Tagged: Choral Shield, Higher, python, Solution
I was going to start having a look at the Choral Shield assignment for Higher and I am wondering if anyone done this last year and has a solution they are happy to share?
First time doing it, but I have the DB solution to hand if that is any good. The reports haven’t been created, but easy enough to do, the 4 queries are there, though from what I can gather from the task sheet, only 2 need to be implemented for the reports.
Still to do the programming bit.
Got the program done too. Not sure if I uploaded it properly however. Send me your email and I can send you the solution.
Has anyone achieved the Choral Shield solution using MS Visual Studio? I have 2 pupils studying Higher this year, although in a Nation 4/ National 5 Computing Science class so teacher input has been minimal.
I have uploaded my full solution.
The old version of the coursework had 4 database tasks, of which pupils had to choose two.
Make sure you are using the most up-to-date version – it is much more straightforward.
Ronnie would you mind sharing your solution? E-mail address is email@example.com
Thanks in advance
With regards to the design of the program, as mentioned in another thread, is everyone asking their pupils to produce a structure diagram showing parameters with flow of data AND pseudocode for each subprogram?
Also, with the testing of the program, I’ve told my class what results to expect for “Most popular method of sale”, “Total revenue generated” and “Number of Fridays exported” (given in the text file anyway) for each of the 4 text files. My plan is for them to produce a table with columns “File Imported”, “Expected Results” and “Actual Results”. i can’t think of a way to include normal, extreme or exceptional data.
from page 6 of task (detailed marking scheme):
“In order to fully complete this stage the candidates require:…program testing: printouts of test runs matching test data provided and this years data (sic)” (I think data should be date)
No further testing of the program is required.
This is obviously far too easy for Higher level, but that is what marking scheme specifies.
We have not started the database element yet, but for programming task we advised pupils to do a structured diagram, including data flow with passing parameters. As far as I am aware marking scheme only asks for ” design of modular program showing data flow” so diagram should suffice with no need to provide further decomposition using pseudocode. We used the SQA understanding standards examples as a guide. We are also being verified this year so will soon find out if we have not done enough, although I can’t see how they can insist on both based on task instructions.
Thanks for your replies.
I told the pupils to create a structure diagram prior to making the program and their programs are pretty much working now anyway.
On page 5 of the task sheets (the part the students don’t get) it says
In order to fully complete this stage the candidates require:
• annotated design of user interface
• design of modular program showing data flow
• design to meet specification which includes:
— reading/writing to sequential files
— calculation of total sales
— counting occurrences
— output of information
I guess you could sufficiently show these 4 points on a structure diagram but to me is does suggest it is looking for detail e.g. pseudocode.
Once again we see challenge through obfuscation. It should not be a requirement of any assessment that the candidate has to be able to read the mind of the assessor. If there is an inconsistency between the Instructions for Candidates and the Marking Instructions and something is not specified in one but strongly hinted at by the other then this has to be addressed by bringing them into line. FWIW my reading of the Marking Instructions would indicate that a candidate showing that they have understood that an annotated structure diagram showing data flow and a clear description of each part of the program will suffice. Alternatively a structure diagram not annotated with data flow, and a separate data-flow diagram would also meet the requirements of the Marking Instructions. We tell the candidates that Structure Diagrams (graphic) and Pseudocode (textual) are alternative ways to design programs. If pseudocode is what the assessor was looking for then it should be specified in the IfC and the MI as was done in the past.
From what I can gather though this has not been the approach verifiers have taken. If the task is open to interpretation then candidates have to be given the benefit of the doubt until such time as the documentation is revised and the doubt is removed.
I had a similar issue over the N5 Music Fans Coursework task where I was informed by a verifier that they were looking for candidates to make the email field in the database a hyperlink and penalising them if they did not. I asked the verifier where in the task it said it had to be a hyperlink and they replied that the task required the candidate to state assumptions and they thought it was an appropriate assumption that the candidate should make. Again, the candidate being expected to read the mind of the assessor!
I agree Enrico, we did discuss this part of the marking scheme and could not define what the SQA were looking for, other than a detailed Algorithm. I feel pupils have covered the above points in their specification and in the creation of the program. To me it seems excessive and repetitive to cover it again in the design stage. Equally we cannot justify not giving marks when instructions are not included in the pupil sheet. I feel the overall volume of assessment activities required from the UASP’s, plus the coursework tasks is excessive for Higher in the time we have available. I will stick with what I have done until verifier or SQA advises otherwise. cheers
with regards to Pseudocode I e-mailed Raymon Sympson at SQA and he advised me that detailed pseudocode was required.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.