National 5 Computing Science course. A group to discuss, share and develop the new National 5 Computing Science course.
Enrico Vanni.
dbrowningJust looking at the games review coursework and in the “Stage 2: Building a solution (program design) ” is says that the design needs to include a loop for 4 pages. So if a pupil just gets the program to enter the 4 page views individually into 4 integers that will not do?? Nowhere does it ask for a loop to be used as far as I can see. Are pupils supposed to realise they need to do this? If not they get marks off. Seems harsh!
Roderick RamsayIt’s a weakness in the specification. Although N5 is expected to use loops it’s not explicitly asked for. N5 are also expected to use arrays but this is also not explicitly asked for. When you compare the Games Review programming task with the Int2 Youth Orchestra task of around 6 years ago the programming in GR is almost trivial. Doesn’t stop them getting it wrong though.
It’s unreasonable to take marks off if a pupil writes a program that meets the specification as written.
Enrico VanniHere we go again! Another instance of the assessor having a solution in mind and writing the marking instructions around that solution, thus the inference is that the candidate has to guess what the assessor wanted rather than it being specified in the Instructions to Candidates, the consequence of which being that ‘correct’ solutions that do not match the assessors interpretation might not get credit. What ever happened to ‘personalisation and choice’?!
IMO if a candidate’s solution meets the requirements of the task as specified in their instructions, and uses constructs appropriate for that level then that should suffice.
There is something similar in the Music Fans N5 programming task where the marking scheme assumes that the candidate will use a ‘traditional’ input validation loop, but doing so would necessitate the candidate writing a program that would require the user to enter 18 items of data every time the program is tested, which is time consuming, soul destroying and of no educational value.
The more sensible approach is to have the data assigned to parallel arrays within the program code, and then a fixed loop is used to cycle through the array to be validated, each item in the array being checked in turn using an if..then..else so that invalid entries are skipped with a suitable error message being displayed and only valid entries are processed, but the marking scheme isn’t worded in a way that this solution would suffice.
dbrowningSo what do we do in this case? Either:
1. Let the kids get on with it and they’ll not use loops or an array and then they lose marks.
2. Let the kids get on with it and they’ll not use loops or an array and ignore this part of the making scheme and then probably get pulled up if/when we’re verified?
3. Tell them that they need to use loops and arrays before they do it?
Thoughts?
Andy McSwanI think it comes down to how they solve it, you’ll get some who can and will use the loops/arrays and are deserving of the higher mark for applying the skills they’ve learned to meet the specification most efficiently.
Even if they use the loops their is no requirement to use an array, they can add and print out straight in the loop (programming language dependent), it would mean they wouldn’t make a procedural program though (which I think most of us try to teach them to do in N5 but again there is no requirement for this).
In my eyes if they create 4 variables and and input validate each variable and meet every other condition they’d get the 8 marks.
If I were in your position I’d let them get on with it, those who complete the task, towards the end of the assignment after they’ve completed the website explain to them that their program isn’t the most efficient solution they could have completed and they have time to try to earn the extra 2 marks if they want to.
I will say it looks like they can be penalised twice by the marking scheme if they don’t use loops which doesn’t seem fair.
dbrowningI’ve emailed Raymond to see what he says. If I’m honest I’m expecting him to say that they need loops and arrays and that any “decent” pupil would know this and that’s that despite this not being clear but we live in hope that common sense will prevail.
dbrowningSadly I was right…. Response from Raymond below..
Dear Dave
We don’t specify to the candidates what structures that they have to use but we would expect them to use their knowledge of the structures covered in the course to know that they should be using a loop – it is Nat 5 after all. I would like them to use arrays but I don’t see anything in the marking scheme that would penalise a candidate who didn’t use arrays. As the marker of the assignments you have to mark with the marking instructions provided, even if you don’t agree with them, that way everyone in the country is marked in the same way.
Regards
Kirsteen Nakau@Enrico the program part of Music fans is just dealing with the loyal fans which is the output from part one database activity or so I thought but i did have a melt down last week when I realised I had misread the task thinking they had to calculate cost of all tickets and not just the Newcastle one! When I re-read the task carefully I spotted my mistake… The program has to select 2 loyal fans to get a VIP pass so it is only the fans that have attended 3 or more concerts that need processed. I look at a range of sample activities with them one using array and fixed loop, one using an array with a max upper limit but program asks for the number of data entries so that you can test using just one entry and not have to loop 9 or 10 times and a third example using a conditional loop with upper limit due to array dimension but program asks if you wish to continue after each entry. I then hope that they have the skills to make an informed choice (hope would be bold, italice underlined -fingers crossed).
I know from one of our council workshops last year when we looked at some of the tasks there were a whole range of different interpretations of the task.
Enrico VanniThe idea of asking for a number of inputs first is a good get-around, but again that would require a pupil adding something to the task that was not specified just to counter the pedantry of the marking scheme.
The 18 data inputs come from the fact that there are 9 names and 9 numbers having to be processed by the program (the ‘loyal fans’ as generated by the query in the database section).
IMO having the data processed as a batch in two arrays rather than individual inputs dovetails better with Higher Courseworks where the candidate would have to read the contents of a file into arrays or a record prior to processing (which is where I believe the Music Fans task was originally going with candidates having to import files into databases and programs before someone realised that was a step too far at that level, hence the strange dissociation/association between inputs and outputs of each part of the task).
With regards to Raymond’s response (and no disrespect to him) this approach to ‘clarification’ has to stop. It has been said before and it bears repeating, an email response to one person is not a way to disseminate important information like this, and CompEdNet is not an official channel for SQA news. The documents are what they are, and until official clarification is issued then ambiguities have to be accounted for and the benefit of the doubt must always go the candidate’s way.
To ‘mark with the marking instructions provided’ when the instructions do not match the task goes against another fundamental principle of the new regime, that a pupil should not be negatively marked but rewarded for what they have achieved. They are not mind-readers, and if we start making up for what is missing in the instructions by informing them what is in the marking scheme then we are leading them to the expected answers which is in itself a no-no.
mcgivernjIn simple terms it’s option 3.
Tell them at the outset they MUST use a loop.
Then mark to the assessment standards.
And next year the assessment should clarify that a loop MUST be required (unless we’ve got centralised marking and new coursework tasks issued each year by that stage).
Enrico VanniSurely ‘option 3’ means leading them to the solution, which means having to mark them down automatically because of assistance given? Applying the rules to the letter means the candidates will lose marks instantly if you do this, therefore the only way to get full marks is for the teacher to say nothing and for the candidate to by chance produce exactly the solution dictated by the marking scheme, which goes back to my point about reading the assessor’s mind.
Best case scenario is that they co-incidentally adopt the lead assessor’s restrictive interpretation of the task and the marks are gained. Otherwise they do it differently and lose the marks even though the solution is correct, or you tell them what is expected and they lose the marks anyway?!?!
The people responsible for this have to accept that this looks bad and it stretches their credibility.
mcgivernjYou’re overthinking this Enrico.
“You’ll need a loop in this guys” and on they go. Not a level of assistance that warrants a penalty.
Enrico VanniIn principle I agree with you, but it seems we are being held to the letter of the marking scheme, so by the same token anything that is deemed to be leading them to the solution falls foul of the same rules. Sauce for the goose and all that….
Richard ScottI am looking at the marking for the Web Development part of the Games Review N5 coursework task.
As I see it the marking scheme allocates marks as follows:
Stage 2: Building a solution. Part 1: Design an information system [10 marks]
for designing the structure of the site and the layout of the pages. Approx 3 periods (max).
Stage 2: Building a solution. Part 2: Build an information system [10 marks]
for developing a website with 5 html pages and incorporating all necessary media. Adding a counter. My pupils create a counter using JavaScript and style all the pages using CSS. This is several weeks worth of work.
Is it only me that has an issue with the balance of marks between these two items? 5:15 would seem fairer. Perhaps I am interpreting this all wrong. I contacted Dave Main and was told that I cannot adjust the balance of marks between these items…
“Centres cannot alter or refine the marking instructions for our Course Assignments (or Course Project at Advanced Higher), these must be used exactly as they are.”
Roderick RamsayI think that N5 students need to know what JavaScript and CSS are but they do not need to program in them for the assignment. They can be given suitable Javascript or can get it themselves from the web. The pages need to be consistent but do not HAVE to be manged by CSS.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.