1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

WJEC A2 Info. & Comm. Tech. IT3

Discussion in 'Computing and ICT' started by johnbrown, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. Anyone have kids doing this?
    Bit of a **** I thought.
    What do you think?
     
  2. Anyone have kids doing this?
    Bit of a **** I thought.
    What do you think?
     
  3. djphillips1408

    djphillips1408 New commenter

    I sent in 8, one thought he had a mare, one though he got 90%(and probably has) other six thought it was alright. I did not think there was anything on there that was particularly "left field" and reckon they should have done ok. When I looked through it I was pretty happy with it, not as easy as the past ones but not that tough.
     
  4. Anyone got a spare paper they can send me?

    Thanks
     
  5. Re-read this in the light of your comments, djp.
    Yes, it wasn't awful but I HATE the new format of the paper - WJEC needs a graphic designer yesterday

     
  6. Getting a pupil to tripe the paper out for me.
    If you pm me, I should be able to get a copy to you by the start/middle of next week
     
  7. djphillips1408

    djphillips1408 New commenter

    Had a quick glance again and noticed that once again the dbase question is fundamentally flawed. Taken from paper..
    "One table in this database could be:
    SPORT[<u>Sportid</u>, Sport_name, Home_venue]"
    Whilst I accept it "could" be, it does beg the question of how do you get guaranteed data consistency and integrity if a Home Venue could cater for more than one sport?
    Surely in the real world it would be
    SPORT[<u>Sportid</u>, Sport_name]
    SPORTVENUE[<u>Sportid</u>, <u>Home_venueid</u>] - compund key so no need for a separate primary
    HOMEVENUE[<u>Home_venueid</u>, Home_venue_name]
    No redundancy there.....
    Good news was most of my kids spotted that and just accepted that they had to guess what's going to be on the mark scheme, however it was good to finally see the idea of "Members normally register for more than one sport" on the question at least that's pushing the kids towards the right principles, even if you know the markscheme is going to have something like MemberSportID as the key field for the joining table rather than a compund made from a MemberID and a SportID
     
  8. kathley

    kathley New commenter

    Although I accept that is what would happen in the real world, I consider it a little harsh to say the question is fundamentally flawed considering the context of the question. I would expect my students to have spotted MEMBER and FIXTURE as the two other tables, the brighter kids would have spotted that would have caused a many to many between MEMBER and SPORT so would have added a LINK table to split this up. The question asks to give two other tables and, as in recent years, the tables are mentioned in the question (IN ITALICS TO HELP). By giving those two tables it will get them the marks along, with the key fields. The rest of the marks come from the attributes used within the tables. The marking for this can be seen in past marking scripts.
     
  9. djphillips1408

    djphillips1408 New commenter

    It will be interesting indeed because as you point out if the kids go for Member and fixture as their tables and there is a link table between sports and members, then what's the foreign key in the member table? IIRC they are looking for foreign keys in both from past papers to gain full marks. Anyway it always seems to be a bit of a dogs dinner this one, I understand that you feel I am being harsh but bottom line is that the table in the question is simply wrong and I ceratinly would not teach my students to implement their projects like that.
     

Share This Page