Commit f62360
2026-05-25 22:18:38 lisa: SD C04: add C4-2 Checkpoint (Evaluation Matrix) page; link from C04-home and C4-1 checkpoint Mirrors the C4-1 checkpoint: what to submit (outline + draft matrix), criterion = name+link+measure with vague->measurable, matrix-building with a StudyStreak slice, the verb staircase (identify->justify), and an Am-I-ready self-check. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>| sd/C04/C04-home.md .. | |
| @@ 15,6 15,7 @@ | |
| What you produce and submit for each indicator: | |
| - [C4-1 Checkpoint — Your Design Pack](/sd/C04/C4-1%20Checkpoint%20-%20Design%20Pack) — the five design-pack artefacts, how annotations move you up the bands, and an "Am I ready?" self-check (due T2W7, 60% of C4) | |
| + | - [C4-2 Checkpoint — Your Evaluation Matrix](/sd/C04/C4-2%20Checkpoint%20-%20Evaluation%20Matrix) — your criteria (name · link · measure) and draft matrix, the verb ladder, and an "Am I ready?" self-check (due T2W7, 40% of C4) |
| ## Key concepts | |
| sd/C04/C4-1 Checkpoint - Design Pack.md .. | |
| @@ 70,6 70,7 @@ | |
| ## See also | |
| + | - [C4-2 Checkpoint — Your Evaluation Matrix](/sd/C04/C4-2%20Checkpoint%20-%20Evaluation%20Matrix) — the other half of C4 |
| - [C4 Design Ideas and Evaluation Explained](/sd/C4%20Design%20Ideas%20and%20Evaluation%20Explained) — the walkthrough videos for C4-1 and C4-2 | |
| - [C04 → C05 — Choose, then Detail](/sd/C05/C04%20to%20C05%20-%20Choose%20then%20Detail) — where your chosen design goes next | |
| - [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness) — you'll need this for the C4-2 evaluation criteria | |
| /dev/null .. sd/C04/C4-2 Checkpoint - Evaluation Matrix.md | |
| @@ 0,0 1,101 @@ | |
| + | > **DRAFT** — under teacher review. |
| + | |
| + | # C4-2 Checkpoint — Your Evaluation Matrix |
| + | |
| + | The Hamilton and Alexandra College · Year 12 · 2026 |
| + | |
| + | The **C4-2 checkpoint** is the *draft evaluation matrix* (and the criteria behind it) you build before the Finalise Evaluation Matrix validation. It's worth **40% of C4** and is due **T2W7**. This page tells you exactly what to produce and what separates a pass from a top band. |
| + | |
| + | > [!IMPORTANT] |
| + | > Your draft only evidences the **lower bands** — the marks for **apply, explain and justify** are earned **live**. The validation (Finalise Evaluation Matrix, 30 min, 🔒 no internet, no AI) lets you consult your printed draft matrix, your C4-1 design pack and your SRS requirements — but you must fill, explain and justify *on the spot*. You can only do that if the criteria are genuinely yours. |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ## What you submit |
| + | |
| + | Build your criteria and a **draft matrix** *before* the validation, and commit each to **GitHub**: |
| + | |
| + | | # | Artefact | What it is | Where | |
| + | |---|---|---|---| |
| + | | 1 | **Evaluation outline** | Your chosen criteria — each one *named*, *linked* to an SRS requirement, and given a *measure* | ☁️ GitHub | |
| + | | 2 | **Draft evaluation matrix** | A table: design elements as rows, criteria as columns, with weights and a first pass at scores | ☁️ GitHub | |
| + | | — | **Finalised matrix worksheet** | Completed under test conditions on the validation day | 🖨️ Portfolio | |
| + | |
| + | Your criteria must come from **both** sides of the evaluation: **efficiency** (VCAA names 3 measures) and **effectiveness** (11 measures). Get the distinction right — see [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness). |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ## A good criterion = name + link + measure |
| + | |
| + | A criterion only works if you could actually *score* it. Every one needs three parts: |
| + | |
| + | | Part | What it is | StudyStreak example | |
| + | |---|---|---| |
| + | | **Name** | what you're measuring | Logging speed | |
| + | | **Link** | the SRS requirement it traces to | → **FR3**: log a session in ≤ 2 taps | |
| + | | **Measure** | a concrete, testable check | a new user logs a session in **under 10 seconds, unassisted** | |
| + | |
| + | The trap is the **vague criterion** you can't score. Give it a measurable makeover: |
| + | |
| + | - ❌ "The app should be easy to use." → ✅ "A new user completes a study log in under 10 seconds, unassisted." |
| + | - ❌ "It should be accessible." → ✅ "Operable with keyboard only; passes a screen-reader read-through." |
| + | |
| + | > [!TIP] |
| + | > Every criterion must trace to a **specific FR or NFR** by ID/name — never generic "meets the requirements." See [Evaluation Criteria and the SRS](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20Criteria%20and%20the%20SRS). |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ## Building the matrix |
| + | |
| + | - **Rows** = your design elements/ideas · **Columns** = your criteria |
| + | - Give each criterion a **weight** (how much it matters), then **score** each element against it |
| + | - In every cell, write a **one-line justification that cites the FR/NFR** — that's what turns a score into evidence |
| + | |
| + | A slice of the StudyStreak matrix: |
| + | |
| + | | Design element | Logging speed (FR3, ×3) | Calm/usability (NFR1, ×2) | |
| + | |---|---|---| |
| + | | One-tap "Log a session" | 5 — *2 taps, meets FR3* | 4 — *minimal, on-feeling* | |
| + | | Full form with notes | 2 — *6 taps, fails FR3* | 3 — *more cluttered* | |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ## What 100% looks like |
| + | |
| + | Each verb builds on the one below — you score at the highest level where every step beneath it is clearly met: |
| + | |
| + | ```mermaid |
| + | flowchart BT |
| + | L1["identify<br/>name measures to evaluate the ideas"] --> L3["outline<br/>criteria linked to FR & NFR"] |
| + | L3 --> L5["develop & apply<br/>fill the matrix with evidence · bands 5–6"] |
| + | L5 --> L7["explain<br/>which elements should proceed · bands 7–8"] |
| + | L7 --> L9["justify<br/>why these proceed — name the rival · bands 9–10"] |
| + | ``` |
| + | |
| + | The **9–10 move is "name the rival"**: don't just explain why your chosen element is good — say what you give up by *not* choosing the alternative, and why that trade-off is worth it. |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ## Am I ready? — checkpoint self-check |
| + | |
| + | - ☐ Evaluation outline committed — each criterion has a **name, link and measure** |
| + | - ☐ Criteria cover **both** efficiency *and* effectiveness |
| + | - ☐ Every criterion traces to a **specific FR/NFR** (by ID/name) |
| + | - ☐ No vague criteria — each one is **measurable** |
| + | - ☐ Draft matrix committed — design elements × criteria, with **weights** and a first pass at scores |
| + | - ☐ I can **explain** which element should proceed, citing 2+ criteria |
| + | - ☐ I can **justify** it by **naming the rival** and the trade-off I accept |
| + | - ☐ AI use logged in my **AI disclosure log** |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ## See also |
| + | |
| + | - [C4-1 Checkpoint — Your Design Pack](/sd/C04/C4-1%20Checkpoint%20-%20Design%20Pack) — the other half of C4 |
| + | - [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness) · [Evaluation Criteria and the SRS](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20Criteria%20and%20the%20SRS) |
| + | - [C4 Design Ideas and Evaluation Explained](/sd/C4%20Design%20Ideas%20and%20Evaluation%20Explained) — the walkthrough videos |
| + | - [C04 → C05 — Choose, then Detail](/sd/C05/C04%20to%20C05%20-%20Choose%20then%20Detail) — where the chosen design goes next |
| + | |
| + | --- |
| + | |
| + | ← Back to [C04 Home](/sd/C04/C04-home) · [VCE Software Development Hub](/sd/VCE%20Software%20Development%20Hub) |