Rant: Let's Talk About The OCR A Level Computer Science H046/H446 Specification

Watch
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
As Salamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh World!

Let's talk about the new linear spec. I know I've mentioned a few things that I dislike about the new spec in earlier posts but I think a lot more needs to be said.

You may or may not find this information useful but I think understanding what the spec is asking you to learn is key to success in the final exams.

Personally, I think the new spec is extremely vague. Maybe OCR wanted it to be this way so they could broaden the scope of the spec by not limiting it to simply defining/describing/explaining certain terms/keywords or maybe they are just lazy plain and simple.

Let's just take the content mentioned in the very first part of the first spec point 1.1.1(a) where it mentions the ALU:




"1.1.1(a) The Arithmetic and Logic Unit; ALU..."



Now if you're someone who hasn't got a single clue about computer science when you first start this A level then you're going to have a bad time.

I wasn't given the opportunity to study GCSE Computer Science because my (extremely socioeconomically deprived) school didn't offer it so I done GCSE ICT instead.

Even after doing GCSE ICT I had no idea what any of this meant and I'm self teaching! I had to look at the old spec to get a better idea of what I needed to know. So now let's look at how the old spec states what content you need to know about the ALU:

Candidates should be able to: a. describe the function and purpose of the... and ALU (arithmetic logic unit) as individual parts of a computer;
LOOK HOW SPECIFIC THAT IS!

That's the whole point of a specification, to specify the content that the candidates need to know, not just state a random term expecting students to know what you're talking about.

As if OCR didn't torture students enough by writing terrible exams, now they have to confuse us even more by writing a terrible specification!

Notice how at the start (and this is on every page by the way) it says "candidates should be able to". Now you may think that's not a big deal, it's quite obvious that everything on the spec is content that candidates need to know.

OK Fine, not mentioning that line in the new spec is tolerable but what is not is how OCR think it's ok to just write a long list of words and expect students to read their minds as to what their actual intentions were in writing that vague list.

Moving on, the very first word of the spec point is something very familiar in exams, it says DESCRIBE. Now I'm sure that I don't have to tell you the difference between the command words state, identify, define, describe, explain etc. so it would make perfect sense for OCR to clearly state what knowledge I need regarding the ALU.

I need to "describe the FUNCTION and PURPOSE" of the ALU. Now that make's sense, a candidate will clearly be able to distinguish the knowledge that is relevant to him regarding the ALU and what is not, they simply need to know it's function and purpose.

If OCR could write such a clear and detailed spec before, why not now? The new linear exam system is already tough enough and to make matters worse, some students don't even know what content they have to know for the exam!

Look, I know it's nice to know extra information about the content in the spec (especially if you love your subject like me) but when it gets to the those final days before the exam, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It's all fun and games in the early days but when you're doing that last minute revision before the final exam and check the spec to make sure you know everything but you just see a load of keywords with commas between them, you start to question if OCR would ask this or that which leads to nothing but panic.

An old spec candidate would simply read the spec and know he knows the function and purpose of the ALU but a new spec candidate... would simply read the word ALU and think does he know everything about it. I mean seriously OCR, was it that tiresome to write this spec?

There's glimpses of clarity of the old spec in the new one but honestly, I think whoever wrote this either didn't get paid enough or is just plain lazy. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

In fact, I think even OCR got the picture because guess what, they released a subject content clarification guide in 2017 (nearly 2 years after the spec) which I'll link at the end of this post.

Now let's compare how this guide states the first spec point to the actual spec itself:

Candidates need to have an understanding of the purpose and function of the core components of a processor. Candidates need to understand the role and components of the ALU.

SEE! Even OCR realised what a tremendous failure their specification was. Look at the extraordinary, the great lengths it goes to and the familiar wording used to ensure it is as clear as possible. Sure, they don't use the word describe like before as they probably want to expand the scope of the spec, which is fine.

But at least this time, it states (just like in the old spec) that the "purpose" and "function" of the ALU is the knowledge that candidates need to know. Now students stand a chance in passing their exams (which will be greatly improved if OCR learned how to write exams).

Anyway, I think I just needed to vent and let all the contempt I had for OCR before they released this guide out (don't get me wrong, I still hate them).

To conclude, I will just link the AS and A level specifications and the AS and A level subject content clarification guides which I highly recommend you use to know what aspects of the content mentioned in the spec you need to know.

Here's the links:



Hope this helps!
1
reply
TSR Jessica
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Sorry you've not had any responses about this. Are you sure you've posted in the right place? Here's a link to our subject forum which should help get you more responses if you post there.
0
reply
kmnshah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by TheMuslimCompSci)
As Salamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh World!

Let's talk about the new linear spec. I know I've mentioned a few things that I dislike about the new spec in earlier posts but I think a lot more needs to be said.

You may or may not find this information useful but I think understanding what the spec is asking you to learn is key to success in the final exams.

Personally, I think the new spec is extremely vague. Maybe OCR wanted it to be this way so they could broaden the scope of the spec by not limiting it to simply defining/describing/explaining certain terms/keywords or maybe they are just lazy plain and simple.

Let's just take the content mentioned in the very first part of the first spec point 1.1.1(a) where it mentions the ALU:





"1.1.1(a) The Arithmetic and Logic Unit; ALU..."




Now if you're someone who hasn't got a single clue about computer science when you first start this A level then you're going to have a bad time.

I wasn't given the opportunity to study GCSE Computer Science because my (extremely socioeconomically deprived) school didn't offer it so I done GCSE ICT instead.

Even after doing GCSE ICT I had no idea what any of this meant and I'm self teaching! I had to look at the old spec to get a better idea of what I needed to know. So now let's look at how the old spec states what content you need to know about the ALU:

Candidates should be able to: a. describe the function and purpose of the... and ALU (arithmetic logic unit) as individual parts of a computer;
LOOK HOW SPECIFIC THAT IS!

That's the whole point of a specification, to specify the content that the candidates need to know, not just state a random term expecting students to know what you're talking about.

As if OCR didn't torture students enough by writing terrible exams, now they have to confuse us even more by writing a terrible specification!

Notice how at the start (and this is on every page by the way) it says "candidates should be able to". Now you may think that's not a big deal, it's quite obvious that everything on the spec is content that candidates need to know.

OK Fine, not mentioning that line in the new spec is tolerable but what is not is how OCR think it's ok to just write a long list of words and expect students to read their minds as to what their actual intentions were in writing that vague list.

Moving on, the very first word of the spec point is something very familiar in exams, it says DESCRIBE. Now I'm sure that I don't have to tell you the difference between the command words state, identify, define, describe, explain etc. so it would make perfect sense for OCR to clearly state what knowledge I need regarding the ALU.

I need to "describe the FUNCTION and PURPOSE" of the ALU. Now that make's sense, a candidate will clearly be able to distinguish the knowledge that is relevant to him regarding the ALU and what is not, they simply need to know it's function and purpose.

If OCR could write such a clear and detailed spec before, why not now? The new linear exam system is already tough enough and to make matters worse, some students don't even know what content they have to know for the exam!

Look, I know it's nice to know extra information about the content in the spec (especially if you love your subject like me) but when it gets to the those final days before the exam, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It's all fun and games in the early days but when you're doing that last minute revision before the final exam and check the spec to make sure you know everything but you just see a load of keywords with commas between them, you start to question if OCR would ask this or that which leads to nothing but panic.

An old spec candidate would simply read the spec and know he knows the function and purpose of the ALU but a new spec candidate... would simply read the word ALU and think does he know everything about it. I mean seriously OCR, was it that tiresome to write this spec?

There's glimpses of clarity of the old spec in the new one but honestly, I think whoever wrote this either didn't get paid enough or is just plain lazy. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

In fact, I think even OCR got the picture because guess what, they released a subject content clarification guide in 2017 (nearly 2 years after the spec) which I'll link at the end of this post.

Now let's compare how this guide states the first spec point to the actual spec itself:

Candidates need to have an understanding of the purpose and function of the core components of a processor. Candidates need to understand the role and components of the ALU.

SEE! Even OCR realised what a tremendous failure their specification was. Look at the extraordinary, the great lengths it goes to and the familiar wording used to ensure it is as clear as possible. Sure, they don't use the word describe like before as they probably want to expand the scope of the spec, which is fine.

But at least this time, it states (just like in the old spec) that the "purpose" and "function" of the ALU is the knowledge that candidates need to know. Now students stand a chance in passing their exams (which will be greatly improved if OCR learned how to write exams).

Anyway, I think I just needed to vent and let all the contempt I had for OCR before they released this guide out (don't get me wrong, I still hate them).

To conclude, I will just link the AS and A level specifications and the AS and A level subject content clarification guides which I highly recommend you use to know what aspects of the content mentioned in the spec you need to know.

Here's the links:



Hope this helps!
IKR, ffs I complained about this problem for 2 years and unfortunately failed this pathetic course. I am retaking now and need help!
0
reply
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by kmnshah)
IKR, ffs I complained about this problem for 2 years and unfortunately failed this pathetic course. I am retaking now and need help!
Hi,

Perhaps you could try using some of the resources linked in this thread or you could check out the resources I made here. Feel free to share them and be sure to let me know if there's any mistakes e.g. typos so I can fix them in the next iterations

Hope this helps!
0
reply
kmnshah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by TheMuslimCompSci)
Hi,

Perhaps you could try using some of the resources linked in this thread or you could check out the resources I made here. Feel free to share them and be sure to let me know if there's any mistakes e.g. typos so I can fix them in the next iterations

Hope this helps!
Thanks a lot, I did check them out. They look really helpful and thank you again for sharing such amazing resources freely. Personally, I find paper 2 to be the hard one, especially those questions where you are required to write algorithms using pseudocode as I didn't have a clue on how to start. My teachers didn't exactly explain how to cover those type of questions. I tried my best understanding them but not a clue on how to even approach them.
0
reply
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by kmnshah)
Thanks a lot, I did check them out. They look really helpful and thank you again for sharing such amazing resources freely. Personally, I find paper 2 to be the hard one, especially those questions where you are required to write algorithms using pseudocode as I didn't have a clue on how to start. My teachers didn't exactly explain how to cover those type of questions. I tried my best understanding them but not a clue on how to even approach them.
Thanks, the reason I started making these in the first place was due to there being pretty much no good resources available for this course, at least not free ones. It honestly amazed me how poor the quality of the textbooks and other resources were, especially the so called "OCR endorsed" ones.

In regards to tackling pseudocode questions, my advice would be to start practising with the algorithm questions from the F452 papers of the old spec. They start off really simple so you can get lots of experience before going onto more complicated questions in the current spec papers.

I also found paper 2 a bit harder than paper 1 at first but, if you do every single algorithm question of the old spec papers you'll be fine. And I do mean every single one.

Hope this helps!
0
reply
kmnshah
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by TheMuslimCompSci)
Thanks, the reason I started making these in the first place was due to there being pretty much no good resources available for this course, at least not free ones. It honestly amazed me how poor the quality of the textbooks and other resources were, especially the so called "OCR endorsed" ones.

In regards to tackling pseudocode questions, my advice would be to start practising with the algorithm questions from the F452 papers of the old spec. They start off really simple so you can get lots of experience before going onto more complicated questions in the current spec papers.

I also found paper 2 a bit harder than paper 1 at first but, if you do every single algorithm question of the old spec papers you'll be fine. And I do mean every single one.

Hope this helps!
Thanks for your advice. I have all old spec past papers downloaded from 2009 and will give them all a try.
Personally, I feel the PG online textbook is much better than the purple ocr textbook which had mistakes. What are your opinions on the PG online textbook? I am thinking of buying this book as I used it last year but as an external candidate, I cannot get it from the library. Some sections had some extra pointless information which isn't listed in the comp.sci spec (especially the input, output chapters) but other than that, the Boolean algebra chapters were very useful and the different algorithm topics seemed very detailed.
Btw, for the pseudocode questions do you need to have some previous programming experience? I did a little programming last year using visual basic but struggled a lot and did not understand a thing as I was a total beginner to all this stuff.
0
reply
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by kmnshah)
Thanks for your advice. I have all old spec past papers downloaded from 2009 and will give them all a try.
Personally, I feel the PG online textbook is much better than the purple ocr textbook which had mistakes. What are your opinions on the PG online textbook? I am thinking of buying this book as I used it last year but as an external candidate, I cannot get it from the library. Some sections had some extra pointless information which isn't listed in the comp.sci spec (especially the input, output chapters) but other than that, the Boolean algebra chapters were very useful and the different algorithm topics seemed very detailed.
Btw, for the pseudocode questions do you need to have some previous programming experience? I did a little programming last year using visual basic but struggled a lot and did not understand a thing as I was a total beginner to all this stuff.
I agree that the PG online book is better than the "purple" Hodder Education one. For me, the purple one has way too much "waffle" i.e. unnecessary information that has nothing to do with the exams and are essentially just page fillers.

The PG online textbook on the other hand, has tons of useful content and minimal waffle. It gets straight to the point but, it does fall prey to having too much information in some areas. If memory serves, I think it's nearly 400 pages which you could easily condense in 100.

With that said, both textbooks have some great aspects but the PG online one edges it for me. I am currently writing a textbook and I find both of them to have desirable features that I plan to include in my own.

As for the pseudocode questions, I'd recommend doing all the questions with your notes first if you aren't sure about the OCR syntax. Obviously, you don't have to use OCR's pseudocode but I think it's best not to take risks and just use theirs anyway. Besides, it's not that complicated anyway.

So, the first time round you should just focus on the logic of the questions, not the syntax. Just use your notes or you could use this resource which basically gives examples and notes on each construct in OCR's syntax.

When you're comfortable with the logic side of things, do the questions again (all of them) so you can practice writing in the correct syntax. I also done Visual Basic in year 12 and it was terrible since I had never done any programming beforehand.

Python has a much cleaner syntax that's similar to OCR's one and is very easy to learn if you put the effort in which is what I did in year 13 when I had to self teach A level Computer Science.

Another easy way of getting used to writing algorithms in OCR's syntax is to literally write down all the algorithms in the questions themselves of the F452 past papers in the new syntax. The old spec papers use a similar syntax to the current spec, but there are a few differences and I personally think the current spec syntax is a lot cleaner.

For my reviews on pretty much all the resources available for this course, you can check out this thread.

Hope this helps!
Last edited by TheMuslimCompSci; 1 year ago
0
reply
MrRhino
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Thank you!! The subject content clarification guide is an exam saver.

(Original post by TheMuslimCompSci)
As Salamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh World!

Let's talk about the new linear spec. I know I've mentioned a few things that I dislike about the new spec in earlier posts but I think a lot more needs to be said.

You may or may not find this information useful but I think understanding what the spec is asking you to learn is key to success in the final exams.

Personally, I think the new spec is extremely vague. Maybe OCR wanted it to be this way so they could broaden the scope of the spec by not limiting it to simply defining/describing/explaining certain terms/keywords or maybe they are just lazy plain and simple.

Let's just take the content mentioned in the very first part of the first spec point 1.1.1(a) where it mentions the ALU:




"1.1.1(a) The Arithmetic and Logic Unit; ALU..."



Now if you're someone who hasn't got a single clue about computer science when you first start this A level then you're going to have a bad time.

I wasn't given the opportunity to study GCSE Computer Science because my (extremely socioeconomically deprived) school didn't offer it so I done GCSE ICT instead.

Even after doing GCSE ICT I had no idea what any of this meant and I'm self teaching! I had to look at the old spec to get a better idea of what I needed to know. So now let's look at how the old spec states what content you need to know about the ALU:

Candidates should be able to: a. describe the function and purpose of the... and ALU (arithmetic logic unit) as individual parts of a computer;
LOOK HOW SPECIFIC THAT IS!

That's the whole point of a specification, to specify the content that the candidates need to know, not just state a random term expecting students to know what you're talking about.

As if OCR didn't torture students enough by writing terrible exams, now they have to confuse us even more by writing a terrible specification!

Notice how at the start (and this is on every page by the way) it says "candidates should be able to". Now you may think that's not a big deal, it's quite obvious that everything on the spec is content that candidates need to know.

OK Fine, not mentioning that line in the new spec is tolerable but what is not is how OCR think it's ok to just write a long list of words and expect students to read their minds as to what their actual intentions were in writing that vague list.

Moving on, the very first word of the spec point is something very familiar in exams, it says DESCRIBE. Now I'm sure that I don't have to tell you the difference between the command words state, identify, define, describe, explain etc. so it would make perfect sense for OCR to clearly state what knowledge I need regarding the ALU.

I need to "describe the FUNCTION and PURPOSE" of the ALU. Now that make's sense, a candidate will clearly be able to distinguish the knowledge that is relevant to him regarding the ALU and what is not, they simply need to know it's function and purpose.

If OCR could write such a clear and detailed spec before, why not now? The new linear exam system is already tough enough and to make matters worse, some students don't even know what content they have to know for the exam!

Look, I know it's nice to know extra information about the content in the spec (especially if you love your subject like me) but when it gets to the those final days before the exam, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It's all fun and games in the early days but when you're doing that last minute revision before the final exam and check the spec to make sure you know everything but you just see a load of keywords with commas between them, you start to question if OCR would ask this or that which leads to nothing but panic.

An old spec candidate would simply read the spec and know he knows the function and purpose of the ALU but a new spec candidate... would simply read the word ALU and think does he know everything about it. I mean seriously OCR, was it that tiresome to write this spec?

There's glimpses of clarity of the old spec in the new one but honestly, I think whoever wrote this either didn't get paid enough or is just plain lazy. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

In fact, I think even OCR got the picture because guess what, they released a subject content clarification guide in 2017 (nearly 2 years after the spec) which I'll link at the end of this post.

Now let's compare how this guide states the first spec point to the actual spec itself:

Candidates need to have an understanding of the purpose and function of the core components of a processor. Candidates need to understand the role and components of the ALU.

SEE! Even OCR realised what a tremendous failure their specification was. Look at the extraordinary, the great lengths it goes to and the familiar wording used to ensure it is as clear as possible. Sure, they don't use the word describe like before as they probably want to expand the scope of the spec, which is fine.

But at least this time, it states (just like in the old spec) that the "purpose" and "function" of the ALU is the knowledge that candidates need to know. Now students stand a chance in passing their exams (which will be greatly improved if OCR learned how to write exams).

Anyway, I think I just needed to vent and let all the contempt I had for OCR before they released this guide out (don't get me wrong, I still hate them).

To conclude, I will just link the AS and A level specifications and the AS and A level subject content clarification guides which I highly recommend you use to know what aspects of the content mentioned in the spec you need to know.

Here's the links:



Hope this helps!
0
reply
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by MrRhino)
Thank you!! The subject content clarification guide is an exam saver.
No problem . You can check out this thread for some more exam savers.

Hope this helps!
0
reply
Frankie8
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by TheMuslimCompSci)
As Salamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh World!

Let's talk about the new linear spec. I know I've mentioned a few things that I dislike about the new spec in earlier posts but I think a lot more needs to be said.

You may or may not find this information useful but I think understanding what the spec is asking you to learn is key to success in the final exams.

Personally, I think the new spec is extremely vague. Maybe OCR wanted it to be this way so they could broaden the scope of the spec by not limiting it to simply defining/describing/explaining certain terms/keywords or maybe they are just lazy plain and simple.

Let's just take the content mentioned in the very first part of the first spec point 1.1.1(a) where it mentions the ALU:




"1.1.1(a) The Arithmetic and Logic Unit; ALU..."



Now if you're someone who hasn't got a single clue about computer science when you first start this A level then you're going to have a bad time.

I wasn't given the opportunity to study GCSE Computer Science because my (extremely socioeconomically deprived) school didn't offer it so I done GCSE ICT instead.

Even after doing GCSE ICT I had no idea what any of this meant and I'm self teaching! I had to look at the old spec to get a better idea of what I needed to know. So now let's look at how the old spec states what content you need to know about the ALU:

Candidates should be able to: a. describe the function and purpose of the... and ALU (arithmetic logic unit) as individual parts of a computer;
LOOK HOW SPECIFIC THAT IS!

That's the whole point of a specification, to specify the content that the candidates need to know, not just state a random term expecting students to know what you're talking about.

As if OCR didn't torture students enough by writing terrible exams, now they have to confuse us even more by writing a terrible specification!

Notice how at the start (and this is on every page by the way) it says "candidates should be able to". Now you may think that's not a big deal, it's quite obvious that everything on the spec is content that candidates need to know.

OK Fine, not mentioning that line in the new spec is tolerable but what is not is how OCR think it's ok to just write a long list of words and expect students to read their minds as to what their actual intentions were in writing that vague list.

Moving on, the very first word of the spec point is something very familiar in exams, it says DESCRIBE. Now I'm sure that I don't have to tell you the difference between the command words state, identify, define, describe, explain etc. so it would make perfect sense for OCR to clearly state what knowledge I need regarding the ALU.

I need to "describe the FUNCTION and PURPOSE" of the ALU. Now that make's sense, a candidate will clearly be able to distinguish the knowledge that is relevant to him regarding the ALU and what is not, they simply need to know it's function and purpose.

If OCR could write such a clear and detailed spec before, why not now? The new linear exam system is already tough enough and to make matters worse, some students don't even know what content they have to know for the exam!

Look, I know it's nice to know extra information about the content in the spec (especially if you love your subject like me) but when it gets to the those final days before the exam, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It's all fun and games in the early days but when you're doing that last minute revision before the final exam and check the spec to make sure you know everything but you just see a load of keywords with commas between them, you start to question if OCR would ask this or that which leads to nothing but panic.

An old spec candidate would simply read the spec and know he knows the function and purpose of the ALU but a new spec candidate... would simply read the word ALU and think does he know everything about it. I mean seriously OCR, was it that tiresome to write this spec?

There's glimpses of clarity of the old spec in the new one but honestly, I think whoever wrote this either didn't get paid enough or is just plain lazy. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

In fact, I think even OCR got the picture because guess what, they released a subject content clarification guide in 2017 (nearly 2 years after the spec) which I'll link at the end of this post.

Now let's compare how this guide states the first spec point to the actual spec itself:

Candidates need to have an understanding of the purpose and function of the core components of a processor. Candidates need to understand the role and components of the ALU.

SEE! Even OCR realised what a tremendous failure their specification was. Look at the extraordinary, the great lengths it goes to and the familiar wording used to ensure it is as clear as possible. Sure, they don't use the word describe like before as they probably want to expand the scope of the spec, which is fine.

But at least this time, it states (just like in the old spec) that the "purpose" and "function" of the ALU is the knowledge that candidates need to know. Now students stand a chance in passing their exams (which will be greatly improved if OCR learned how to write exams).

Anyway, I think I just needed to vent and let all the contempt I had for OCR before they released this guide out (don't get me wrong, I still hate them).

To conclude, I will just link the AS and A level specifications and the AS and A level subject content clarification guides which I highly recommend you use to know what aspects of the content mentioned in the spec you need to know.

Here's the links:



Hope this helps!
This is exactly the same position I'm in and it's the *****iest thing ever. I took GCSE ICT and have really awful teaching for the computer science course which has left me teaching myself. I've looked into the complaints procedure for OCR but it looks as if they don't take student complaints. The textbook I have is awful and waffles way too much, so thanks for the clarification guide.
One month to the exam and I honestly think I'll be lucky to pass which, bearing in mind I'm predicted an A and need an A for uni, is really ****.

I hope it goes okay for you anyway
0
reply
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Frankie8)
This is exactly the same position I'm in and it's the *****iest thing ever. I took GCSE ICT and have really awful teaching for the computer science course which has left me teaching myself. I've looked into the complaints procedure for OCR but it looks as if they don't take student complaints. The textbook I have is awful and waffles way too much, so thanks for the clarification guide.
One month to the exam and I honestly think I'll be lucky to pass which, bearing in mind I'm predicted an A and need an A for uni, is really ****.

I hope it goes okay for you anyway
I wouldn't recommend using the textbook at all. I made my notes (which you can check out here) simply from all the past papers. Only when certain content wasn't in the past papers would I use the textbook (which was rare anyway).

I imagine at this point you understand all the material and it's just a matter of retaining that information. So, I would recommend just start memorising all the key terms/definitions or whatever you want to call them for the theoretical side of the spec (which is mostly assessed in Paper 1). Essentially, you need to go through every single keyword in the specification and learn it inside out.

Obviously, you'll need some technical skills in writing code in HTML, CSS, JavaScript, SQL, LMC and of course pseudocode amongst other things. For this, you actually need to practice by doing lots and lots of questions, no amount of memory work will cut it. There's loads of questions in the old spec papers that are definitely worth a try.

Anyway, despite the spec being vague and textbook being mostly page fillers, there's still enough time for you to get that A if you work smart!

Hope this helps!
0
reply
Onisparks
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
I've been using your notes to revise, they're so helpful. TYSM!!!!
0
reply
TheMuslimCompSci
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Onisparks)
I've been using your notes to revise, they're so helpful. TYSM!!!!
I'm glad to hear it
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (66)
14.9%
I'm not sure (16)
3.61%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (148)
33.41%
I have already dropped out (8)
1.81%
I'm not a current university student (205)
46.28%

Watched Threads

View All