@Lee – If it is not in the specification then it is not in the course (as we have been told on numerous occasions :-). I too have let N5 students see examples were parallel arrays are used, but that is not the point because there will be N5 classes who will not have been exposed to them because, well, it wasn’t in the course!

@Mr P – I agree that there are solutions that don’t require a second array to total stage mileage, but they veer far from the given design and the point of the exercise is that the candidate is given 15 marks for matching the design. As presented there is no way of calculating the total mileage from the new start mileage as the start mileage is reset to the current mileage at each iteration of the input stage and the totalling is not done in this part of the design.

The totalling is at the output section, so previous stage mileages would need to have been stored (which is what the design tells the candidate to do) in an array parallel to the stage costs array which are also totalled at the output section.

@Peter – I agree also that the split structure diagram presents an additional problem (which IMO has been done purely to make it fit into A4 portrait format – SQA lost the ability to select landscape or ran out of A3 paper?), but I am not averse to a candidate ‘redrawing’ the diagram as a single continuous design if this helps them follow it as directed.

I have highlighted many times in the past (to the point that I gave up mentioning it) that N5/H Practical Assessments in CS seem to adhere to the notion that the challenge is via obscurity, and the candidate is not being assessed on their knowledge of the course but their ability to interpret the vagaries of the person setting the question and their predilections, where the setter will use obscurity in the description to make the task harder. For example – why refer to the charging stations as “A” and “B” etc. unless to intentionally conflict with the design that indicates an array will be used to store the details. Does referring to them as “1” and “2” etc. make that too obvious, because if it does why does it matter because they are being assessed on how well they can code the design, not if they can reconcile it with the ambiguities in the description.

Of course this year we have the added problem that the setter appears to be not 100% aware of the course content and levels…

@derek_s – I’ve had that interpretation directed at me already, but I would counter that by stating that they ARE related data because they correspond to stages of the journey recorded at each charging station (distance travelled and the cost related to that distance).

By two counts this for me fails the ‘not really Higher’ argument that has been forwarded to me to explain this error. At a technical level the candidate is required to declare two arrays that are the same size and are subsequently processed at the same time within the same loops – that (at code level) is the very definition of parallel arrays. At a conceptual level the data being stored in the arrays is related by identity (STAGE cost and STAGE mileage) therefor falling within the scope of why parallel arrays exist. As I said – trying to argue this isn’t the case as a ‘get-out’ doesn’t cut it for me.

The argument seems to be ‘well, what are parallel arrays anyway’? The answer to that is that they are mentioned specifically in the Higher specification and not in the N5 specification, so ANYTHING using them should not be required to be completed by the candidate in order to achieve marks at N5 level.

I am not party to the marking scheme so it may be that marks are not being awarded for this, but the task states the candidate is expected to meet the design. I have exemplified the design in code and annotated it word-for-word using the text of the design and I cannot see another way to meet the requirements of task 1(b) as written.