Higher National Qualifications Internal Assessment Report 2013 Social Sciences

Transcription

1 Higher National Qualifications Internal Assessment Report 2013 Social Sciences The purpose of this report is to provide feedback to centres on verification in Higher National Qualifications in this subject. 1

2 Higher National Units General comments The following Units were sampled: FM66 34 Social Sciences: Research and Methodology F1BS 34 Research and Methodology DP3P 35 Research Issues Unit specifications, instruments of assessment and exemplification materials Almost all centres were using the correct versions of the Unit specifications. One centre was using an older version of the Unit F1BS 34 Research and Methodology, which has been amended by SQA to be fully closed-book. Previously, there was a discrepancy that led to confusion but the Unit has been updated. Almost all were basing assessments on the exemplars produced by SQA. Instruments of assessment were appropriate and marked according to clear marking instructions for the Social Sciences Unit. Again, there were difficulties with assessment instruments for F1BS 34. It is important that this has a complex calculation within (such as a correlation co-efficient or a standard deviation) and this was interpreted differently in one centre, which could have led to specific Evidence Requirements being missed. Evidence Requirements Centres appeared to have a sound grasp of the Evidence Requirements for the Social Sciences Units. There is still a minor issue with a centre misinterpreting the requirements for F1BS 34 in terms of what is meant by a complex calculation (required to meet the Numeracy Core Skill). Administration of assessments The assessment instrument for F1BS 34 should be administered as a closedbook assessment. This has been pointed out in previous reports. Pre-delivery paperwork showed checking of assessment instruments against standards/specifications in many centres. A master pack with correct assessment materials was usually available. Candidate evidence and clear assessment decisions were available. General feedback Once again the Unit F1BS 34 is creating a problem for a minority of centres. This Unit is similar to the Social Science Research and Methodology Unit but often taught and assessed within Complementary Therapies or Sport. In this subject area sometimes centres do not appear to have full understanding of level of difficulty or the intricacies of assessment demands. It is the case that those in the 2

3 same centre teaching on the Social Sciences courses have grasped the delivery and assessment of these Units and so it would be best if staff within centres would share their good practice and understanding. Those delivering the other Social Sciences Units appear to have a good grasp of what is required. Areas of good practice Some centres had their assessment instruments prior verified, which was good practice. Good positive feedback is often given. The use of a feedback sheet with space for candidates to sign a declaration that the work was their own was useful. Social Sciences staff showed good practice in standardisation of assessment decisions for FM66 34 across sites. This was enhanced by meetings and discussion of assessment decisions. This is good practice and should be the norm for all teams delivering Units in this cognate group. This will be especially crucial in the new colleges coming from mergers. Internal verification procedures appear to be rigorous, showing collaboration within the team. This is good practice. Teaching materials for the Research Units are thorough, interesting and wellstructured. A conscientious approach is being shown to delivery of the important HN Research Units and is preparing learners soundly for the Graded Unit assessment in Social Sciences. Centre staff work together to ensure all candidates undertaking the Units have a similar experience and input. Specific areas for improvement It would be beneficial if centres delivering F1BS 34 would get assessments prior verified to be certain that they meet the Evidence Requirements, as this has been problematic over several years. The assessment instrument for F1BS 34 should be administered as a closedbook assessment. This has been pointed out in previous reports. Since research evidence suggests that specific, focused feedback is vital to enhancing learner progress, more detailed feedback should be given. There was insufficient evidence of specific, targeted feedback written on scripts in some cases. Instruments of assessment and re-assessment should be worded to make them more different from each other It is helpful to external verification if remediation can be dated, so that remediation is seen to be carried out under controlled, supervised conditions. 3

4 Higher National Graded Units Titles/levels of HN Graded Units verified: FM67 34 Social Sciences: Graded Unit 1 (exam) FM68 35 Social Sciences: Graded Unit 2 (project) FM6A 35 Social Sciences: Graded Unit 3 (exam) DX2M 35 Social Sciences Graded Unit 3 (exam) General comments Overall, centres clearly understood the national standard for these Units. Evidence of team meetings/internal verification with appropriate adjustment of marks was provided. Good topics were given for the project and it was clear that course teams worked well together to deliver and assess the various disciplines used across topics. Centres gave topic choices that were changed each year. It is essential that candidates do not have the same choices every year. Unit specifications, instruments of assessment and exemplification materials Centres were using the correct version of the Unit specifications. Most centres followed the style of the Unit exemplars this applied more to the new award and was welcome as it aided external verification procedures. Evidence Requirements Centres clearly understood the requirements for these Units. Centres had developed some excellent support materials to give guidance to candidates. Administration of assessments Centres administered the assessment instruments appropriately, with date and time indicated clearly on the exam papers. Internal verification processes were clearly indicated by providing checklists, sampling forms or signing consent on exam scripts. It was clear in some centres that cross-marking was taking place. Most centres indicated standardisation meetings taking place to discuss boundary grades etc. General feedback Generally, marking was appropriate, clear and to national standard. In a minority of centres, evidence of lenient marking in one discipline was seen. Internal verification processes should consider if one subject gains consistently higher marks so not to disadvantage those who chose a different question. 4

5 Candidates were positive in their comments on the project Unit. Some would like to start this process earlier in their course. Candidate responses are of a high standard overall, demonstrating good understanding of the social sciences. Areas of good practice One centre had a useful approach to marking. Detailed comments were given for each question for some candidates that were helpful to the verification process and to candidates as feedback. Some centres gave evidence of cross-marking of candidates work, which helped to ensure standardisation. Evidence of cross-marking or internal verification taking place is good practice. Specific areas for improvement It would be useful to support verification if markers noted K&U, C&E where marks were given for this on candidates scripts. Similar amounts of feedback should be available across all subject disciplines. Occasionally, it was weak in one subject area in a centre. In Graded Unit exams, centres should ensure they do not use global marks higher than 9 or 10 in any section without this broken down clearly so an External Verifier will be clearer as to how marks are allocated. Equally, centres should avoid giving too many low marks (one or two) for a section in a paper, as this can lead to an inaccurate representation of real ability. It is highly recommended that Graded Unit exam papers are prior verified. It is essential that half marks are not allocated on scripts, as this can act to inflate the grade. As centres move from an old version of the award to the newer versions they should take care to ensure the correct Unit numbers are given on assessment instruments. A cover sheet which brings together the three marks for each candidate would be helpful. Candidates should be encouraged to give due regard to all three sections in the Graded Unit project as many seem to give due regard to the planning and development sections without putting as much effort into the evaluation section. 5