Computer Science IA Criteria Guide

Points 0

The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

An appropriate scenario for investigation for an identified client is stated. The rationale for choosing the proposed product is identified. The criteria for evaluating the success of the product are generally inappropriate.

Points 3-4

An appropriate scenario for investigation for an identified client, providing evidence of consultation, is stated. The rationale for choosing the proposed product is partially explained and includes some appropriate criteria for evaluating the success of the product.

Points 5-6

An appropriate scenario for investigation for an identified client, providing evidence of consultation, is described. The rationale for choosing the proposed product is justified and includes a range of appropriate criteria for evaluating the success of the product.

Points 0

The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The record of tasks and the design overview, including an outline test plan, are limited. From this information it is difficult to see how the product was developed.

Points 3-4

The record of tasks and the design overview, including an outline test plan, are partially complete. They provide a basic understanding of how the product was developed.

Points 5-6

The record of tasks and the design overview, including an outline test plan, are detailed and complete. From this information it is clear how the product was developed.

Points 0

The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-4

The use of techniques demonstrates a low level of complexity and ingenuity or does not address the scenario identified in criterion A. It is characterized by limited use of existing tools. There is no explanation of why the techniques are used or how they are adequate for the task. Sources are used but are not identified.

Points 5-8

The use of techniques demonstrates a moderate level of complexity and ingenuity in addressing the scenario identified in criterion A. It is characterized by some appropriate use of existing tools. There is some attempt to explain the techniques used and why they are adequate for the task. All sources are identified.

Points 9-12

The use of techniques demonstrates a high level of complexity and ingenuity in addressing the scenario identified in criterion A. It is characterized by the appropriate use of existing tools. The techniques are adequate for the task and their use is explained. All sources are identified.

Points 0

The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

The video shows that the product functions partially. Some expansion and modification of the product is possible but difficult.

Points 3-4

The video shows that the product functions well. Some expansion and modifications of the product are straightforward.

Points 0

The response does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below.

Points 1-2

There is a limited attempt to evaluate the product against the success criteria identified in criterion A. There is limited evidence of feedback from the client/adviser and any recommendations for further improvement are trivial or unrealistic.

Points 3-4

The product is partially evaluated against the success criteria identified in criterion A including feedback from the client/adviser. Recommendations for further improvement of the product are largely realistic.

Points 5-6

The product is fully evaluated against the success criteria identified in criterion A including feedback from the client/adviser. Recommendations for further improvement of the product are realistic.