[pliddle34]

22/08/2013 at 12:48 pm

Hi,

I’ve altered the programs that need to be made for fulfilling the criteria for outcome 2 – I am at a loss to whether my changes are “significant” or not – is anyone else changing the programs? (Neither work very well without a GUI)

[Darren Brown]

22/08/2013 at 7:57 pm

I changed N4 SDD pack 1 into Scratch as well as N5 SDD pack 1 into Python. I agree the programs are too suited to Visual Basic/GUI but it was possible.

As a working group in our authority we discussed whether to send as not really “significant changes”.

I sent them because I hoped the SQA may share these other language versions – I stated this at the time. I’m disappointed the SQA did not do this themselves.

[pliddle34]

23/08/2013 at 9:47 am

Thanks for the info.
I changed the actual programs but I am thinking now in this first year I might have made the wrong decision…

[tim]

23/08/2013 at 10:13 am

I contacted SQA about this and was given the impression that it would be ok to make the changes without the need for any verification.I am using version 3 of Python.

[pliddle34]

29/08/2013 at 11:59 am

I have changed from the example ones to three new programs, though. I am presuming this is “significant” ? 🙂

[a1an.robertson]

30/08/2013 at 8:53 am

When I looked at the unit assessment documents, I read it that the tasks were only examples of what could be done to meet the outcomes and therefore could be changed. I didn’t see anything that said that they would need to be checked by the SQA, significant changes or otherwise. I have changed the N4 assessments for scratch so that they are more game-like. They still, in my opinion, cover the outcomes and meet the assessment criteria.

A colleague from a different department was at an SQA event where he was told that schools could make changes to the assessments without prior verification, but not the outcomes.
My understanding is that where prior verification would be required, is the added value units, although they have not to be changed for the first 2 years.

Can anyone confirm if my understanding is correct or not?

[Robert Young]

30/08/2013 at 9:15 am

Attended an SQA event last Saturday and it was recommended that if you make changes to the unit assessments it is better to have them prior verified. For the simple reason that once you have them verified they can’t then come back and say they aren’t good enough plus it is free and the turn round isn’t very long. You can get the details about prior verifictaion online.

With regards to the Unit assessments be careful what you use since it was noted that the N4 BikeScotland Assessment in package 1 doesn’t meet the assessment criteria.

[a1an.robertson]

30/08/2013 at 10:07 am

Thanks Robert.

With respect to the N4 BikeScotland assessment, do you know if there are plans to revise it so that it does meet the criteria?

[pliddle34]

01/09/2013 at 9:31 pm

Why doesn’t it meet the criteria?
Robert/Alan: So I should put in for prior verification then?

Alan: You’re right in that you can do the “portfolio approach” of a host of assessments that fit into your course. I guess the SQA prior verification is just a double check that you won’t get issues presenting your own stuff for evidence later on then.

I’m going to send my programs in then to see what they say.

[Robert Young]

02/09/2013 at 8:12 am

The N4 Bike Scotland Assessment doesn’t meet the criteria because the questions on page 16 (i think) don’t ask about connectivity which is part of outcome 2.2. Also in the candidates’ example response what they say is a function of the website is really the purpose of the website.

It’s only a couple of little things wrng with BikeScotland but teh more worrying thing is that the SQA published something which wouldn’t pass verification.

[a1an.robertson]

02/09/2013 at 9:07 am

I certainly agree that it is a worry that this assessment has managed to be published. What is even more worrying is that there will be schools that have used this assessment already. Where will that leave them, I wonder.