I am REALLY concerned that we’re all interpreting course content “on the hoof” here… and that the documentation is SO vague and unclear that we are all doing so in different ways.
Like Chris, I was at the SQA event in Stirling in June and I heard the message that said “animation” in answer to the question about frames and sequence, but clearly a lot of people weren’t there and it is not acceptable for the SQA to rely on the message getting out by word of mouth. They need to issue clear guidance to every Centre. The same is true of what is meant by “contemporary” (in terms of design notations or anywhere else where the term is used in the documentation). I understand that this is an attempt to “future proof” the course and that in a subject like Computing Science it is probably a necessary evil; but issuing a little clarification on what is “currently” meant by the term “contemporary” wouldn’t require the whole course to be rewritten regularly, it could simply go out as an update to Centres annually – or even every two years.
At the end of the day, whether or not we are teaching the right thing should not rely on whether or not we have interpreted an unclear statement in the way that the SQA (or the exam setters) have, or in some different way. That is simply not fair on the candidates; they are supposed to start with a level playing field not “get lucky” that their teacher happened to be released to go to a meeting at which someone coincidentally asked the right question. We need proper clarity and we need it issued nationally from the top.
Janet McDonald
.
