Does anybody know if the content table for Higher will be updated over the summer? There definitely needs to be more clarity on what content we need to cover and in how much depth.
(Sorry, couldn’t help it!)
It’s here! Who’d have thunk it…
New version: http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/HCAS_ComputingScience.pdf
Nat 5 as well:
New version: http://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/N5CAS_ComputingScience.pdf
This is a significant change to both courses! Looks like it will involve a load of development work for everyone.
The change is listed as “Depth and clarification added to the mandatory course content.” I really hope the SQA are not going to ask about some of the specifics now in the new document, in this year’s Higher examination. It is good that this has been released, but the language appears to suggest that it is not actually changed or added content, only clarified. That’s a nonsense. Slides and resources from the old Higher course that I’d deleted are now required again, development time that was going to be spent revamping S1 S2 courses will now need to be spent on the Higher. Frustrating – this should have been how this document was originally issued.
@David – The changes will be reflected in next year’s exams. The new documents didn’t exist when this year’s exam was put together a year ago.
Glad to see the changes. They are only tweeks and clarification. If you look at it closely you probably find you were teaching most of it already.
Can someone help me out here… There is stuff that looks useful in the CSS part of the document but it’s been scored out? I don’t remember this being in the old version of the document but it looks like it isn’t in the new one either?
For Higher in particular this is not “depth and clarification” there are a lot of changes and what seems like more content added. I don’t know any teacher who was asking for more content to be added??? Can anyone tell me where these decisions are coming from?
I have more questions than answers, I’m again going to have to spend tens of hours re-working and self-teaching terms I don’t know for N5/H courses I have spent hundreds of hours on already for the past 4 years.
I just think our subject is continuing to shoot itself in the foot with more colleagues and pupils sadly being driven away from Computing Science.
I am thoroughly scunnert with these changes. I’d applied a decent amount of common sense and intelligence when writing my Higher materials (and N5 a couple of years ago) to compensate for the pathetic course spec we had to work from. While I appreciate the clarification and rationalisation of the elements in the units, the ‘clarification’ also implies new content which I certainly did not anticipate in the materials I have produced. I agree with David Alford, the specifications should have been done properly in the first place. The goons responsible for putting the original specs together in the first place should be ashamed of themselves. This is unacceptable and leaves many of us feeling quite cynical and resentful about the extra development work that other’s incompetence has brought about. Cheers SQA – no credibility whatsoever in my eyes! :-((
Does anyone know what DTL stands for (Technical Implementation – Storage)?
Drawing a blank here: http://www.acronymfinder.com/DTL.html
Nice of them to put acronyms in that they don’t make clear.
Unless it’s actually supposed to be DLT (not of the hairy cornflake variety)…
From the context I thik we have to assume that it is meant to be DLT but that leads to the question of why there are two tape medias listed as backup media yet no HDD or solid state solutions, it also implies that this has not been proof read.
In relation to backup systems, i assume it means DLT, it wouldn’t be the only mistake I’ve noticed in the 10 minutes I have spent reading it.
DLT = David Lee Travis?????
Nothing would surprise me about this document…..
This is not <i>depth and clarification</i>. A lot of changes and new content. A bit disheartened and disillusioned by the changes.
Looking specifically at the Higher content tables, I notice a change under CSS — they gave clear indication of what they expected, but it’s scored out. It all looks like new information to me that they scored out too?
I am also baffled as to why certain content has been arbitrarily removed from both courses. Why has calculated fields been taken out of N5? Doing this knocks out one the key N5 components of the Music Fans coursework task. Was this taken into account when the decision to just excise it from the course was made? I suspect not.
The removal of content from Higher that are covered in N5 might appear justifiable (although I wholly disagree with it as the ethos of CfE is that some candidates would go straight to sitting Higher, so how does this move sit with the CfE scrutineers?), but again this has a knock-on effect for Unit Assessment – the Pack 1 SD+D Outcome 1 tasks ask about Input Validation which has been expunged by this latest document. Does this invalidate that entire Unit Assessment? Can we expect an update on this forthwith? Did anyone actually think about this before drawing the red line?
These documents create more problems than they solve and once again stand in testament to the lack of joined-up thinking and quality control exercised in their creation.
PS. I also see DAT listed as a backup media in Higher. DAT is an almost defunct technology, and putting it in the course runs the risk of it becoming another ‘ZIP’ drive (a reference for those of us who can remember teaching about them in Standard Grade several years after they had been withdrawn from the market).
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.