Understanding Standards: Nominee Training Event in Computing Science National 3 – Advanced Higher

2. Understanding Standards: Nominee Training Event Computing Science National 3 – Advanced Higher

3. Aims of the Day To support Nominees in their understanding of national standards by: • reviewing candidate evidence • discussing this evidence and associated Assessment Standards with colleagues • asking questions and seeking clarification about national standards

4. Duties of Nominees • Successfully undertake annual training • Participate in quality assurance events as required • Assist in cascading national standards and good practice with colleagues in their local authority • Support in-service, CPD and other local events to ensure that national standards are being consistently applied • IMPORTANCE OF ROLE

5. Lessons learnt from Last Session • The vast majority of centres were judging the evidence according to the appropriate Assessment Standard. • The majority of centres are using SQA produced UASPs • More evidence is being supported by screenshots. • Would like to see more assessors write on candidate scripts showing where assessment standards have been met.

6. Lessons learnt from Last Session • Higher SDD Testing • Looking for an appropriate test plan – not just normal, extreme and exceptional. • UASP1 – only 2 tests – sorting and saving • UASP 3 – approx. 15 tests • Important that there is evidence (screenshots) of the testing • Higher SDD Design • Many centres are using twomethods to show main modules and data flow where one would suffice • Higher ISDD Design • Poor quality wireframe designs. Need to show internal and external links and search facility.

7. Advanced Higher – Project Marking Scheme • Re-written in a similar way to National 5/Higher • Removal of presentation section • Producing a requirements specification and test plan have been split into two separate sections

8. System Design and Development (Advanced Higher ) Unit Threshold • Only 5 out of 7 assessment standards require to be passed Changes to Assessment Standard 1.1 • Assessment Standard 1.1 has changed to “Describing the purpose of a range of structured data types” removing the “and role”. Making Assessment Judgements • The assessment judgement has changed to describe one of the following structured data types – record, linked list, queue, stack, 2D array, array of records, array of objects, in terms of how the data is structured and when it is most appropriate for it to be used” • This clarifies what is required for this assessment standard

9. System Design and Development (Advanced Higher ) Unit Making Assessment Judgements for Assessment Standard 1.2 • The previous assessment judgement was “..by describing it’s purpose and how it works, for: A complex standard algorithm (for example, sort algorithm, binary search)” • The new assessment judgement has clarified it to “Candidate correctly describes how one of the following complex standard algorithm works – sort algorithm, binary search” • This clarifies what is required for this assessment standard

10. System Design and Development (Advanced Higher ) Unit Changes to Assessment Standard 1.3 • Assessment Standard 1.3 has radically changed from “Describing how programs process stored data” to“Describing the purpose of a range of programming structures and how they work” Making Assessment Judgements • The assessment judgement has changed to “Candidate reaches the standard when they correctly describe the purpose of recursion and how it works within the context of a program”. • This reflects what is in National 5 and Higher and shows progression

11. System Design and Development (Advanced Higher ) Unit Making Assessment Judgements for Assessment Standard 2.2 • The structured data types “arrays of records” and “arrays of objects” have been added to the list Making Assessment Judgements for Assessment Standard 2.3 • Altered to “Reading and/or writing data to a file or database”

12. System Design and Development (Advanced Higher ) Unit Outcome 3 • Has been altered from “Investigate and report on some contemporary programming paradigms by:” to “Investigate and report on some contemporary programming paradigms by:” Assessment Standard 3.2 • Has been deleted

13. System Design and Development (Advanced Higher ) Unit UASP 2 Changes • Task 1 wording altered • Task 2 altered • Task 3 slight changes to wording • Task 4 deleted UASP 3 changes • Task 1 deleted • Task 2 (now task 1) slightly altered • Task 3 (now task 2) slightly altered • Task 4 deleted

14. Information System Design and Development (Advanced Higher) Unit Threshold • Only 6 out of 9 assessment standards require to be passed No Changes to Assessment standards or UASPs

15. Higher – Assignments All Marking Scheme Slight changes e.g. showing the queries separately Change to Reporting the Solution descriptors Scavenger Hunt Changed “array of records” to “appropriate data structure” Diving Championship Data files provided for country table Structure of database shown at start of task Candidates instructed to “import countries data” and “create links” Diving Championship & Choral Shield Design templates can be altered by assessors

16. System Design and Development (Higher ) Unit Threshold • Only 6 out of 9 assessment standards require to be passed JET - Making Assessment Judgements • 1.3 has changed from describe three of the following standard algorithms to describe two as input validation is no longer in the Higher Course Assessment Specification • 1.4 has changed to “Describe how a computer processes programs using the fetch-execute cycle with reference to processor, memory and buses”. This is due to changes in Course Assessment Specification.

17. System Design and Development (Higher ) Unit UASP1 changes • Reduction in questions to 9 for all of Outcome 1 – minimum requirements • All questions must be answered correctly not 3 out of 4 as previously UASP 3 changes • Step 6 removed (describing all four standard algorithms) • Additions to step 8 (now step 7) to add a count occurrences and find Max algorithm and describe how they work. • Change of question to step 9 (now step 8) to fit in with the new “Making assessment judgement”

18. Information System Design and Development (Higher) Unit Threshold • Only 8 out of 11 assessment standards require to be passed JET - Making Assessment Judgements • Additional wording added to assessment standard 1.3 & 1.4 to clarify the code and media types should be within an information system (matches with National 5)

19. Information System Design and Development (Higher) Unit UASP1 changes • Change to task 2 of Climate control task to reduce the amount of web-pages candidates were creating. UASP 3 changes • Suggestion added in JET for test criteria • In task 3 removal of autonumber • Gender field removed from database

20. Higher TASK 1 In groups of 3 or 4 use the Higher System Design and Development Jet checklist to decide whether candidate 4 has achieved outcome 2.

21. Naturally Occurring Evidence • If I taught a lesson today on data dictionaries, then candidates will do a data dictionary task.  This could involve completing one or several data dictionaries depending on their pace of work, but either way, I can collect evidence. • A few lessons later I might teach a lesson on ERDs.  We do a task and I collect that task.   • A few days later we might do a task that combines DDs and ERDs.  If I don’t already have evidence, I can use that task.

22. Why use Naturally Occurring Evidence • If a candidate is absent there is always another opportunity to get evidence.  With a start to finish unit assessment approach, an absence can lead to a candidate falling behind and possibly not finishing the assessment within the allocated time. • It removes an element of anxiousness over assessment. I don’t stress the assessment element but simply state that it can be used for their portfolio if they work independently.  In my classes they would do that, but I appreciate that’s not the case in most schools. • It reduces the formality of assessment (thereby reducing anxiety and pressure).  Some of the tasks are presented as a powerpoint slide – here’s your task now do it type of approach. No huge lists of instructions. • I will use coursework evidence to fill in gaps if all else fails

23. Higher Task 2 In groups of 3 or 4 use the Higher ISDD Jet checklist to decide whether candidate 1, 2 and 3 have passed outcome 1.

24. Re-assessment • SQA recommends one opportunity for assessment and, if the candidate is not successful, one opportunity for re-assessment. • Re-assessment should only take place after further learning has taken place. • Re-assessment should only be for the assessment standards that have not been achieved. • Instrument of assessment should be different from the first assessment • Portfolio approach does not count as an assessment as it is only gathering evidence to show that candidates can meet assessment standards from work completed in class

25. National 5 – Assignments Marking Scheme • Slight changes to marking scheme • Slight changes to band descriptors for “Reporting on Solution”

26. Information System Design and Development (National 5) Unit Threshold • Only 6 out of 8 assessment standards require to be passed JET - Making Assessment Judgements • 1.4 has changed to “Describe how a computer processes programs by translating them from high-level languages to binary”. This is due to changes in the Course Assessment Specification. UASP1 changes • Change to question and exemplar answer in task assessing assessment standard 1.4 UASP 3 changes • Change to question 8 and exemplar answer in outcome 1 task assessing assessment standard 1.4

27. Information System Design and Development (National 5) Unit Threshold • Only 6 out of 9 assessment standards need to be achieved UASP1 changes • Correction to task 6 UASP 3 changes • No changes UASP 2 changes • Change to question 3 and exemplar answer on page 17 and 22.

28. Portfolio Approach (National 5 ) • Checklist of assessment standards • Tasks that are part of the teaching and learning • Marking scheme

29. System Design and Development (National 4 ) Unit Threshold • Only 4 out of 6 Assessment standards require to be passed UASP’s • No changes made to UASP’s

30. Information System Design and Development (National 4) Unit Threshold • Only 4 out of 5 assessment standards require to be passed UASP’s • No changes made to UASPs

31. National 4 Added Value Unit Threshold • Only 3 out of 4 assessment standards require to be passed UASPs • Centre’s can create their own assignment but it should use the same “Making Assessment Judgements” that appear in the Judging Evidence Tables for the SQA produced tasks.

32. National 4 Added Value Unit • ALL Added Value Units • Clarification to “Making Assessment Judgements” for all assessment standards • Standardisation of tasks between marking scheme, tasks and candidate sheets. • Removal of user interface. • Clarification of the testing required. • Alteration of reals to integers. • Record of progress notes updated to reflect marking scheme. • Music Fans • Task altered from importing the data to inputting reduced set of data. This caused candidates to not show the creation of the database as the software automatically created it when the data was imported.

33. 1.1 Analysing a straightforward problem Making Assessment Judgement Candidate describes problem, identifying system requirements and processes needed to complete task. Some advice and guidance may be given by the assessor. Making Assessment Judgement Candidate describes problem, identifying system requirements and processes needed to complete task. Some advice and guidance may be given by the assessor.

34. 1.2 Designing a solution to the problem Making Assessment Judgement Candidate selects and uses appropriate graphical or contemporary design notation. Candidate outlines system structure demonstrating understanding of system requirements and processes. Candidate outlines design of user interface Making Assessment Judgement Candidate selects and uses appropriate graphical or contemporary design notation to design the structure of the program. Candidate outlines information system structure demonstrating understanding of system requirements and processes. Candidate outlines design of user interface

35. 1.3 Creating a program or application as a solution to the problem • Making Assessment Judgement • Candidate selects appropriate software/development application to complete task. • Candidate completes development of system, using appropriate data types and at least two constructs • from the following list: • expressions to assign values to variables • expressions to return values using arithmetic operations (+, -, *, /, ^) • execution of lines of code in sequence demonstrating input – process – output • use of selection constructs including simple conditional statements (IF) • iteration and repetition using fixed and conditional loops • Making Assessment Judgement • Candidate selectsuses appropriate software/development application to complete the information system part of the task. • Candidate completesdevelopment of system,creates program to complete the task using appropriate data types and at least two constructs • from the following list: • expressions to assign values to variables • expressions to return values using arithmetic operations (+, -, *, /, ^) • execution of lines of code in sequence demonstrating input – process – output • use of selection constructs including simple conditional statements (IF) • iteration and repetition using fixed and conditional loops

36. 1.3 Creating a program or application as a solution to the problem Making Assessment Judgement Candidate identifies and rectifies any errors. Completed solution matches design and meets requirements. The candidate must carry out this stage independently, with minimal advice and guidance. Making Assessment Judgement Candidate identifies and rectifies any errors. Completed solution matches design and meets requirements. The candidate must carry out this stage independently, with minimal advice and guidance.

37. 1.4 Testing and reporting on the solution to the problem Making Assessment Judgement Candidate tests system against supplied criteria. Candidate demonstrates working solution. Candidate’s record of progress gives short evaluation of solution explaining how it meets requirements, including notes on testing and suggestions of how it could be improved. Making Assessment Judgement Candidate tests information system and programagainst supplied criteria. Candidate demonstrates working solution. Candidate’s record of progress gives short evaluation of solution explaining how it meets requirements, including notes on testingany difficulties encountered and suggestions of how it could be improved.

38. National 4 Added Value Unit TASK 4 In groups of 3 or 4 use the AV National 4 JET to mark candidate 1 of workshop 2.

39. Building Digital Solutions (National 3) Unit Threshold • Only 4 out of 5 assessment standards require to be passed UASP’s • No changes made to UASPs

40. Information Solutions (National 3) Unit Threshold • Only 4 out of 5 Assessment standards require to be passed UASPs • No changes made to UASPs

41. WWW.sqa.org.uk│0303 333 0330