If you were unable to join us for the CAS A-Level: OCR NEA online community meeting, don’t worry! You can catch up on all the content and a recording of the session below.

Planning and Managing the A-Level NEA: Insights and Updates from OCR

Key Takeaways

• Project selection is crucial: Encourage students to propose manageable, meaningful projects—especially avoiding database-heavy or GCSE-level ideas.

• Games are often effective NEA projects: Especially when incorporating AI, logic, or networked elements—but size and scope still matter.

• Keep documentation concise: Use tables, bullet points, and screenshots to reduce word count without sacrificing quality.

• Moderation is guided by clarity: Explicit links between evidence and assessment criteria help moderators and support fairer marking.

• Support students ethically: High-level feedback is permitted, but any direct intervention must be declared to maintain assessment integrity.

The NEA: A Matter of Scope, Substance and Support

This online session, led by Ceredig Cattanach-Chell from OCR, took a deep dive into best practice for planning, supporting and assessing the Non-Exam Assessment (NEA) component of OCR's A-Level Computer Science qualification. Whether you're new to teaching the NEA or have marked dozens, there was valuable guidance for all.

The discussion opened with a reminder of OCR’s supportive blogs—still not widely known but full of practical advice for setting up projects. One key tip? Use them with students. They’re not just for teachers.

Choosing Suitable Projects

Perhaps the most vital point was around project suitability. Teachers were encouraged to avoid over-reliance on database-led projects or superficial web apps. Projects must feature text-based general-purpose programming, and ideally involve algorithmic thinking and iterative development.

To support this, OCR offers a project checking service. While helpful—especially for newer teachers—it's intended for borderline or uncertain cases, not every proposal. With thousands of students across the country, volume matters. Teachers were asked to triage: send only those ideas that genuinely need feedback.

The use of tools like the BAFTA Young Game Designer card deck was showcased to help generate rich, creative game ideas. Games, when thoughtfully scoped, are often ideal for the NEA—but the message was clear: bigger isn’t better. Small, focused games often demonstrate more clarity and depth than sprawling, unfinished epics.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

OCR frequently receives proposals that are too vague. For example, "a fun game for teenagers" says little about logic, structure, or scope. Teachers were encouraged to coach students through writing precise proposals, ideally with multiple early-stage ideas to choose from.

There was also a strong warning against GCSE-style projects, especially revision quizzes or basic flashcard apps. Unless significantly extended (e.g., through adaptive algorithms or predictive analytics), these rarely demonstrate A-level standards.

Similarly, simple recreations of existing games like Battleships or Snake lack depth unless students introduce innovations like pathfinding, AI, or networking.

Managing the Documentation Burden

One highlight of the session was a preview of new guidance (due September) on keeping NEA documentation concise. With examples drawn from high-marked projects, teachers were shown how to trim analysis sections, use tables to present success criteria, and avoid reverse-engineered pseudo code.

OCR is clear: quality over quantity. Bullet points, clear headings that map to the mark scheme, and focused video evidence all help keep projects readable, markable, and fair.

There were also clear answers to FAQs:

• No need for a full code appendix.

• Short, referenced videos are better than long, unstructured ones.

• Students can use AI tools, provided they declare usage and include screenshots or exports of the interaction.

Marking and Moderation

A practical tip on managing marking: teachers can keep internal records of indicative marks and use these to frame high-level feedback. You're not allowed to tell students their marks directly, but you can guide them towards improvement.

Additionally, marking should focus on how well the student evidences their process, not just the functionality of the end product. Projects that fail in places can still score highly if the process is clear, iterative, and well tested.

Next Steps: Questions to Reflect On

• Are your students starting their NEA with ambitious—but realistic—project ideas?

• Could you use card-based or random generators to help diversify proposals?

• Is your marking process streamlined through headings and URS mapping?

• Are your students building small but deep projects, rather than sprawling ones?

• Do your current Year 12s need exposure to alternative languages or tools (e.g. Lua, Unity, JavaScript) for their chosen direction?

Example Classroom Exercises:

• Use the BAFTA card generator to spark 3 game project ideas in 10 minutes.

• Peer-review NEA project proposals using a checklist of suitability and scope.

• Rewrite a verbose analysis into a table format—compare clarity and length.

• Explore OCR’s exemplar projects and critique their effectiveness.

Further Resources

OCR A Level NEA Blogs

BAFTA Young Game Designers

JCQ AI Use Guidance

Event Recording