Your evaluation is your chance to reflect on all the work you have done so far. It closes the loop and brings back into consideration your success criteria and usability features. In what ways does your work do what you said you wanted it to do at the start? How have things changed? What could be improved upon in the future?
This section is worth 20 marks so deserves time and care commensurate with being c. 30% of the total marks available.
The evaluation benefits from being evidence-driven. Your past decisions about your project’s goals and design become the measures against which you must provide evidence. You are assessed on your evaluation’s structure, line of reasoning, and substantiation so baseless claims are not rewarded.
It is entirely possible to score high marks in this section with imperfect code. In fact, problems with your solution give you opportunities to reflect in detail.
You may struggle writing your evaluation if your earlier work around analysis and design is lacking. This does not mean you should go back and rewrite your designs—reverse-engineered designs are not credited [1]. If you find yourself in a position where your earlier work does not facilitate the depth of evaluation expected, you could acknowledge your earlier work as a limiting factor in the success of your solution.
Components
- Testing to inform evaluation
- Evaluation of solution
- Use of test evidence in relation to success criteria
- Comments on future development regarding success criteria
- Evidence of usability testing
- Comments on future development regarding usability features
- Limitations and maintenance issues
- Comments on future development including limitations and maintenance issues
Mark scheme (20 marks maximum)
Testing to inform evaluation (5 marks maximum)
| Description | Band 1 1 mark | Band 2 2 marks | Band 3 3–4 marks | Band 4 5 marks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence of final product testing | Provided evidence of final product testing for evaluation | Provided evidence of final product testing for evaluation | Provided annotated evidence of post development testing for evaluation | Provided annotated evidence of post development testing for function and robustness |
| Evidence of usability testing | Provided annotated evidence for usability testing | Provided annotated evidence for usability testing |
[2]
Evaluation of solution (15 marks maximum)
| Description | Band 1 1–4 marks | Band 2 5–8 marks | Band 3 9–12 marks | Band 4 13–15 marks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use of test evidence in relation to success criteria | Commented on the success or failure of the solution with some reference to test data | Cross-referenced some of the test evidence with the success criteria and commented on the success or otherwise of the solution | Used the test evidence to cross-reference with the success criteria to evaluate the solution identifying whether the criteria have been met, partially met or unmet | Used the test evidence to cross-reference with the success criteria to evaluate the solution and explain how the evidence shows that the criteria has been fully, partially or not met in each case |
| Comments on future development regarding success criteria | Provided comments on how any partially or not met criteria could be addressed in further development | Provided comments on how any partially or unmet criteria could be addressed in further development | ||
| Evidence and success of usability features | Provided evidence of usability features | Provided evidence of the usability features | Provided evidence of the usability features justifying their success, partial success or failure as effective usability features | |
| Comments on future development regarding usability features | Provided comments on how any issues with partially or unmet usability features could be addressed in further development | |||
| Limitations and maintenance issues | Identified some limitations of the solution | Considered maintenance issues and limitations of the solution | Considered maintenance issues and limitations of the solution | |
| Comments on future development including limitations and maintenance issues | Described how the program could developed to deal with limitations and potential improvements/changes | |||
| Structure, line of reasoning, and substantiation | The information is basic and communicated in an unstructured way. The information is supported by limited evidence and the relationship to the evidence may not be clear | The information has some relevance and is presented with limited structure. The information is supported by limited evidence | There is a line of reasoning presented with some structure. The information presented is in the most part relevant and supported by some evidence | There is a well developed line of reasoning which is clear and logically structured. The information presented is relevant and substantiated |
[2]
Specification links
References
-
[1]Cambridge OCR 2023. A Level Computer Science Moderators’ Report H446/03/04 Summer 2023 Series. Cambridge OCR.
-
[2]Cambridge OCR 2024. A Level Specification Computer Science H446. Cambridge OCR.