Project Markscheme
Project Markscheme
21
3
3
22
AO 3.1 Design (maximum 15 marks)
1–4 marks 5–8 marks 9–12 marks 13–15 marks
The candidate will have:
•• Described elements •• Broken the problem down •• Broken the problem down •• Broken the problem down systematically
of the solution using systematically into a series systematically into a series of smaller into a series of smaller problems suitable for
algorithms. of smaller problems suitable problems suitable for computational computational solutions, explaining and justifying
•• Described some usability for computational solutions solutions explaining the process. the process.
features to be included describing the process. •• Defined in detail the structure of the •• Defined in detail the structure of the solution to
in the solution. •• Defined the structure of the solution to be developed. be developed.
•• Identified the key solution to be developed. •• Described the solution fully using •• Described the solution fully using appropriate
variables / data •• Described the solution fully appropriate and accurate algorithms and accurate algorithms justifying how these
structures / classes using appropriate and accurate explaining how these algorithms form algorithms form a complete solution to the
(as appropriate to the algorithms. a complete solution to the problem. problem.
proposed solution). •• Described the usability features to •• Described, explaining choices made, •• Described, justifying choices made, the usability
•• Identified some test be included in the solution. the usability features to be included in features to be included in the solution.
data to be used during •• Identified the key variables / the solution. •• Identified and justified the key variables / data
the iterative or post data structures / classes (as •• Identified and justified the key structures / classes (as appropriate to the
development phase of appropriate to the proposed variables / data structures / classes (as proposed solution) justifying and explaining any
the process. solution) and any necessary appropriate to the proposed solution) necessary validation.
•• validation. explaining any necessary validation. •• Identified and justified the test data to be used
•• Identified the test data to be used •• Identified and justified the test during the iterative development of the solution.
during the iterative development data to be used during the iterative •• Identified and justified any further data to be
of the solution. development of the solution. used in the post development phase.
•• Identified any further data to be •• Identified and justified any further data
used in the post development to be used in the post development
phase. phase.
© OCR 2016
Iterative development of a coded solution (maximum 15 marks)
1–4 marks 5–8 marks 9–12 marks 13–15 marks
23
3
3
24
AO 3.3 Evaluation (maximum 20 marks)
Testing to inform evaluation (maximum 5 marks)
1 mark 2 marks 3–4 marks 5 marks
The candidate will have:
•• Provided evidence of •• Provided evidence of final product •• Provided annotated evidence of post •• Provided annotated evidence of post
some post development testing for function. development testing for function. development testing for function and robustness.
testing. •• Provided annotated evidence for •• Provided annotated evidence for usability testing.
usability testing.
Evaluation of solution (maximum 15 marks)
1–4 marks 5–8 marks 9–12 marks 13–15 marks
The candidate will have:
•• Commented on the •• Cross referenced some of the test •• Used the test evidence to cross •• Used the test evidence to cross reference with
success or failure of evidence with the success criteria reference with the success criteria the success criteria to evaluate the solution
the solution with some and commented on the success or to evaluate the solution identifying explain how the evidence shows that the criteria
reference to test data. otherwise of the solution. whether the criteria have been met, has been fully, partially or not met in each case.
•• The information is basic •• Provided evidence of usability partially met or unmet. •• Provided comments on how any partially or
and communicated in an features. •• Provided comments on how any unmet criteria could be addressed in further
unstructured way. The •• Identified some limitations on the partially or not met criteria could be development.
information is supported solution. addressed in further development. •• Provided evidence of the usability features
by limited evidence and •• The information has some •• Provided evidence of the usability justifying their success, partial success or failure
the relationship to the relevance and is presented with features. as effective usability features.
evidence may not be limited structure. The information •• Considered maintenance issues and •• Provided comments on how any issues with
clear. is supported by limited evidence. limitations of the solution. partially or unmet usability features could be
•• There is a line of reasoning presented addressed in further development.
with some structure. The information •• Considered maintenance issues and limitations of
presented is in the most part relevant the solution.
and supported by some evidence. •• Described how the program could be
developed to deal with limitations of potential
improvements / changes.
•• There is a well developed line of reasoning which
is clear and logically structured. The information
presented is relevant and substantiated.