1. GCE Software Systems Development
A2 Agreement Trial
Implementing Solutions October 2017

2. Agenda Welcome and Introduction Summer 2016/7
Administration Considerations
Specification Overview
E-Candidate Record sheets
The A2 2 Assessment Criteria
Exemplar 1-Table Marking
Exemplar 2 -Table Marking
Exemplar 3 – Table Marking
Demo of good practice
Events Unlimited case study

3. Thanks
For this year it is acknowledged that there was a marked improvement for the centres delivering the A2 syllabus.
There is no doubt that the implementation of the syllabus was demanding for both staff and students and the course has a steep learning curve for new students.
The staff and students are to be commended for their hard work and efforts in submitting the work before the required deadline.

4. Summer 2016/17 Third Cohort to achieve the A2 award.
Work was submitted from 37 centres.
248 candidates in total – 52 females, 196 males.
2016 in total 91 – 25 female – 66 males.
In 2015/16 Top 3 candidates all female.
In 2016/17 2 male and 1 Female

5. Malpractice awareness
JCQ Guidance (
Instructions for conducting controlled assessments
Instructions for conducting coursework
Expected malpractice in examination or assessments
Plagiarism in examinations
Authentication of candidate’s work
Plagiarism, collusion or copying
Pre- entry or pre-authentication school issue.
Post- entry or post-authentication report to CCEA.
Completion of internal assessments under the required conditions.
Improper assistance: any act of assistance given beyond that permitted in specification or regulation.
Important to read JCQ guidance, also has useful info for candidate guidance and school policies
Teacher requirement to sign authentication that candidate’s work is own individual effort, completed under required subject conditions. Important this is completed or marks cannot be accepted. Signature is your confirmation all work is their own, no additional help given (if so should be noted and marked accordingly), and work reflects ability observed during course.
Be aware of possible candidate malpractice:
content taken from internet or other sources which is not been appropriately referenced; copy of JCQ guidance on this for you;
students working collaboratively beyond what’s permitted and which could impact on ability to award fair individual mark;
students copying – note: student allowing work to be copied is also malpractice and will be subject to a penalty which removes marks either from section or whole unit
If candidate is entered a unit and has signed authentication documentation when malpractice found, should be reported to CCEA, otherwise use centre’s internal procedures
Malpractice found annually in candidate work submitted for moderation. School will be asked to investigate – may be candidate or teacher malpractice (e.g. copying/plagiarism – would controls have allowed this to happen or does this indicate conditions not followed).
Important spec guidelines on completing IA followed – where not, this is teacher malpractice
Teacher malpractice: mostly likely to come under category improper assistance – any act where assistance is given beyond what is allowed to a candidate or group of candidates which results in a potential or actual advantage in assessment – depending on subject rules may vary, JCQ list includes:
advice on specific improvements to meet the criteria;
detailed advice/suggestions as to how work may be improved;
providing writing frames (outlines, paragraph headings or section headings); etc
Drafting: c’work – candidates free to revise and redraft without teacher involvement before submitting final piece/ CA – where allowed, teachers may review work and provide advice at a general level
Similarities in students’ work noted during moderation will be investigated.
Penalties for teacher malpractice listed in JCQ documentation.

8. Instructions for Conducting Coursework

9. SQL Server / SQL file
For student enhancement we would recommend that centres encourage the use of SQL server when creating the required database.
Where centres use internal wizards to create the database within the solution, the impact is that the candidates may not understand the SQL that is being handled by the wizard.
It is also recommended that candidates name the database in the solution with their candidate number included e.g. events1234 or something similar.
We also require a separate file with the SQL statements required to create the database & tables and populate the tables with enough sample data to allow the moderators to examine the functionality of the system.
We appreciate the constraints imposed by the C2K environment in doing this.

10. Administration Considerations
Files for assessment must be submitted on CD/USB pens, we would recommend a USB pen as some centres submitting multiple CD’s.
Submissions must include the executable program, the project files and the word processed report in pdf format preferably, including appendices.
User guides should be a separate document.
Database backup must be included as a .bak file for each solution.

11. Administration Considerations
Indicate on online Electronic Candidate record sheets (ECRS) username and password for solutions for each candidate or in a separate file for each centre. This is not a requirement for A2.
Submissions must be thoroughly tested prior to hand in and tested on different machines, some solutions were tested on local machines but when transferred to CD/USB pens issues arose with pathnames etc.
Imperative that centres indicate with comments and specific page numbers where candidates were awarded credit on the online ECRS.

12. Administration Considerations
Example of detailed ECRS comments

13. Administration Considerations
It is helpful for centres to put notes for moderation in a separate file highlighting specific candidate issues.

14. Specification Overview
Unit
Assessment Method
Unit AS 1: Introduction to Object Oriented Development
External Assessment
2 hour Question Paper
Unit AS 2: Event Driven Programming
Internal Assessment
Development of interactive game/quiz
Software solution and portfolio of evidence
Unit A2 1: Systems Approaches and Database Concepts
Unit A2 2: Implementing Solutions
Based on pre-release material
Software solution and Portfolio of evidence

15. The A2 2 Assessment Criteria

16. AO1 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of project management techniques. This is evidenced by the provision of a comprehensive project plan showing the full range of tasks, resources and timescales using relevant software.”

17. AO1 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of the need to adopt a suitable approach to the solution.
This is evidenced by the clear identification of a range of approaches to the solution.”

18. AO1 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of User Requirements.
This is evidenced by the provision of a comprehensive User Requirements specification that is very well structured and contains all necessary elements.
The User Requirements specification will relate explicitly to the outcomes of research of the problem.”

19. AO1 – Level 4
Background
A brief overview of Mitchell School of Music Case Study , focussing on subsection that candidate is producing solution for.
Problem Identification
Identify problems with the current system.
Identify System Approach
Analyse all the approached to software development and chose an approach to apply to the solution.
Time Plan
Gantt Chart/PERT Chart (Detailed breakdown of tasks, time and resources used)

20. AO1 – Level 4 Issues encountered in 16/17 :
Covering all aspects of case study then selected a sub section after project planning.
Too many user requirements, not focussed on subsection and not from a client point of view. These need to followed through in the solution, also be careful about technical language used in requirements.
Label/number user requirements for ease of reference throughout solution.
Charts very hard to read and lack detail.

21. AO1 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent knowledge and understanding of a documented design. This is evidenced by the production of a highly detailed design specification that includes a valid data model, structure, input specifications, processes, output specifications, screen designs and report specifications. The design shows comprehensive evidence of testing.”

22. AO1 – Level 4 Issues encountered in 16/17 :
Normalisation not carried out and/or documented incorrectly, need to comment on what is being achieved at each Normal Form.
ERDs were incomplete, the final ERD can only be documented after 3rd Normal Form has been implemented. The ERD should contain reference to the relationship between entities, and the cardinality notations defining the attributes of the relationship between the entities.
Duplication of design information for every screen, the use of template form should be encouraged giving general properties of the form including logo placement, colour, font and theme with guidance on position.
The events for each individual form should be documented within the design and where possible linked back to user requirements.
Feedback on the designs from the client should be encouraged.

23. AO2 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent application of knowledge and skills to the solution of the problem using a RDMS.
This is evidenced by a comprehensive working solution to the specified problem that has a good quality, user friendly user interface.”

24. AO2 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent knowledge and skills regarding the development of a solution to multiple tables showing the ability to: add: delete: update and display comprehensive related data from multiple tables. Candidates generate a report of related data demonstrating manipulation of data reported to a very high standard."

25. AO2 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent application of knowledge and skills of the solution. This is evidenced by the production of a CD or alternative electronic media containing the code to create and populate the supporting database; the code used to develop the solution; and a highly detailed instructional user guide.”

26. AO2 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent application of knowledge and skills to the testing of the solution.
This is evidenced by the production of a comprehensive test plan and a detailed range of representative sample test outcomes.”

27. AO2 – Level 4
The test plan, where appropriate, should use specific values for test data and for expected output.
Test should be driven by the user requirements and reference accordingly.

28. AO2 – Level 4
If testing is comprehensive and meets the needs of the user requirements then all relevant screenshots should be included. Note repeated testing is not required if the same or similar testing has previously been carried and the desired result achieved, then this can be referenced within test plan.
Moderators will run the program in advance and view the code used.
Program code should include relevant comment relating to each method, class, or complex coding section etc.

29. AO2 – Level 4 Reporting Expectations
It is very easy to publish table information into a report.
But where the higher marking band has been awarded the expectation would be that the data in the reports would based on a query containing data from multiple tables.
Also within the report a calculation field would be used to demonstrate the candidate's knowledge in this area.

30. AO2 – Level 4 Issues encountered in 16/17 :
Issues with HCI for screens, including colours, text size on forms, forms not named correctly, lots of scrolling required, no menu system making it hard to navigate around solution.
Validation issues around data being input into system during moderation, causing system to crash instead of producing error message.
System lacking basic functionality.
Able to delete critical information from system, i.e. delete student record from system where monies owed and no messages.
Sample or Representative testing not being used thus making testing labour intensive for candidate.
Lack of failed tests, recording of ongoing testing should be implemented.
Issues/errors appearing during moderation process that were not encountered in candidate testing, peer testing encouraged.

31. AO3 – Level 4
“Candidate demonstrates excellent analysis and evaluation skills. This is evidenced by highly detailed reference to the tasks, resources and timescales contained in the project plan.
Candidate explains the impact of change on the project plan and the completion of the project.”

32. AO3 – Level 4
“Candidate makes very detailed reference to the user requirements and comprehensively evaluates how they have been fulfilled.
Candidate demonstrates excellent analysis and evaluation of the range of possible approaches to the solution of the problem as well as a thorough justification and explanation of the selected approach.
Candidate provides excellent evaluation of test procedures.”

33. AO3 – Level 4
“Candidate provides excellent evaluative comment regarding the solution to the problem. Candidate demonstrates excellent application of analysis and evaluation of the solution evidenced by the provision of a podcast. Candidate makes very detailed evaluative comment regarding their own performance. Relevant material is succinct, well organised and presented with a high degree of clarity and coherence. Use of specialist vocabulary and spelling, punctuation and grammar is excellent.”

34. AO3 - Level 4 Evaluation of user requirements
Copy and paste the user requirements and under each state the degree to which you have achieved this. For evidence refer to where in the testing this can be found and you can enhance this by pasting some of the coding used. 
Evaluation of approach to the solution
Refer back to the different options considered and reiterate how the SQL and C# frontend provides a more flexible customised approach.

35. AO3 – Level 4 Evaluation of project plan
Comment on how the implementation matched the proposed development. Discuss the tasks set out, the resources and timescales suggested. Explain the impact of change on the project plan.
Evaluation of Test procedures
Did you follow through the strategy you suggested at the start of the testing, did you encounter any difficulties?

36. AO3 – Level 4 Evaluation of solution
Overall comment on how effective your final solution is, refer to strengths and limitations and areas for further improvement.
Evaluation of own performance
Use your diary to discuss how you approached the work in relation to your studies, discuss time management, show how you organised, stored and backed up your work. Screen shot relevant folders. Show how you used comments on coding, standard industry naming formats and version of development.

37. AO3 – Level 4
Portfolios should be presented appropriately, with grammar and spelling checked.
This should be one WP file or one PDF.
Appendices for the inclusion of additional material like screen dumps, survey feedback etc. should be used.
All portfolios should include a table of contents with page numbers to assist the moderation process.

38. AO3 – Level 4 Issues encountered in 16/17 :
For some candidates there was still a lack of detailed evidence which resulted in some centres being lenient in the marking awarded for AO3.
The evaluations should make reference to the full range of requirements documented in AO1, which is required to demonstrate the robustness of the solution, and the commentary should be evaluative in its language.
User requirements that were not met, reasons not included in AO3 and just ignored.
No table of contents or headings used for some documentation.

39. Exemplars & Table Marking