Talk:Diploma in Digital Applications

Regarding poor writing of article and obvious POV bias

This article is both poorly written and biased. I intend to clean it up soon. Any reasonable comments welcome! BlackKnight48 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Vandalism

Bravo curry1. This article is now much more truthful than it was before. And may i ask, where'd you get the inspiration for that name from? ;)

Regarding Edexcel rubbish

Regarding the matter of filetypes that Edexcel permit to be used, there is a list here, on the DiDA website, entitled, Moderators' Toolkit. See this link. Dave the Rave (DTR) 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know something like that goes against the ethos of wikipedia but it is true that there is so many problems with DiDA. Edexcel give very little resources so the teachers can't really teach you. Also, 30 hours is no where near enough if you want to be getting high grades. --leemyster (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV in controversy section

The points of view in the controversy section are not backed up by any references. 217.34.36.251 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Controversy section was badly worded and rather baised, I have cleaned it up and removed a section that has no references to support it. THere were also a few unnessicary comments about Pukka Pies which I also removed. Watchwolf 10:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

POV in first hand experiences section

There is an obvious POV in the first hand experiences section. The annecdotal evidence does seem to reflect the opinion of students that I know that have completed the programme- however these claims are uncited and have a POV. -alex- 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a GCSE is it?

I know DiDA is not a GCSE (I'm sure of it) however what is it then? B-TEC? All I know it is equivilent to a GCSE - it does not follow the GCSE criteria with its grading system for example. [User:DarkMauve]] 19:35, 01 February 2008

It's a completely new type of qualification. You are correct that it is equivalent to GCSEs, as all qualifications are now equivalent to each other in some way or another. (As a side note, I'm not completely convinced that the grade-by-grade comparison table in this article is accurate.) I believe one of the reasons for introducing the DiDA was because the GCSE syllabus frequently became out-of-date because updating syallbi is done on a long cycle controlled by the QCA. EdExcel therefore developed their own qualification, bypassing the GCSE 'problem' altogether. This is a double-edged sword: while the DiDA is considered more relevant by the IT industry, it (like many other GCSE alternatives) does not have the respect of GCSEs from employers in general. (And, if we're being honest, there is no way it is really equivalent to four GCSEs.) - Green Tentacle (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with DiDA

I'm guessing that a few of the people coming on here are having trouble with these GCSE's. This is just a few tips to help you get a higher grade. A ethos that i have towards DiDA is that its not what you have but what you don't have which determines your marks. A few tips i have learnt on the way is that you can make things up and the teacher won't care. e.g. the time plans you can make up at the end of the project. Also, feel free to look at the mark schemes, the teachers won't give you them but if you just type in on google "dida level 2 mark schemes" and have a little look around you can find them.

Regarding Criticism Section

It says that many students have complained about the large amount of coursework given but maybe it should be mentioned that DiDA consists ONLY of coursework and that it is done during schooltime. Nothing else is needed, no exams or anything.

Yeah, I finished the coursework 9 months in advance, which leaves me with the rest of the year to do... nothing in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.68.149 (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

91.105.98.65 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DiDA is not as bad as people are making it out to be.

I'm a DiDA student and I must say that most of the crititism given is, well, rubbish. Where are the sources to show these "critics"? My thought is that people who havent even taken part in the DiDA course are "pretending" to understand the course and write inaccurate crititsm. I'm sorry but where are sources to actual students who have taken part in the course. And one thing to one person who said they "finished with 9 months the spare". If you can finish four challenging projects to an A* standard with 9 months to spare then good for you, but believe me, I only just finished two of the topics in the 2 years. You can't have put much effort into the course, or perhaps only finished one of the projects. So coming from a DiDA student, I don't think DiDA should be critisised as much as it is. I enjoy taking part in the course and it has taught me new skills so, to be honest, it's annoyed me people have made this crititism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.149.29 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diploma in Digital Applications (DiDA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520112409/http://dida.edexcel.org.uk/ to http://dida.edexcel.org.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807123854/http://www.chalkface.com/products/ICT/DIDA/ to http://www.chalkface.com/products/ICT/DIDA/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000100/http://dida.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/87674/Adobe_Associate_Certification.pdf to http://dida.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/87674/Adobe_Associate_Certification.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)