2. Understanding Standards: Advanced Higher Event
Computing Science

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

4. Question Paper Analysis
Overall candidate performance in the question paper was poorer than expected
average mark 22.8 out of 60
higher than expected no response, indicating that candidates were unfamiliar with several areas of content
stronger performance in questions associated with the predecessor Advanced Higher Computing qualification
weaker performance in questions associated with the predecessor Advanced Higher Information Systems qualification

5. Question Paper Analysis
Candidates appeared to find the ‘write-on’ style of the question paper challenging
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
As a result, the decision was taken to revert to use of answer booklets with a separate question paper

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

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

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

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

10. UML Use Case Diagrams

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

12. UML Class Diagrams

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

14. Insert Sort

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

16. Intellectual Property Rights

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

18. SQL CREATE Statement

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

20. Linked Lists

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

22. Problem Decomposition

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

24. Reading/writing to Database File

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

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

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