Blame
|
1 | # C01-3 Checkpoint Proposal: Annotated Plan Ready |
||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | **Status:** Proposal (pending Jeremy's approval) |
|||||||
| 4 | **Created:** 2026-04-12 |
|||||||
| 5 | **Source:** TKT-006 --- C1-3 Assessment Package |
|||||||
| 6 | ||||||||
| 7 | --- |
|||||||
| 8 | ||||||||
| 9 | ## Checkpoint C: Annotated Plan Ready |
|||||||
| 10 | ||||||||
| 11 | This checkpoint gates C1-3 (10-minute Interview). A student who completes all items has a genuine, annotated project plan and can walk the teacher through their planning decisions. A student who hasn't completed the checkpoint spends interview time trying to reconstruct their reasoning --- naturally lower marks. |
|||||||
| 12 | ||||||||
| 13 | ### Student Self-Check Criteria |
|||||||
| 14 | ||||||||
| 15 | Students can check each item themselves before the lesson: |
|||||||
| 16 | ||||||||
| 17 | 1. **Milestones defined** --- Plan includes teacher-provided milestones (criterion due dates) AND at least 2 student-defined milestones (e.g., "Core features complete," "Beta-ready build"). Clearly marked on the Gantt chart. |
|||||||
| 18 | ||||||||
| 19 | 2. **Task sequencing shown** --- Tasks are not a flat list. The order is intentional: tasks that depend on earlier tasks come after them. A reader can see why task X comes before task Y. |
|||||||
| 20 | ||||||||
| 21 | 3. **Time allocations present** --- Every task has a start date and end date. Timeline is realistic --- not everything crammed into the last week. |
|||||||
| 22 | ||||||||
| 23 | 4. **Dependencies identified** --- At least 2 dependencies are noted on the plan (annotated, colour-coded, or written next to tasks). A dependency means: "I cannot start task B until task A is finished." |
|||||||
| 24 | ||||||||
| 25 | 5. **Annotations explaining choices** --- Plan has handwritten or digital annotations explaining _why_ things are structured this way. Not just labels --- reasoning. |
|||||||
| 26 | ||||||||
| 27 | 6. **Artefact ready** --- Annotated plan is printed or saved on screen. Student can show it during the interview and point to specific parts. |
|||||||
| 28 | ||||||||
| 29 | ### Teacher Quick Check (circulating, <60 seconds per student) |
|||||||
| 30 | ||||||||
| 31 | | Check | What to look for | |
|||||||
| 32 | |-------|-----------------| |
|||||||
| 33 | | Milestones | At least 3 visible (teacher due dates + student-defined). Prompt: "Where are _your_ milestones?" | |
|||||||
| 34 | | Sequencing | Tasks ordered, not random. Dependencies marked or implied. | |
|||||||
| 35 | | Annotations | Handwritten notes, highlights, arrows explaining choices. Not blank. | |
|||||||
| 36 | | Quick verbal | "Point to a dependency and tell me what happens if the first task is late." | |
|||||||
| 37 | ||||||||
| 38 | ### Feedback Prompts (done to strong) |
|||||||
| 39 | ||||||||
| 40 | | Area | Prompt | |
|||||||
| 41 | |------|--------| |
|||||||
| 42 | | No student milestones | "Where are _your_ milestones? What's a point where you'd stop and check progress?" | |
|||||||
| 43 | | Flat task list | "Which task _must_ happen before which? Draw an arrow or write a note." | |
|||||||
| 44 | | No annotations | "Why did you put data collection first? Write a note explaining your reasoning." | |
|||||||
| 45 | | Unrealistic timeline | "3 days for development and 4 weeks for analysis --- does that match reality?" | |
|||||||
| 46 | | No dependencies | "Which tasks can't start until another finishes? Find at least 2 and mark them." | |
|||||||
| 47 | | Ready for depth | "Can you trace your critical path? That's what I'll ask about in the interview." | |
|||||||
| 48 | ||||||||
| 49 | --- |
|||||||
| 50 | ||||||||
| 51 | ## Proposed Checklist Integration |
|||||||
| 52 | ||||||||
| 53 | **Where:** C01-2026 checklist, under "Planning Detail (C1-3)" section, before the assessment tasks. |
|||||||
| 54 | ||||||||
| 55 | **Suggestion:** Group the existing learning tasks (add milestones/dependencies, "why monitor?" + peer review, annotate plan) under a "Checkpoint C tasks" heading. Add the self-check criteria above as the readiness gate before the interview. |
|||||||
| 56 | ||||||||
| 57 | **Additional learning task proposals:** |
|||||||
| 58 | - **"Interview rehearsal"** --- Walk a partner through your annotated plan while they ask questions from a provided question list. 10 min timed. Direct practice for the interview. |
|||||||
| 59 | - **"Dependency mapping"** --- For each dependency on your plan, write what happens if the predecessor is delayed. Builds genuine understanding for interview. |
|||||||
| 60 | ||||||||
| 61 | **Note:** The full assessment package (teacher protocol, question bank, scoring guide, worked examples) is in `SD26-Teachers/sat/C01-2026/C01-3-Assessment-Package.typ`. This wiki page covers only the checkpoint criteria suitable for the student-facing checklist. |
|||||||
| 62 | ||||||||
| 63 | --- |
|||||||
| 64 | ||||||||
| 65 | ## Key VCAA Rubric Points for C1-3 |
|||||||
| 66 | ||||||||
| 67 | The VCAA rubric (Indicator 3) has two important thresholds: |
|||||||
| 68 | ||||||||
| 69 | - **7--8 threshold:** Student must explain _why_ the project needs to be monitored (project-specific, not generic) AND document student-provided milestones. |
|||||||
| 70 | - **9--10 threshold:** Student must document dependencies and critical path AND _discuss how_ progress will be monitored and documented (tools, frequency, what they record). |
|||||||
| 71 | ||||||||
| 72 | Monitoring is the key differentiator. Without monitoring reasoning, a student caps at 6. |
|||||||
