Home A - Z
Page Index

An Otter Wiki

Blame

f62360 lisa 2026-05-25 22:18:38
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>
1 
> **DRAFT** — under teacher review.
2
3
# C4-2 Checkpoint — Your Evaluation Matrix
4
5
The Hamilton and Alexandra College · Year 12 · 2026
6
7
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.
8
9
> [!IMPORTANT]
10
> 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.
11
12
---
13
14
## What you submit
15
16
Build your criteria and a **draft matrix** *before* the validation, and commit each to **GitHub**:
17
18
| # | Artefact | What it is | Where |
19
|---|---|---|---|
20
| 1 | **Evaluation outline** | Your chosen criteria — each one *named*, *linked* to an SRS requirement, and given a *measure* | ☁️ GitHub |
21
| 2 | **Draft evaluation matrix** | A table: design elements as rows, criteria as columns, with weights and a first pass at scores | ☁️ GitHub |
22
| — | **Finalised matrix worksheet** | Completed under test conditions on the validation day | 🖨️ Portfolio |
23
24
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).
25
26
---
27
28
## A good criterion = name + link + measure
29
30
A criterion only works if you could actually *score* it. Every one needs three parts:
31
32
| Part | What it is | StudyStreak example |
33
|---|---|---|
34
| **Name** | what you're measuring | Logging speed |
35
| **Link** | the SRS requirement it traces to | → **FR3**: log a session in ≤ 2 taps |
36
| **Measure** | a concrete, testable check | a new user logs a session in **under 10 seconds, unassisted** |
37
38
The trap is the **vague criterion** you can't score. Give it a measurable makeover:
39
40
- ❌ "The app should be easy to use." → ✅ "A new user completes a study log in under 10 seconds, unassisted."
41
- ❌ "It should be accessible." → ✅ "Operable with keyboard only; passes a screen-reader read-through."
42
43
> [!TIP]
44
> 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).
45
46
---
47
48
## Building the matrix
49
50
- **Rows** = your design elements/ideas · **Columns** = your criteria
51
- Give each criterion a **weight** (how much it matters), then **score** each element against it
52
- In every cell, write a **one-line justification that cites the FR/NFR** — that's what turns a score into evidence
53
54
A slice of the StudyStreak matrix:
55
56
| Design element | Logging speed (FR3, ×3) | Calm/usability (NFR1, ×2) |
57
|---|---|---|
58
| One-tap "Log a session" | 5 — *2 taps, meets FR3* | 4 — *minimal, on-feeling* |
59
| Full form with notes | 2 — *6 taps, fails FR3* | 3 — *more cluttered* |
60
61
---
62
63
## What 100% looks like
64
65
Each verb builds on the one below — you score at the highest level where every step beneath it is clearly met:
66
67
```mermaid
68
flowchart BT
69
L1["identify<br/>name measures to evaluate the ideas"] --> L3["outline<br/>criteria linked to FR & NFR"]
70
L3 --> L5["develop & apply<br/>fill the matrix with evidence · bands 5–6"]
71
L5 --> L7["explain<br/>which elements should proceed · bands 7–8"]
72
L7 --> L9["justify<br/>why these proceed — name the rival · bands 9–10"]
73
```
74
75
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.
76
77
---
78
79
## Am I ready? — checkpoint self-check
80
81
- ☐ Evaluation outline committed — each criterion has a **name, link and measure**
82
- ☐ Criteria cover **both** efficiency *and* effectiveness
83
- ☐ Every criterion traces to a **specific FR/NFR** (by ID/name)
84
- ☐ No vague criteria — each one is **measurable**
85
- ☐ Draft matrix committed — design elements × criteria, with **weights** and a first pass at scores
86
- ☐ I can **explain** which element should proceed, citing 2+ criteria
87
- ☐ I can **justify** it by **naming the rival** and the trade-off I accept
88
- ☐ AI use logged in my **AI disclosure log**
89
90
---
91
92
## See also
93
94
- [C4-1 Checkpoint — Your Design Pack](/sd/C04/C4-1%20Checkpoint%20-%20Design%20Pack) — the other half of C4
95
- [Efficiency vs Effectiveness](/sd/C04/Efficiency%20vs%20Effectiveness) · [Evaluation Criteria and the SRS](/sd/C04/Evaluation%20Criteria%20and%20the%20SRS)
96
- [C4 Design Ideas and Evaluation Explained](/sd/C4%20Design%20Ideas%20and%20Evaluation%20Explained) — the walkthrough videos
97
- [C04 → C05 — Choose, then Detail](/sd/C05/C04%20to%20C05%20-%20Choose%20then%20Detail) — where the chosen design goes next
98
99
---
100
101
← Back to [C04 Home](/sd/C04/C04-home) · [VCE Software Development Hub](/sd/VCE%20Software%20Development%20Hub)