Home A - Z

An Otter Wiki

C01 Readiness Report

Assessment: VCE Software Development SAT -- Criterion 1 (Design Brief and Project Management) Assessment week: T2W1, starting 2026-04-20 Report date: 2026-04-12 (8 days out) Ticket: TKT-001

A. Materials Audit Summary

All 19 learning task files referenced in C01-checklist.md exist in Criterion01/. No missing files.

Outdated References

Several files in Criterion01/ still reference the 2025 OneNote workflow. The 2026 materials in C01-2026/ are clean (no OneNote references), but the older files remain in use as learning resources:

File Issue
sat-c-1-checklist.md Assessment links point to OneNote (onenote:SAT%20C1.one#...). Submission instructions say "saved under Submit > SAT-C-1 in Your OneNote".
sat-c1-assessment-task-checklist.md References OneNote submissions and templates.
sat-c-1-marking.md Line 18 mentions checking "student's OneNote portfolio".
c1-why-monitoring-projects.md Header says "Source: OneNote -- SAT C1 section".
c1-question-bank-design-brief.md Header says "Source: OneNote -- SAT C1 section".
sat-c1-assessment-sheet.md Says "IN ONENOTE FOLDER to SIGN" and has a STAGING status comment.

Impact: Students will not encounter these directly if Jeremy uses the C01-2026/ files as handouts. However, if students browse the repo or are directed to Criterion01/ resources, the OneNote references will be confusing. The sat-c1-assessment-sheet.md still carries a "STAGING -- review before importing" comment from 2026-04-05.

Mark Allocation Discrepancy

  • C01-checklist.md says: C1-1 = 40%, C1-2 = 30%, C1-3 = 30%
  • C01-teacher.md says: C1-1 = 50%, C1-2 = 50% (no mention of C1-3 split)
  • C01-work.md says: C1-1 = 4 marks, C1-2 = 2 marks, C1-3 = 4 marks (total 10)
  • C01-rubric.md: 3 indicators, each scored 1-10

These need reconciling. The rubric (3 indicators, each 1-10) is the VCAA format. The checklist percentages and teacher note percentages are Jeremy's weighting -- they contradict each other. Needs Jeremy's decision.

B. Teacher Guide Open Questions

C01-teacher.md has 5 open questions. Recommendations below:

1. Confirm week numbers against 2026 school calendar

Recommendation: 15-minute task. Cross-check T1W9, T2W1 dates against the actual 2026 Victorian school calendar. The checklist says assessment is T2W1 (w/c 2026-04-20) -- verify this is correct and that T1W9 is the week before Easter or whatever applies.

Verdict: Needs Jeremy's decision (requires school calendar).

2. Confirm lesson count -- 11 prep lessons + assessment week realistic?

Recommendation: Count actual available lessons between now and 2026-04-20. Consider: Are students already partway through C1 tasks? If this is the first lesson, 11 prep lessons in 8 calendar days is impossible -- the prep period must have started in T1. If prep started in T1W9 as the checklist implies, there may be only 2-3 lessons before assessment week.

Verdict: Needs Jeremy's decision. Clarify whether "11 prep lessons" refers to the entire C1 teaching period (starting weeks ago) or remaining lessons.

3. GitHub Projects Roadmap View as "Gantt chart" -- does VCAA accept this?

Recommendation: The rubric at C1-2-3 says "Prepares a Gantt chart using software." GitHub Projects Roadmap View shows items on a timeline with start/end dates, which is functionally a Gantt chart. The key test: does it show task bars on a timeline axis? If yes, it satisfies "Gantt chart using software." Consider having one student screenshot ready as evidence in case of audit. The VCAA study design does not specify particular software.

Verdict: Likely acceptable but Jeremy should confirm. Suggest keeping it -- students can always supplement with a hand-drawn version if needed.

4. Should the writing test allow the student's printed project plan as a reference?

Recommendation: The current spec in C01-work.md says C1-2 conditions are "No internet, no AI, no notes. Timed." This is strict. Allowing the printed project plan would make the test easier but would weaken the authenticity check -- the whole point is to verify students actually built their plan themselves. A student who genuinely created their Gantt chart should be able to recall 3 tasks and explain relevance without notes.

Verdict: Needs Jeremy's decision. Recommendation: keep it strict (no notes) for authenticity, but consider allowing a blank template/structure prompt so students know the format.

5. Extension task "Effective Functional Requirements in Gantt Chart and Design Brief" -- keep, drop, or rework?

Recommendation: This task appears in the older sat-c-1-checklist.md (Criterion01) with a OneNote link to C2 materials ("Data Collection for Functional Requirements"). It bridges C1 and C2. For 2026 it is not referenced in the new C01-checklist.md or C01-tasks.md. Unless Jeremy specifically wants to include it as differentiation for advanced students, it can be safely dropped from C1 scope.

Verdict: Recommend drop. It is not in the 2026 checklist and adds complexity without clear assessment value for C1.

C. Assessment Logistics

C1-1: Presentation (5 minutes per student)

Status: Well specified.

  • Format clear: 5-minute presentation, one cue card (quarter A4), printed design brief allowed
  • Question bank exists with 5 standard + 5 probing questions (sat-c1-assessment-sheet.md, c1-question-bank-design-brief.md)
  • Marking approach described in sat-c-1-marking.md: grade from transcript, compare with written brief, generate Auth-index

Gaps:

  • No template for recording presentation scores per student during the session. The marking file describes an AI-assisted workflow (provide transcript + marking criteria) but no simple paper-based score sheet for live use.
  • Cue card format not specified beyond "quarter of A4" -- students need to know: handwritten or printed? Both sides?

C1-2: Writing Test (20 minutes)

Status: Mostly specified, some gaps.

  • Format clear: 3 tasks selected from student's Gantt chart, explain relevance to design brief
  • Marking approach clear with examples of generic vs real vs persuasive responses
  • Time limit: 20 minutes

Gaps:

  • No printed test paper template. The assessment sheet has a placeholder table but no ready-to-print version.
  • The 3 tasks are described generically ("Data collection for functional requirements", "Create a Gantt chart OR one task you have evidence", "One student provided milestone"). These need to be customised per student or clarified -- does Jeremy pre-select tasks from each student's board, or are they standard for all?
  • No explicit instructions for students about what "relevant to the design brief" means. Consider providing the prompt wording students will see.

C1-3: Interview (10 minutes per student)

Status: Well specified.

  • Format clear: 10-minute interview, annotated project plan allowed (printed or screen)
  • Question progression documented: easy/average/hard for both Gantt chart and monitoring
  • c1-why-monitoring-projects.md provides the preparation task

Gaps:

  • No per-student score recording template for the interview
  • Should confirm: does the interview happen in the same session as the presentation, or different day?

Overall Logistics

  • With presentation (5 min) + writing test (20 min) + interview (10 min) per student, plus transitions, expect ~40 minutes per student. For a class of 6 (based on the marking data), that is ~4 hours. Confirm this fits within assessment week scheduling.
  • The writing test could run as a whole-class simultaneous assessment (20 min), then presentations/interviews individually. This would be more time-efficient.

D. Student Day-1 Readiness

What a student needs on day 1 of C01 (assuming prep has already started)

If 2026-04-20 is assessment week, students should arrive with:

  1. Written design brief committed to GitHub (final version)
  2. Printed design brief for portfolio
  3. Peer review sheet completed
  4. GitHub Projects board with Roadmap View set up
  5. Annotated project plan (screenshot/export)
  6. "Why monitoring" written response
  7. AI disclosure log entries for C1

Is the checklist print-ready?

C01-checklist.md is mostly print-ready but has some issues:

  • Good: Clear assessment table with marks, conditions icons, and due dates
  • Good: Learning tasks listed with checkboxes
  • Good: "What 100% Looks Like" section is excellent for student self-assessment
  • Issue: File references (e.g., sat-c-1-essential-terms.md) are bare filenames, not clickable links. Students need to know where to find these files. If printed, they need a URL or folder path.
  • Issue: No explicit "What to bring to assessment" checklist. Students must infer requirements from C01-work.md.

Confusing References

  • The icons 🔒📱⏰ are used but never defined on the checklist itself. They are explained in C01-teacher.md's AI-First Design table (offline, no phone, timed) but students do not see that file.
  • "Commit, and print" instructions assume students know the Git workflow. This is fine if covered in C00.

E. Prep Action List

Ordered by priority (highest impact first).

# Action Time Priority
1 Resolve mark allocation discrepancy -- Decide on the weighting for C1-1, C1-2, C1-3 and update both C01-checklist.md and C01-teacher.md to match. 15m Critical
2 Confirm week numbers against school calendar -- Verify T1W9 and T2W1 map to correct 2026 dates. Confirm lesson count remaining. 15m Critical
3 Decide: writing test notes policy -- No notes (current spec) or allow printed project plan? Update C01-work.md if changing. 15m Critical
4 Prepare per-student task selections for C1-2 writing test -- For each student, select 3 tasks from their GitHub Projects board to use in the writing test. Or decide on standard tasks for all. 30m High
5 Create a printable assessment day schedule -- Map out which student does what when. Consider running the writing test as whole-class simultaneous, then individual presentations/interviews. 30m High
6 Create a simple score recording sheet -- One page per student with C1-1, C1-2, C1-3 boxes, question prompts, and space for notes. Can be paper-based. 30m High
7 Add icon legend to student checklist -- Define 🔒📱⏰ meanings (no internet, no phone, timed) somewhere students can see, or add a footnote to the checklist. 15m Medium
8 Add "What to bring" section to student checklist -- Explicit list: printed design brief, peer review sheet, cue card, annotated project plan printout. 15m Medium
9 Verify VCAA acceptance of GitHub Projects Roadmap View as Gantt chart -- Check study design wording, ask colleagues if unsure. Have backup plan (hand-drawn supplement). 30m Medium
10 Decide on extension task -- Keep or drop "Effective Functional Requirements" bridging task. Recommend drop. 15m Low
11 Clean up OneNote references in Criterion01 files -- Not urgent for assessment, but prevents student confusion if they browse the repo. 1h Low
12 Update cue card spec -- Clarify: handwritten or printed? One side or both? 15m Low

Total estimated time: ~5 hours (items 1-8 are essential, ~2.5 hours)

Summary

Ready:

  • All 19 learning task files exist
  • Three assessment formats are designed with clear rationale
  • Rubric aligns with VCAA performance descriptors
  • Question banks for presentation and interview are thorough
  • AI-authenticity strategy is well thought out (Auth-index, multi-format verification)

Not ready:

  • Mark allocation is inconsistent across documents
  • No printed test paper or score recording templates
  • Writing test task selection process not finalised
  • Student checklist missing icon legend and "what to bring" section
  • Several open questions from teacher guide need decisions

Risk: The biggest risk is not the materials (which are solid) but the logistics -- having score sheets, task selections, and a timetable ready for assessment week. The 5 critical/high items should be done by 2026-04-17 at the latest.