Use this pack with the original investigation and the editable case builder. It supplies the cases, teaching choices, answer notes and assessment examples.
Student case cards · Student journal · Editable Word journal · PDF journal · CSV data
Queensland Digital Solutions 2025 v1.4
References: Unit 3 · objective 3, Unit 3 · objective 4, Unit 3 · objective 7. Read the current source (checked 2026-09-07).
Evidence to assess: Workload and requirements analysis; justified comparison of candidate implementations.
Selected aspects only. This activity contributes evidence; it does not cover the full descriptor or achievement standard. A programming descriptor is not claimed for merely moving controls. A supporting classroom task, not a QCAA-approved assessment instrument. Teachers must set their own assessment conditions and confirm alignment with their course. Other jurisdictions require local mapping.
These are planning estimates to test with your class. A short session develops one supported claim; it does not compress the whole senior project.
| Stage | 45 minute focus | 60 minute investigation |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness and prediction | 0–5 | 0–5 |
| Trace the supplied example | 5–13 | 5–15 |
| Author and run cases | 13–25 | 15–35 |
| Counterexample and redesign | 25–35 | 35–45 |
| Explain and discuss | 35–42 | 45–55 |
| Export and handover | 42–45 | 55–60 |
For a longer project, use three 50-minute sessions. Session 1 (0–50): readiness, model, hypothesis and initial cases. Export a project and record the next test. Session 2 (50–100): reopen, check settings, author counterexamples and revise the design. Export the changed project and identify unresolved evidence. Session 3 (100–150): independent peer test, final artefact, individual explanation and moderation. If using two 60-minute sessions, stop at minute 60 after saving the first comparison; use 60–120 for redesign, independent test and defence.
Entry check: Interpret latency distributions and compare cost and quality trade-offs. Ask the learner to demonstrate it before choosing the level of support.
Preparation: allow about 25 minutes to run the starter, print the cards and check a project can be reopened. This estimate has not yet been measured in a classroom pilot.
Read the entry question aloud, model one row, and label the units. Offer the case table as a large-print sheet. Keep mathematical derivations optional until the learner can explain the comparison.
For one device, use a projector: one pair predicts, one operates, and the class records on paper. Swap roles after the first comparison. For individual access, support keyboard controls and a written table equivalent to each visual. Learners may explain orally or with an annotated diagram. Never require personal data, a recorded voice, or a photograph.
Mixed readiness: if the entry check is difficult, use the linked prerequisite and the first two case cards; retain the same central question. If secure, ask the learner to design an unseen test and state which explanation it could disprove.
Simulate a single FIFO worker; start each job after both arrival and the previous completion. Report wait, finish, cost and privacy routing.
Starting parameters: Cost per service second = 0.01, Local only for sensitive = True
Single FIFO worker, supplied row order. Check arrivals are chronological; all timings are simulated.
| job | arrival | wait | finish | cost | route |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.02 | either permitted |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0.03 | local required |
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0.01 | either permitted |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0.04 | local required |
These are authored examples, not work collected from children. Assess reasoning using the lesson rubric, not whether the first prediction was correct.
Beginning: “It worked because the result looks right.” This identifies no exact case, control or measurement. Ask the learner to point to one row and say what happened.
Developing: “In the first case I recorded job: 1; arrival: 0; wait: 0; finish: 2; cost: 0.02; route: either permitted.” This cites evidence, but does not yet explain how the result follows from the rule. Ask the learner to trace the relevant step.
Secure: “For the first supplied case, job: 1; arrival: 0; wait: 0; finish: 2; cost: 0.02; route: either permitted. I can trace it using this mechanism: Simulate a single FIFO worker; start each job after both arrival and the previous completion. Report wait, finish, cost and privacy routing. My result supports a claim about these supplied cases. It does not establish that the same result holds outside them.” Look for an accurate trace, the actual settings and a bounded claim; accept equivalent oral or visual evidence.
Extending: The learner constructs and reruns a new case, reports whether the first explanation survives, and defends a revised design. Use this concrete challenge: Supply a workload trace, privacy boundary and budget. Compare simulated and measured timings without treating them as equivalent. Require the original and changed evidence and this boundary: A simulator does not measure actual hardware. Add measured traces before making procurement claims.
Moderation: first assess independently against each lesson criterion. Compare the exact trace or artefact that led to your judgement. Resolve differences using evidence, not polished language. Keep each learner's individual explanation even when the artefact was produced in a group.