[Year 12 SofDev] sofdev Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12
Christophersen, Paula P
christophersen.paula.p at edumail.vic.gov.au
Thu Jun 9 06:56:38 AEST 2016
Dear colleagues
I'm responding to the query raised by Jayanti regarding the relationship between judgments made for scored assessment and S/N purposes.
In the context of a student wanting a scored assessment as well as a S/N judgment it is possible to use the same task, but the instrument/evidence you use to make both calls may differ.
The SAT rubric is primarily used for making a judgment for scored assessment purposes, not S and N. Officially there is no 'cut-off' or demarcation point that clearly says that if a student scores X then they also get N or S.
Satisfactory completion judgements are based on whether there is sufficient evidence to say that each outcome has been demonstrated. It is possible for a student to score quite well on the SAT but still not demonstrate the outcome. For example if a student fails to submit any evidence with respect to an aspect of the outcome such an evaluation component it means they have not demonstrated the outcome despite gaining a reasonable score for the SAT.
As a very general rule of thumb, if a student provides no evidence for a criterion it is reasonable to assume that the student would not be able to demonstrate the outcome. In this instance the school's redemption policy comes into play and you may ask for further evidence with respect to the missing component of the outcome statement. If further evidence is provided at the required standard, then the student is likely to put him or herself into the Satisfactory category. This contrasts sharply with the SAT conditions - you assess what was submitted at the designated times and there are no further opportunities for students to add evidence.
Happy to continue the discussion if further clarification is needed.
Regards
Paula
Paula Christophersen
Curriculum Manager, Digital Technologies
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
2 Lonsdale Street
MELBOURNE 3000
(03) 9032 1724
0407 043 110
-----Original Message-----
From: sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au] On Behalf Of Nayak, Jayanti S
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 8:46 PM
To: sofdev at edulists.com.au
Subject: Re: [Year 12 SofDev] sofdev Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12
Hi,
I have been trying to understand how to determine if the student will receive an "S" or an "N" for the SAT.
I was able to find these two points on the VCAA Assessment Handbook. Student "submits the work" ( I guess for each of the criteria) & Student " produces work that demonstrates achievement of the outcomes"
Do we say that student is awarded a "Satisfactory" if
a) they get 40% overall? Or
b) they get more than 4 out of 10 for each criteria Or
c) should submit evidence for each key area for each criteria -
example in case of design should have evaluation criteria, 3 design ideas and a detailed design.
in case of analysis tool, should have submitted UCD, DFD & CD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Nayak,
Info Tech Teacher,
Sunbury College, 30, Race Course Road,
Sunbury - 3429.
________________________________________
From: sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au [sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au] on behalf of sofdev-request at edulists.com.au [sofdev-request at edulists.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 4:05 PM
To: sofdev at edulists.com.au
Subject: sofdev Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12
Send sofdev mailing list submissions to
sofdev at edulists.com.au
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/sofdev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sofdev-request at edulists.com.au
You can reach the person managing the list at
sofdev-owner at edulists.com.au
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of sofdev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Limited SAT Scope and criteria (Ciappara, Anthony A)
2. Re: Limited SAT Scope and criteria (Robert Hind)
3. Re: Limited SAT Scope and criteria (Paragreen, Chris J)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 05:13:14 +0000
From: "Ciappara, Anthony A" <ciappara.anthony.a at edumail.vic.gov.au>
Subject: [Year 12 SofDev] Limited SAT Scope and criteria
To: "Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List"
<sofdev at edulists.com.au>
Message-ID:
<FD4333FBD248A446810B4D144270AC1D9201A549 at EDUMBX02.education.vic.gov.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi everybody
Just wondering how people handled marking criteria 1-3 when the size of SAT project scopes differed.
How does a limited SAT scope affect student results for criteria 1-3?
If a student has a simple SAT project with limited functions are they able to score maximum marks for criteria 1-3. What if they get everything right, it?s all perfect, but the project is just limited in size?
Eg. A student has a simple project. It validates data, does a simple calculation or two, saves data and allow the user to retrieve data. That?s it. They address all criteria perfectly, based on this simple project. All their diagrams, SRS and design work is perfect but quite basic because of their limited scope. Where do their results stand compared to a student who has a more difficult project and makes a couple errors? The student with the more difficult project has a lot more correct, good quality work than the student with the simple project.
I?ve read as much documentation as I can find but cannot see this scenario mentioned.
Thanks in advance
Anthony Ciappara
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/sofdev/attachments/20160608/04a593a7/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:52:21 +1000
From: "Robert Hind" <robert at yinnar.com>
Subject: Re: [Year 12 SofDev] Limited SAT Scope and criteria
To: "'Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List'"
<sofdev at edulists.com.au>
Message-ID: <989738F27551415B8479041900E025F0 at RobertPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am not teaching at present BUT on reading through criteria 1 to 3 it seems to me that the size of the project only comes into criterion 2 where for a top mark the student "
Acquires multiple complex data
sets of different types of data,
qualities and structures from both
primary and secondary data
sources. Uses appropriate
methods to acquire data from
both types of sources."
but the quantity of data is not specified.
Robert Hind
Ex Traralgon and Ashwood
Retired
_____
From: sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au]
On Behalf Of Ciappara, Anthony A
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 3:13 PM
To: Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List
Subject: [Year 12 SofDev] Limited SAT Scope and criteria
Hi everybody
Just wondering how people handled marking criteria 1-3 when the size of SAT project scopes differed.
How does a limited SAT scope affect student results for criteria 1-3?
If a student has a simple SAT project with limited functions are they able to score maximum marks for criteria 1-3. What if they get everything right, it's all perfect, but the project is just limited in size?
Eg. A student has a simple project. It validates data, does a simple calculation or two, saves data and allow the user to retrieve data. That's it. They address all criteria perfectly, based on this simple project. All their diagrams, SRS and design work is perfect but quite basic because of their limited scope. Where do their results stand compared to a student who has a more difficult project and makes a couple errors? The student with the more difficult project has a lot more correct, good quality work than the student with the simple project.
I've read as much documentation as I can find but cannot see this scenario mentioned.
Thanks in advance
Anthony Ciappara
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4591/12355 - Release Date: 06/03/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/sofdev/attachments/20160608/3fbc176c/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:05:20 +0000
From: "Paragreen, Chris J" <paragreen.chris.j at edumail.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Re: [Year 12 SofDev] Limited SAT Scope and criteria
To: "Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List"
<sofdev at edulists.com.au>
Message-ID:
<24FA816658066245B16CA829DA64B1AB7ED7D587 at EDUMBX04.education.vic.gov.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Anthony,
In helping my students set up their projects, I've tried to encourage them to have enough scope to be able to reach the maximum available marks. Some students have not shown includes or extends in their UCDs, so this has limited their marks in that area. One student's project was so basic that there was no practical way for him to show substantial differences between his designs, so he was penalised in that regard.
Perhaps answering your question more directly, I've tried to award marks to my students wherever they have demonstrated relevant skills and understanding, however so slight. While I haven't finished assessing all of my students yet, so far the students who put more detail in were technically more proficient anyway. I suspect the larger the scope of the project, the more students will have access to marks in U4O1 to achieve the desired spread.
Chris Paragreen
Kew High School
From: sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:sofdev-bounces at edulists.com.au] On Behalf Of Ciappara, Anthony A
Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 3:13 PM
To: Year 12 Software Development Teachers' Mailing List <sofdev at edulists.com.au>
Subject: [Year 12 SofDev] Limited SAT Scope and criteria
Hi everybody
Just wondering how people handled marking criteria 1-3 when the size of SAT project scopes differed.
How does a limited SAT scope affect student results for criteria 1-3?
If a student has a simple SAT project with limited functions are they able to score maximum marks for criteria 1-3. What if they get everything right, it's all perfect, but the project is just limited in size?
Eg. A student has a simple project. It validates data, does a simple calculation or two, saves data and allow the user to retrieve data. That's it. They address all criteria perfectly, based on this simple project. All their diagrams, SRS and design work is perfect but quite basic because of their limited scope. Where do their results stand compared to a student who has a more difficult project and makes a couple errors? The student with the more difficult project has a lot more correct, good quality work than the student with the simple project.
I've read as much documentation as I can find but cannot see this scenario mentioned.
Thanks in advance
Anthony Ciappara
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/sofdev/attachments/20160608/8d72574a/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
sofdev mailing list
sofdev at edulists.com.au
http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/sofdev
End of sofdev Digest, Vol 135, Issue 12
***************************************
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
_______________________________________________
http://www.edulists.com.au - FAQ, Subscribe, Unsubscribe IT Software Development Mailing List kindly supported by http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au - Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority and http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/infotech/softwaredevel3-4.html
http://www.vitta.org.au - VITTA Victorian Information Technology Teachers Association Inc http://www.swinburne.edu.au/ict/schools - Swinburne University
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Training.
More information about the sofdev
mailing list