Home A - Z
Page Index

An Otter Wiki

Commit 530bd6

2026-04-25 22:54:52 lisa: Add C04 wiki content (DRAFT) — landing page, Resources rows Light first pass: C04-home, 1 key-concept page marked DRAFT (Evaluation vs Testing), 4 external resource rows in C04-Resources.md (Isaac CS: testing/evaluation, design evaluation, wireframe annotation, evaluation criteria). Excalidraw template and teacher-recorded videos remain un-ticked in backlog. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
/dev/null .. sd/C04/C04-home.md
@@ 0,0 1,21 @@
+# C04 — Skills in Generating Design Ideas and Developing Evaluation Criteria
+
+Hamilton College · Year 12 · 2026
+
+Criterion 4 covers two linked tasks: generating design ideas using ideation techniques (mood boards, brainstorming, mind mapping, sketches), and developing evaluation criteria that connect those ideas back to your SRS. You will annotate all design work and build an evaluation matrix that explains and justifies which design elements should proceed to detailed designs.
+
+---
+
+## Key concepts
+
+Short explainers for the concepts most commonly confused or under-done at each rubric band:
+
+- [Evaluation vs Testing](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20vs%20Testing) — why a solution can pass all tests and still fail evaluation; the exact distinction the 7–10 band requires you to hold
+
+## Resources
+
+- [C04 Resources](/sd/Resources/C04-Resources) — per-topic reading and external resources for ideation techniques, annotation, evaluation criteria, efficiency and effectiveness, and SRS-linked criteria
+
+---
+
+← Back to [VCE Software Development Hub](/sd/VCE%20Software%20Development%20Hub)
/dev/null .. sd/C04/Evaluation vs Testing.md
@@ 0,0 1,90 @@
+> **DRAFT** — under teacher review.
+
+# Evaluation vs Testing — What's the Difference?
+
+Hamilton College · Year 12 · 2026
+
+One of the most persistent mistakes in C4-2 is writing about *testing* when the rubric is asking about *evaluation*. These two processes are defined differently, use different evidence, and answer different questions. You can pass every test and still fail an evaluation criterion.
+
+---
+
+## The one-sentence rule
+
+| Process | One-sentence definition | Question it answers |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Testing** | Checking whether the software works correctly | "Does it **do** what it is supposed to do?" |
+| **Evaluation** | Judging how well the software meets the criteria set at design time | "Does it meet the **standard** we set?" |
+
+Testing is binary: the system either passes or fails a test case. Evaluation is a judgement against a criterion — and the criterion was derived from an SRS requirement.
+
+---
+
+## A concrete example
+
+Imagine a student builds an event-booking app. Here are three test results:
+
+| Test | Result |
+|---|---|
+| User can search for events | Pass |
+| Booking confirmation email is sent | Pass |
+| All records saved correctly to file | Pass |
+
+All tests pass. Now look at the evaluation matrix:
+
+| Criterion | SRS Requirement | Score (1–5) | Result |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| A first-time user shall complete a booking in under 4 minutes without assistance | NFR2 — Usability | 2 | **Fails criterion** |
+| The event list shall load in under 2 seconds on school Wi-Fi | NFR1 — Performance | 4 | Meets criterion |
+
+The app *works* (tests pass) but *does not meet the usability standard* (evaluation fails). Testing cannot catch this — only evaluation can.
+
+This is the distinction the rubric language at 7–8 and 9–10 is checking:
+
+> *"Uses the evaluation criteria to explain which elements of the design ideas should be further developed…"* — 7–8 band
+
+> *"Uses the evaluation criteria to **justify** which elements…"* — 9–10 band
+
+The rubric is asking you to reason from criterion scores, not from test results.
+
+---
+
+## The most common mistakes
+
+### Mistake 1: Treating testing as evaluation
+
+> ~~"I evaluated the app by running three test cases. All tests passed, so the design is good."~~
+
+Test pass rates are not evaluation evidence. You need criterion scores linked to SRS requirements.
+
+### Mistake 2: Writing evaluation criteria that are just test cases
+
+> ~~"Criterion: The search function returns results."~~
+
+This is a test case disguised as a criterion — it is binary (pass/fail) and measures whether a feature exists, not how well it works. A genuine evaluation criterion must be measurable against a standard, for example: *"The search function returns results in under 1.5 seconds on a standard device."*
+
+### Mistake 3: Inventing criteria that float free of the SRS
+
+> ~~"Criterion: The interface is attractive."~~
+
+Attractiveness is a valid effectiveness factor, but only if your SRS included a requirement about it. If it is not in the SRS, you cannot evaluate against it — you would be judging the solution against a goal you never set.
+
+---
+
+## Why VCAA cares
+
+At **5–6**, the rubric requires you to *develop and apply evaluation criteria*. This means you need actual criteria with scoring, not a description of test results.
+
+At **7–8**, you must *use the evaluation criteria to explain* decisions. This means referencing specific scores: "Design Idea A scored 4/5 for usability because..."
+
+At **9–10**, you must *use the evaluation criteria to justify* decisions. This means arguing that the scores demonstrate a design element is worth developing further, with explicit links back to SRS requirements.
+
+---
+
+## See also
+
+- [Isaac Computer Science — Testing and Evaluation (GCSE)](https://isaaccomputerscience.org/concepts/gcse_sys_testing_evaluation) — clear explainer distinguishing testing from evaluation; UK origin but concept is identical to VCE
+- C04 Resources: [external reading and resources](/sd/Resources/C04-Resources)
+
+---
+
+← Back to [C04 Home](/sd/C04/C04-home) · [VCE Software Development Hub](/sd/VCE%20Software%20Development%20Hub)
sd/Resources/C04-Resources.md ..
@@ 20,6 20,7 @@
| [13 Productive Brainstorming Techniques](https://creately.com/guides/visual-brainstorming-techniques/) | Creately | Reading + visual guide | Brainstorming, divergent thinking | Covers multiple brainstorming techniques with visual examples. Helps students go beyond basic brainstorming into structured techniques. |
| [UX Ideation Techniques](https://www.justinmind.com/ux-design/ideation-techniques) | Justinmind | Reading | Ideation techniques, design ideas, convergent/divergent thinking | Professional-grade overview of ideation techniques including SCAMPER, crazy 8s, brainwriting. Extends beyond the basic four techniques in the study design. |
| [VCAA Advice for Teachers — Software Development](https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/curriculum/vce/vce-study-designs/computing/advice-for-teachers/Pages/Unit3SoftwareDevelopmentOverview.aspx) | VCAA | Reading | All C4 topics — official guidance | The authority. Teachers should read this to understand VCAA expectations for ideation and design ideas. |
+| [Isaac Computer Science — Wireframes and Prototyping](https://isaaccomputerscience.org/concepts/gcse_design_wireframes) | Isaac Computer Science (UK) | Reading + exercises | C4-1: annotations — labelling elements with purpose and functionality, not just appearance | Covers what wireframe annotations should communicate: not just what an element is, but what it does and why it is placed there. Directly addresses the 7–8 band gap where students label elements without explaining functionality. UK GCSE origin; concept maps cleanly to VCE annotation requirements. |
### Gaps — C4-1
@@ 43,17 44,29 @@
| [VCAA Assessment Page — Software Development](https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/curriculum/vce-curriculum/vce-study-designs/applied-computing-software-development/assessment) | VCAA | Reading | Evaluation criteria — official requirements | Official VCAA guidance on what the SAT assessment expects for evaluation criteria. The authority on what "develops and applies evaluation criteria" means. |
| [Farrell's VCE Software Development — SAT Overview](https://farrellv0.wixsite.com/softwaredevelopment/sat) | Teacher resource (Wix site) | Reading | Design folio, evaluation criteria | Overview of SAT expectations including design folio and evaluation criteria. Useful for understanding context. |
| [VCAA Sample Project Plan (Gantt Chart)](https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/curriculum/vce/vce-study-designs/computing/advice-for-teachers-appliedcomputing/Pages/SampleProjectPlanGanttChartImageDescription.aspx) | VCAA | Visual example | Links evaluation criteria to project planning | Official VCAA example showing how evaluation connects to broader project methodology. |
+| [Isaac Computer Science — Testing and Evaluation](https://isaaccomputerscience.org/concepts/gcse_sys_testing_evaluation) | Isaac Computer Science (UK) | Reading + exercises | C4-2: evaluation vs testing — the distinction load-bearing at 7–10 band | Clearly separates testing (does it work?) from evaluation (does it meet the standard we set?). Includes self-test questions. Use alongside the [Evaluation vs Testing](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20vs%20Testing) wiki page, which adds VCE-specific examples. UK GCSE origin; concept is identical to VCE. |
+| [Isaac Computer Science — Design Evaluation](https://isaaccomputerscience.org/concepts/gcse_design_evaluation) | Isaac Computer Science (UK) | Reading + exercises | C4-2: efficiency and effectiveness — distinguishing the two factors in an evaluation matrix | Covers efficiency (resource use, speed) vs effectiveness (how well the solution meets its purpose) with worked examples. Addresses the most common conflation error in student evaluation matrices. UK GCSE origin; concept maps directly to VCE efficiency/effectiveness factors. |
+| [Isaac Computer Science — Evaluation Criteria (A Level)](https://isaaccomputerscience.org/concepts/a_level_evaluation_criteria) | Isaac Computer Science (UK) | Reading + exercises | C4-2: evaluation criteria linked to requirements — the SRS-anchor step most students skip | Explains how evaluation criteria must be derived from and traced back to defined requirements — not invented independently. Directly addresses the 9–10 band expectation. A Level depth; some sections go beyond VCE scope but the requirements-traceability concept is essential. UK origin. |
+
+### Wiki pages for C4-2
+
+| Page | What it covers |
+|---|---|
+| [Evaluation vs Testing](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20vs%20Testing) | Why passing all tests does not mean passing evaluation; concrete worked example; the most common rubric mistakes at 5–6, 7–8, 9–10 (DRAFT) |
### Gaps — C4-2
-- **No video explaining efficiency vs effectiveness** in a VCE Software Development context. This is a concept students consistently confuse.
-- **Evaluation matrix worked examples** are scarce online. The Criterion04/ templates are the best available resource.
-- **Connecting evaluation criteria back to SRS requirements** — no good external resource shows this linkage clearly. The sat-c-4-2 materials in Criterion04/ are the best option; consider creating a video walkthrough.
+- **No video explaining efficiency vs effectiveness** in a VCE Software Development context. The Isaac CS reading resource above partially covers this, but a 2-min side-by-side scenario video (fast app with wrong output vs slow correct app) would close it cleanly. Teacher-recorded.
+- **Evaluation matrix worked examples** — no external resource shows a complete filled-in matrix for a school software project. The Criterion04/ templates are the best available. A blank Markdown template (stripped of the travel-planner example) is the highest-priority teacher-created asset.
+- **Writing a justification paragraph** — no external resource walks through the design justification section step by step (score → SRS ID → decision). Teacher-recorded walkthrough needed.
+- **Annotating design sketches (video)** — no confirmed video walks through Excalidraw annotation from naming layer to functionality layer to justification. Teacher-recorded.
+- **AI disclosure log worked entry** — no external resource models a specific, checkpointable log entry. Teacher-recorded.
+- **Excalidraw mood-board starter template** — no `.excalidraw` file available from external sources. Teacher-created asset needed.
---
## Recommended Actions
-1. **Create a short video** (5-10 min) walking through a mood board + brainstorm + mind map for a sample software project. No good free video exists for this.
-2. **Create a video** explaining efficiency vs effectiveness evaluation criteria with a worked example matrix. This is a persistent gap.
+1. **Blank evaluation matrix template** — strip the travel-planner example from C042-Evaluation-Template.md and publish as a blank Markdown/Typst file. Highest-priority asset.
+2. **Teacher videos (in order of impact):** (a) efficiency vs effectiveness side-by-side scenarios (2 min); (b) annotating a design sketch in Excalidraw (3–4 min); (c) writing a justification paragraph (3 min); (d) AI disclosure log entry (2 min).
3. **Miro or Milanote** could be adopted as classroom tools for the ideation tasks — both have free tiers and are far more engaging than paper.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9