ACCESS TO HE DIPLOMA REGIONAL STANDARDISATION EVENT REPORT

Health, including Biology

28 January 2014, OCNNER Peterlee

ATTENDANCE: Diane Musgrave, College Elaine Allcock, Victoria Lappin, Gateshead College Benita Tuson, Judith Booth, Liam Mallam, Donna Topping South Tyneside College Chris Challen, South Tyneside College Marie Andrews Stockton Riverside College Melanie Cassap Paul James Sunderland College Wendy Bell OCNNER Moderator Angela Ince, Redcar & Cleveland College and OCNNER Moderator

Facilitated by Patricia Oswald, Lead Moderator OCNNER

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF EVENT: Aim - To ensure judgements are valid, reliable, consistent and fair

Objectives: Using samples of students’ work

• To discuss the tutor feedback and grading decisions across a range of grades and grade boundaries • To make recommendations on tutor feedback and grading decisions in relation to validity, reliability, consistency and fairness.

SAMPLES CHOSEN FOR STANDARDISATION:

Psychology and Sociology of Health Level 3 LOs AC 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.2, 4.3, 6.1 - PM, MM, DD Health Promotion Level 3 LOs ACs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1 - PP, MM, DD Applied Human Biology Level 3 LO 2 ACs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4– Resubmission, PP, MM Applied Human Biology Level 3 LO1 ACs 1.1, 1.2, LO5 ACs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 PP, MM, DD

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM DELEGATES AND MODERATORS

Psychology and Sociology of Health

Sample 1 PM  Majority felt it should have been PP  Work was descriptive and lacked evaluation and analysis.  Not sufficient insight  Bibliography included which would have been expected.  Some attempt to link research to work.  More supporting literature is needed

Sample 2 MM  Discussion took place on why this was better than Sample 1?  Very little difference except for mention of HBM and TPA  Quality of evaluation better but in places muddled  Written in a better style and some content shows more knowledge.  Better use of references offering examples to support work.  More delegates disagreed with the grading than agreed.  Better to give MP but borderline M for Gd2

Sample 3 DD  Grading agreed  Clear links to LOs  Much better evidencing  Extensive referencing  Easy to read

General Comments

Assignment Brief  Refers to Marking Criteria rather than grading criteria  However there is clear contextualisation so learners should know what they have to do to achieve a Pass, Merit or Distinction though some delegates felt this could be more detailed.  Assessment criteria could be put next to the tasks in the assignment brief  There is a self-assessment for the learners to complete but only one learner had put any comments at all. Therefore self-assessment needs developing.  Front sheet needs developing so that there are boxes for feedback on the GDs  It would be a good idea to have a box for developmental feedback  The assignment brief was easy to read by a lay person.  Use of etc in the assignment brief is poor practice.  Top Tips a good idea

Feedback  Very little annotation on the work and no LOs or ACs indicated  Feedback is very brief on the front sheet.  Does not relate to the assessment criteria or grade descriptors  The learners would not know why they had achieved a particular grade.  More positive feedback could have been given on the lower graded scripts  Language does not always match the grade descriptor given  No space for developmental feedback and this was generally omitted

Health Promotion LOs ACs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1

Sample 1 PP  Grading agreed

Sample 2 MM  Grading agreed  There was more detail in the assignment to meet the merit criteria  Good examples were given

Sample 3 DD  Grading agreed  Excellent detail and research.  The learner made good comparisons throughout the assignment supported by research/ examples  More detail and more on definitions of health and different models  The references could be consistent.

General Comments

Assignment Brief  The task was creative. However, further guidance could be given on how to write a newspaper article and a business letter.  The task does not reflect the language of the AC ie “evaluate 2.1  It is a very busy assignment and must have been hard to mark.  Feedback boxes could be bigger particularly “Suggestions for Improvement”  Felt that the cover sheet was hard to understand

Feedback  Generally it was felt that the feedback was good and constructive and picked up on the positives.  It should match the language of the GDs e.g. Good was used for Merit assignment and Very Good for Distinction  Scripts were annotated with comments – could also be annotated with ACs  More guidance could be given on how to improve if the boxes were larger.

Applied Human Biology LO2

Sample 1 Resubmission  Assessor had stated that AC 2.4 had not been achieved  Discussion took place on which other assessment criteria had not been met – some feeling that AC 2.2 had not been met either.  Majority felt that this was correct but in addition there was not sufficient analysis and it was too descriptive.  Information not given on how CO2 would carried around the body and not sufficient on the white blood cells.  There was not a good link between the structure and the function.

Sample 2 PP  The majority would not pass this but would ask for a resubmission for AC2.2 and 2.3.  Lack of content and meeting the assessment criteria.  No demonstration of learning – has information been copied.  The work is short, in note form and does not explain any of the ACs  No referencing in text  All citations are web based with no reference to text books

Sample 3 MM  Discussion took place on the grading. Was the problem with the assignment brief which did not allow the learners to meet the learning outcomes and therefore they should be given the benefit of the doubt?  Question on how it had passed the IM process and had the EM seen it?  This assignment was better than the previous two but not sure if it should be graded MM.  There was a wide range of opinions from agreeing with the MM to saying that AC2.2 and 2.3 had not been met.  Some felt it should be PM  No consensus could be reached.  There was some feeling that a considerable amount had not been written in the learner’s own words.

Assignment Brief  It was a nice idea to ask the learners to ask for an article on a website but it did not allow the ACs to be met fully. It did not allow for explanation or analysis and the achievement of the higher grades. It should be more focused. In fact, there were few links made with the Case Study by the learners.  Some attempt made at contextualisation of the grade descriptors  Assessment criteria could be put next to the tasks in the assignment brief  There is a self-assessment for the learners to complete but only one learner had put any comments at all. Therefore self-assessment needs developing.  Front sheet needs developing so that there are boxes for feedback on the GDs  It should also be clear that there is detailed feedback at the end of the assignment.

Feedback  More annotation is required on the work  It was clear which AC had not been met for Sample 1  There was detailed feedback at the back of the work for Samples 2 and 3 but this was contradictory in places e.g. “Your work is very brief and lacks detail” for General Comment but in Areas of Strength is says “good level of detail” or “references are still not correctly written and some work needs doing here” and in Areas of Strength “Good attempt at referencing and citations”.

Applied Human Biology Level 3 LO1 ACs 1.1, 1.2, LO5 ACs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 PP, MM, DD

Sample 1 PP AC1.1 – not achieved. Should be a resubmission for this AC It was felt that the learner had not explained the components of a basic cell and the role of individual organelles. The learner had only explained the nucleus, membrane and lysosome The work does not capture the forming of tissues

Sample 2 MM Grading agreed

Sample 3 DD  Grading agreed  Distinction given for Quality when the learner has used American spelling. However, this is not identified as a requirement in the GD  Hand drawn diagrams.

General Comment  The learners need to understand the difference between Human Biology and Applied Human Biology  None of the learners give a word count.

Assignment Brief  The brief allows the learners to develop accurate scientific writing.  Asks for word count and Harvard referencing  Could show the where the LOs and ACs are being met  Boxes for feedback on grammar.  No contextualisation of GDs  Could be feedback against the individual GDs

Feedback  Good constructive, supportive feedback showing what the learners need to do to improve.  Comments on grammar, referencing etc on assignment feedback sheet.  Detailed annotations on the scripts including correction of grammar and spelling.  Could annotate the learning outcomes and assessment criteria on the script.

OUTCOMES

 Psychology of Health – It was felt that the assignments 1 and 2 had been over graded on GD 7  Health Promotion - all the Grades were agreed.  Applied Human Biology LO2 – concern that some of the ACs had not been met. Problems were identified with the assignment brief; therefore it might be necessary to give the learners the benefit of the doubt if they had done what was required in the brief.  Applied Human Biology LO1 and LO5 – agreement on the Merit and Distinction but felt that LO1 AC1.1 had not been met by the learner who achieved Pass.  There were no instances where the delegates felt the work had been under graded.  Some of the assignment briefs did not allow for the criteria to be met. This was particularly true for Applied Human Biology LO2  Some instances of creativity in writing assignment briefs were seen but care needs to be taken to ensure they match the LOs and ACs  Some very detailed feedback with comments on learners’ work. In other cases more feedback is necessary, in particular on how improvements could be made in future assignments.  There was concern that feedback was not always being given against the individual GDs  Annotation of LOs and ACs on work would be helpful QAA REQUIREMENTS MET:

The AVA must take steps to ensure that equivalent standards and requirements for achievement apply on different Access to HE courses which lead to Diplomas, within the AVA and across different student cohorts and:

1. Where Access to HE Diplomas or common units are available on more than one course, it operates mechanisms to ensure that consistent standards are applied across providers, in relation to assessment requirements and judgments about achievement (including graded achievement), and its moderation systems take account of the outcomes of this process.

2. Where Access to HE Diplomas or units are available on different courses, it provides opportunities for those involved in Access to HE assessment and moderation to define and compare specific standards of required achievement for the award of credits and grades, and its moderation systems take account of the outcomes of this process.

AVA OBJECTIVES FOR STANDARDISATION 2013-14 MET

1. Undertake standardisation activity with Providers and Moderators to ensure their judgements are consistent and fair. 2. Undertake provider standardisation meetings in all Diploma subjects where there is more than one provider offering that subject in an academic year. 3. Offer opportunities to standardise common units being delivered within subject areas. 4. Operate a moderation model which ensures Moderators can compare common units and Diploma subjects across a range of providers and report their findings. 5. Produce an annual standardisation report of the outcomes of standardisation which is circulated to providers and Moderators 6. Build a bank of samples of student work which can be used for Moderators and providers to compare assessment judgements.

AGREED ACTIONS

For Providers 1. To ensure assignment briefs enable the LOs, ACs to be met. 2. To always give detailed feedback on the reasons for the grading decisions and to ensure that the feedback always matches the grade descriptors. 3. To ensure that there is always developmental feedback.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To consider contextualisation of GDs if not already doing so. 2. To annotate the LOs and ACs on the learners’ work

For the AVA (including Moderators) 1. To circulate this report. 2. To ensure all External Moderators provide feedback to providers on the fitness for purpose of assignment briefs 3. To monitor the implementation of the above Action Points and Recommendations.

5 February 2014 Patricia Oswald