for the next
session which were relevant to the previous work and show progression for the
next stage, being the override feature.

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

Band 3 evidence if maintained throughout Activity 1.

Most learners produced evidence in the intended way, completing the logs as
they progressed and maintaining the records in Activity 1. A small number of
learners copied the log into each activity making it difficult to mark as one task.
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.

Some learners reproduced the client brief as the technical specification as

shown below:

The above extract shows some basic interpretation of an operational

requirement. The rest of the content here (system requirements) is as stated in
the client brief and shows no interpretation.

Extract from an initial test plan

The test plan above is generic and has simple tests that would confirm the
output device(s) work, for example, test 1 has no contextual reference to the
system with the only useful test being test 2 here.

Higher marks in Activity 2 can be achieved if the learner shows a good

interpretation of the client brief and a detailed specification produced that
considers enhanced user experience. The test plan should cover a range that will
be used during the development to confirm the system is performing as
intended and includes unexpected events.

Extract 1

Extract 1 shows a better understanding of the problem. The learner has shown
some interpretation of the brief, for example:

• having only one set of lights on green at one time

• the use of a push button to operate the override

The learner has also considered enhancements to the user experience with an
LCD for more information and a buzzer for non -routine/unexpected use.
Extract 2

Extract 2 shows part of a Mark Band 3 response for this activity. The test plan in
Extract 2 shows a range of tests on the system. All tests are in context, making
reference to the lights and the sequence. This is much better than simply stating
e.g. see if the lights work, or check the program is running. The learner has also
considered the LCD display and the type of information it will show at a specific
stage in the sequence, for example when the override is operated.
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 also describe the function of the input and output devices. This
should also include the microcontroller connections. Many learners overlooked
this and considered some of the input and output devices, but overlooked the
microcontroller connections.

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. At this stage it should be an
outline of the program structure. It should not be the developed program, as
that is the Activity 4 task.
The form of the program structure could be a flowchart or pseudocode with
some annotation for the key features. The extract above has no evidence that
the program design has been considered for the activity. There is some
reference to the context for push buttons (being used to change both sets of
lights to red) although the other main components; the LEDs are generic in
application.

Extract 1
Extract 1 shows part of a list of input and output devices for a learner with a
follow up description of some of the components and why they were selected.

This links to the user requirements, for example the LEDs will be used for the
traffic light display and the purpose of the switches. There is some justification
for the selection of these, with sound reasoning for the use of the LCD screen.

Some learners justified the selection of the hardware in the following form
which is also acceptable:
Extract 2

Extract 2 shows part of the microcontroller connections from a learner work.

This refers to the connections in context with reference to the LEDs (outputs)
and the switch (input) and how they interact with the traffic light system. The
circuit diagram provides enough detail for someone to construct the system
using the microcontroller connections shown.
The final part of Activity 3 is often overlooked, or misinterpreted as the main
program. For this activity, it should be a plan for the program. Pseudocode is
also acceptable for the activity.

Extract 3

Extract 3 shows a design for the program structure using a flowchart. Not all of
the symbols use the standard conventions; however it is easy to follow. The
learner has shown the sequence step by step as shown in the diagram in the
brief. This was unnecessary and added length to the program structure. The
learner has not considered the override at this stage, although a second
flowchart did consider the override this as an additional part of the program that
the learner could address in the next activity.

The example below shows a better flowchart, with the override considered as
part of the sequence.
The two extracts above differ but both give the learners a good starting point for
the next 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 program structure in Activity 3 to
produce a solution that meets the needs of the brief. The majority of learners
used programming language in this activity, with others using flowcharts.

Any changes or developments in the program show that the learner is using an
iterative approach to the problem.

The programs normally considered the override function, although some had
this at a specific point in the program. Better programs were seen that used an
interrupt command so that the override could be operated at any point.

Some programs were basic with wait commands after every stage in the
sequence, although they did control the traffic lights, albeit without the facility of
an override during any wait periods.

Extract 1
Extract 1 shows part of a basic program where the learner has produced the
correct sequence, using time delay (wait) commands. However, the program
does work and can be followed to see that the sequence is correct. There are no
inputs to the system, indicating that the override is not considered here.

Extract 2
For many learners there were good examples of developing the program to
produce working systems. Extract 2 shows two parts of a program that was
awarded Mark Band 4 overall. The first is the sequence, with the same delay
technique as the previous extract. The second part shows the override, which
can be initiated at any point in the program. The constructs used for this are
appropriate for the task, and the learner has provided clear annotation
statements to explain what each part of the program does. The formatting of the
program would make it possible for someone to interpret and update the
program.

Activity 5- System testing and results analysis

In this activity, learners should update the initial test plan (Activity 2) to show the
actual results from the tests. These should be used to check the outcome
against the client brief. For example, confirming that the traffic light sequence is
correct for both sets of lights.

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 but did not
evaluate all the outcomes against the client brief. For example:
Extract 1

In extract 1, the learner has recorded the results of testing. None of the initial
tests were in context, which is reflected in the actual test results, with simple
statements shown. The learner has not evaluated the system against the brief
and the records here, not being in context do not provide any further detail.

It is important at this stage to cross reference/check the test outcomes with the
needs of the client brief and provide a summary of this within the activity. High
marks can be achieved by ensuring the testing is in context, structured, and
includes some unexpected events.

Extract 2
Extract 2 shows part of a Mark Band 3 response for this activity. The learner has
provided more detail and compared the outcome against the client brief. This is
a section of a detailed testing process which had 9 relevant entries. This learner
also reviewed the program performance and included changes that were made
in order to make it more efficient against the brief. The learner has also provided
an evaluation of the system against the client brief. This is not always seen but is
good practice as it highlights the key outcomes of testing against the client brief.
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 recording
should be supported by a commentary to explain what is happening at the key
stages including the relationship between the hardware and the program 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 traffic light 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, however the majority of learners were able to demonstrate a part
working system comprising of the correct traffic light sequence, with no override
demonstration.

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 described
the hardware and how the program worked but did not demonstrate this using
the hardware. Some learners provided simulation only evidence in Activity 6.

Where commentary was based on simulation, with a description of the program

and components, without demonstrating the system in operation, marks were
limited to Mark Band 2. It should be observed that if a learner is not
constructing hardware for the AV recording, then they would have additional
time to use on other activities, hence the Mark Band 2 limit for simulation
evidence only in Activity 6.

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. Centres mainly adhered to the time limit of 3 minutes when
recording the system in operation.

In Activity 6, commentaries of the traffic light operation were generally good, but
many learners did not include the relationship between the hardware and the
program as part of this. 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.

This demonstrates a good understanding of the system, with appropriate

technical terminology. Similar to many learners this series, there are not many
references that show a good understanding of the relationship between the
hardware and the program. The learner has described the use of switch case
functions described as being used to keep the code short and running smooth. If
these had been described e.g. when the override was selected, then it would
have shown a greater understanding of the relationship between the hardware
and the program.

The learner has commented on the user requirement and how the system
meets these:

• the correct sequence for both traffic lights, could clearly be seen

• the override worked and changed both sets of traffic lights to red. This
met the user requirements although some learners went further and
programed the override to return to the red-red state by completing the
current sequence then holding this until cancelled. This would be a better
option than simply switching both sets to red and would cause less
confusion to drivers

• the safe restart was demonstrated and this worked correctly, going
through the sequence to put one set of traffic lights to green and holding
the other set on red.

The learner was awarded Mark Band 4 for the system in operation. Further
marks would have been awarded if the learner had included more detail on the
relationship between the hardware and the program.

The audio-visual recording has been anonymised and can be viewed in the zip
file.
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828
with its registered office at 80 Strand, London, WC2R 0RL, United Kingdom