Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
8 / 9 May Signet Workshop Items
#1
Now that we have a better idea re how many are coming and what work has been submitted, we are finalising the arrangements for the event.

See the attachments re some of the things that we will be tackling and for you to think about prior, particularly if you haven't yet submitted something of your own.

Note that these are not presented as "model answers"
Q2 is an amalgam of several student's work; the question to consider is "how would you mark it against the question set and the mark allocation?"

Q3 is not really an answer at all, but a series of ideas that might occur to you when gathering your thoughts prior to constrcting your answer; trouble is that some of them are not actually particularly relevant and others are actually either slightly confused or plain wrong. Can you "sort the wheat from the chaff" and use the material (and anything else that occurs to you) to write your answer. A lot of students seem to have difficulty in actually getting started when confronted with a blank sheet of paper; thuis exercise is intended to give you a "kick start"- it is often easier to criticise someone else's offering than start yourself from scratch.

Q9 is perhaps the most like a model answer. Review it; what are its strengths, what are its weaknesses and crucially how many marks would you award it / how would you amend to score higher?


Any late applications direct to Signet please

================================================================
For some comments on another attempt at Q2, see this other post


Attached Files
.doc   Signet 2010 Intro.doc (Size: 35 KB / Downloads: 81)
.doc   2009 Module 3 Q2 Controls in route overlap and flank 2.doc (Size: 52.5 KB / Downloads: 96)
.doc   2009 module 3 Q3 signal aspects 100428.doc (Size: 132 KB / Downloads: 77)
.doc   2009 Module 3 Q9 Split point detection.doc (Size: 81 KB / Downloads: 78)
PJW
Reply
#2
Some further answers which were prepared to the 2009 paper for potential use at the event:

Q1 was an attempt to fully address the question but also with the intention of making the end product useful for people learning about the subject and hence rather more explanatory than could be achieved in exam conditions.


Q5 was an attempt to fully address the question in a manner that would be appropriate for the Exam; however it soon became evident that it'd take much longer than the allotted time. Since not in exam conditions decided to complete anyway and then decide what ought to have been cut; I am still at a loss to understand what could have been missed out without losing marks. A question to avoid in the exam I think; however can others see how to have answered more economicallly whilst still addressing the full question?


Attached Files
.doc   Q5 2009 Risks of degraded.doc (Size: 89.5 KB / Downloads: 79)
.doc   2009 Module 3 Q1 cab signalling.doc (Size: 73.5 KB / Downloads: 70)
PJW
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)