Understanding Standards Advanced Higher Event Computing Science Aims

Understanding Standards: Advanced Higher Event Computing Science

Aims of the day To support teachers, lecturers and assessors in their understanding of national standards by: w reviewing candidate evidence w discussing this evidence and associated Marking Instructions with colleagues w asking questions and seeking clarification about national standards

Question Paper Analysis Overall candidate performance in the question paper was poorer than expected w average mark 22. 8 out of 60 w higher than expected no response, indicating that candidates were unfamiliar with several areas of content w stronger performance in questions associated with the predecessor Advanced Higher Computing qualification w weaker performance in questions associated with the predecessor Advanced Higher Information Systems qualification

Question Paper Analysis w Candidates appeared to find the ‘write-on’ style of the question paper challenging w This was especially evident in Question 4 where candidates were expected to decompose a problem and retain their train of thought across several parts of the question w As a result, the decision was taken to revert to use of answer booklets with a separate question paper

Question Paper: Strengths Content associated with the predecessor Advanced Higher Computing w Scope and constraints (question 2 a) w Stack operations (question 3 d part i) w Bubble sort (question 4 c and 4 d) New Computing Science content w Big data analytics (question 3 e)

Question Paper: Weaknesses Content associated with predecessor Advanced Higher Information Systems w HTML form tags (question 1 c part i) – Online Database Systems: Section II Part B w Server-side form processing (question 1 c part ii) – Online Database Systems: Section II Part B w Usability/accessibility testing (question 2 b part ii) – Information Systems Interfaces: Section II Part A

Question Paper: Weaknesses Content associated with predecessor Advanced Higher Computing w Queue operations (question 2 d) w Binary Search (question 4 a part ii)

Question Paper: Weaknesses New Computing Science content w UML diagrams (question 1 a and question 3 a part i) w Insertion sort (question 1 b part ii) w Intellectual Property Rights (question 2 b part i) w SQL CREATE statement (question 2 c part i) w Linked lists (question 3 d part i) w Problem decomposition (question 4 a part i) w Reading/writing to a database file (question 4 b)

UML Use Case Diagrams

UML Use Case Diagrams Expectation s UML use case diagram that uses standard symbols for actors, use cases and relationships Reality s No knowledge of UML use case diagrams s Many candidates did not respond to this question

UML Class Diagrams

UML Class Diagrams Expectation s Accurate description of OO terminology: class, object, encapsulation and inheritance … accompanied by relevant examples from the UML class diagram Reality s Rote learned descriptions that made no reference to the scenario or UML class diagram s Inaccurate interpretation of class diagram

Insert Sort

Insert Sort Expectation s Accurate description of insertion sort as it applies to data provided in the scenario Reality s Poor knowledge of insertion sort algorithm s the majority of candidates failed to notice that the required order was chronological, even though a statement explaining this had been provided

Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual Property Rights Expectation s Discussion of Intellectual Property Rights s Mention of relevant aspects of IPR including patents, copyright and trademarks s Application of IPR to scenario Reality s Vague description of Copyright, Design and Patents Act s Responses referred to scenario

SQL CREATE Statement

SQL CREATE Statement Expectation s Use of CREATE statement to indicate – ü Fields and appropriate data types ü Primary key ü Foreign key Reality s Few candidates indicated primary or foreign key s Correct list of fields and data types

Linked Lists

Linked Lists Expectation s Description that indicated use of node to store details of Russia s Description indicates how the pointer needs to be updated Reality s Most candidates failed to mention use made of a node to store details in a linked list s Accurate description of pointer updates

Problem Decomposition

Problem Decomposition Expectation s Top level design that indicates – ü record structure ü Declaration of array of records ü Required procedure calls Reality s Data structure not defined s Import and search procedure calls identified by most candidates

Reading/writing to Database File

Question Paper Changes Expectation s Pseudocode indicates sub-tasks to be performed: ü Connect to/ lose connection with database server ü Use of SQL UPDATE statement Reality s No attention paid to database file with responses using sequential file handling

Reading/writing to Database File Expectation s Pseudocode indicates sub-tasks to be performed ü Connect to/ lose connection with database server ü Use of SQL UPDATE statement Reality s No attention paid to database file with responses using sequential file handling

Workshop 1 s Review the scripts for candidates 1 - 4 against the Marking Instructions and award the appropriate mark s Discuss marks awarded with members of your group Ø Did everyone in the group give the same mark for each candidate? Ø If there were differences, what were the reasons for these? Ø If you all gave the same mark, did everyone do so for the same reasons?

WWW. sqa. org. uk│0303 333 0330