[Peter Graham]

02/03/2023 at 3:18 pm

Is it just me, or is there an output missing from the functional requirements v the structure diagram? Pupils being asked to output something, however not clear what they wish to be output and does not match to anything in the functional requirements. Know I cannot be much clearer on here as it is an active coursework, however, very confused currently.

• This topic was modified 3 months ago by Peter Graham.

[Denis Soames]

02/03/2023 at 4:42 pm

i would agree, the testing offers some clarity on the expected outputs making the display “stage” box more obvious, but I’m not certain all my students have picked up on that

[Calum Gordon]

06/03/2023 at 9:17 am

Yes, I would agree it is unclear what is to be output and in what order. The order of outputs required is also different each time in requirements, structure diagram and test data table.

[derek_s]

06/03/2023 at 9:54 am

Based on all of the previous tasks and the Understanding Standards events, I would say follow the design provided.

As long as the code matches the design it will be fine.

[Enrico Vanni]

06/03/2023 at 10:26 am

The problem is that the design is vague and almost certainly contains at least one error/inconsistency.

Des Hamilton made a very accurate critique of the task here…

https://www.compednet.com/groups/national-5-computing-science/forum/topic/2023-practical-assessment-part-1b/page/2/

I agree with his point that (once again) the task represents an example of complication via obfuscation (and not a little carelessness). We were told that a level of complexity is required to differentiate between more and less able candidates, but the differentiation should come from the difficulty in completing the task itself, not via the candidate’s ability to access the task by having to interpret the setter’s intentions when they are obscured or inadequately expressed.

‘Follow the design’ – absolutely (and this is the overriding advice I repeat incessantly to my learners), but what is the candidate supposed to do when bits of the design are missing or incorrect (or requires them to do something that isn’t in the Course Specification)? For example – the validation that the candidate is supposed to design in part A is absent from the complete diagram later on. So, is a candidate who gets part A wrong then going to be penalised again later for the same error, despite it being a major totem of SQA marking that this should never be the case?

There is a fair bit wrong with this N5 SDD task in terms of how it has been constructed which is brought into focus by the Higher SDD task that demonstrated that an assessment can be complex yet accessible.

[derek_s]

06/03/2023 at 11:46 am

I am not saying that I think the task is perfect. I agree that there are many candidates that will struggle with understanding this task. Even the incessant reminders of follow the instructions, follow the plan will not be enough.
I feel there are clarity issues in wording and that the data structures that are required are unnecessary as same outcome both in terms of the data displayed and the values calculated could have been achieved in a less complex manner.

But there are also some assumptions being made here. For example…..

For example – the validation that the candidate is supposed to design in part A is absent from the complete diagram later on. So, is a candidate who gets part A wrong then going to be penalised again later for the same error, despite it being a major totem of SQA marking that this should never be the case?

Do we even know if this will be part of the marks awarded for the code? Maybe yes, maybe no.

I do think there should be increased clarity if the code is required – but it does say Validated in the design. So is this an example of a couple of marks that an A candidate would pick up on from the design, maybe so. This does demonstrate a higher skill level of interpreting a design.
BUT I do agree, the kids should have been able to keep their design from 1A, especially since no design is provided in 1B. I don’t see the benefit gained from its removal.

As happens every year, there are strong opinions and thoughts on these tasks. They are never going to be perfect. This years N5 is a tougher task in parts, complicated by a more complex description. No doubt there will be comments about next years task etc etc.