Commit 84b076

2026-06-02 06:30:52 lisa: SD C04: add CHOICE Headphones — Spotting Efficiency and Effectiveness page; link from design-matrix page Single-concept teaching page that overlays VCAA efficiency vs effectiveness factors onto the CHOICE May 2026 headphones matrix. Anchored to VCAA-named factors (11 effectiveness, 3 efficiency) and the existing CHOICE data on the parent page. One-line link added to the parent page below the CHOICE matrix table. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

/dev/null .. sd/C04/CHOICE Headphones - Spotting Efficiency and Effectiveness.md
@@ 0,0 1,77 @@
+	> **DRAFT** — under teacher review.
+
+	# CHOICE Headphones — Spotting Efficiency and Effectiveness
+
+	The Hamilton and Alexandra College · Year 12 · 2026
+
+	In [Designing an Evaluation Matrix](/sd/C04/Designing%20an%20Evaluation%20Matrix) we reverse-engineered the **CHOICE May 2026 headphones test** to see *what* it decides. Now look at the *kind* of factor each criterion is — because in **C4-2** every criterion in your evaluation matrix has to sit under either **efficiency** or **effectiveness**.
+
+	CHOICE evaluates *headphones*, not software, so the VCAA-factor names below are an **analogy**. The category split — efficiency vs effectiveness — transfers cleanly. The exact factor name is the closest VCAA term.
+
+	---
+
+	## Quick recap
+
+	| ⚡ **Efficiency** | 🎯 **Effectiveness** |
+	|---|---|
+	| How well the solution uses resources (time, cost, processing). | How well the solution does the right thing for the right people. |
+	| VCAA factors: *cost of data and file manipulation*, *functionality*, *speed of processing*. | VCAA factors: *accessibility, accuracy, attractiveness, clarity, communication of message, completeness, maintainability, readability, relevance, timeliness, usability*. |
+
+	For the deeper distinction, see [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness).
+
+	---
+
+	## CHOICE's six criteria, re-tagged
+
+	Same headphones matrix as on the parent page — each row now carries the **kind of factor** it represents and the closest **VCAA factor name**.
+
+	| Criterion (weight) | ⚡ / 🎯 | Closest VCAA factor | Why |
+	|---|---|---|---|
+	| Sound quality (45%) | 🎯 | Accuracy | Faithful reproduction — does the product do its *intended job* well. |
+	| Active noise cancellation (15%) | 🎯 | Relevance | A feature that matters *to the travel persona* — and works as claimed. |
+	| Ease of use (17.5%) | 🎯 | Usability | Can a user achieve their goal without help. |
+	| Battery (10%) | ⚡ | Speed of processing (analog) | Resource use: claimed vs measured run-time per charge. The one efficiency-flavoured criterion. |
+	| Comfort (7.5%) | 🎯 | Usability / Attractiveness | Fit and feel — fitness for prolonged use. |
+	| Durability (5%) | 🎯 | Maintainability | How long the product keeps doing its job. |
+	| *Microphone* (excluded) | 🎯 | Relevance | *Shown but not scored* — not central to the travel persona. |
+	| *Cleaning* (excluded) | 🎯 | Maintainability | *Shown but not scored* — same reason. |
+
+	*Structure and weights: CHOICE, May 2026 (choice.com.au). VCAA factor names: VCE Applied Computing Study Design 2025.*
+
+	---
+
+	## The teaching point — and the warning
+
+	Count the symbols. **Five of CHOICE's six scored criteria are effectiveness.** Only **battery** has any efficiency flavour at all.
+
+	This is normal for product matrices — and it's a warning when you build your own. Effectiveness criteria are easy to brainstorm ("does it do the thing?"). Efficiency criteria aren't, so they get quietly dropped.
+
+	> [!NOTE]
+	> When you design your C4-2 matrix, force yourself to ask **"where is efficiency in this design idea?"** — *speed of a key operation, cost of storing or manipulating the data, whether the functionality runs at all on the target hardware.* If none of your criteria touch any of those three, you have an effectiveness-only matrix — not what C4-2 wants.
+
+	---
+
+	## Check Your Understanding
+
+	For each statement, decide: ⚡ **Efficiency** or 🎯 **Effectiveness**? And name the closest VCAA factor. Answer in your head first, then unfold.
+
+	1. "The leaderboard loads in under one second."
+	>| ⚡ **Efficiency** — *speed of processing*.
+
+	2. "A first-time user can log a redemption without instructions."
+	>| 🎯 **Effectiveness** — *usability*.
+
+	3. "The vocab matching game runs without lag on the school laptop SOE."
+	>| ⚡ **Efficiency** — *functionality* (the system functions in its intended environment) and *speed of processing*.
+
+	4. "Every field required by the SRS appears on the form."
+	>| 🎯 **Effectiveness** — *completeness*.
+
+	5. CHOICE weights **battery** at 10%. In *your* C4-2 matrix, what is **one** efficiency criterion you could put in its place for *your* design idea?
+	>| Open answer — but it should describe a *resource* the design uses (storage, time, processing) and how it would be measured. Note: *bandwidth* and *hardware* are **not** VCAA-named factors — phrase the criterion using *speed of processing*, *cost of data and file manipulation*, or *functionality*.
+
+	---
+
+	## Where this leads
+
+	In **C4-2** your matrix has **both** an efficiency table and an effectiveness table — see [C4-2 Checkpoint - Evaluation Matrix](/sd/C04/C4-2%20Checkpoint%20-%20Evaluation%20Matrix). Use the CHOICE overlay above as a worked example of what the *split* feels like in practice — then deliberately resist letting your effectiveness table dominate.
sd/C04/Designing an Evaluation Matrix.md ..
@@ 41,6 41,8 @@
	*Structure and weights: CHOICE, May 2026 (choice.com.au). The per-product scores are CHOICE's own data — see the original.*
+	*Want to see which of these criteria are **efficiency** and which are **effectiveness** — and why most product matrices come out lopsided? See [CHOICE Headphones — Spotting Efficiency and Effectiveness](/sd/C04/CHOICE%20Headphones%20-%20Spotting%20Efficiency%20and%20Effectiveness).*
+
	---
	## The seven design decisions