Access to He Diploma Regional Standardisation Event Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ACCESS TO HE DIPLOMA REGIONAL STANDARDISATION EVENT REPORT Health, including Biology 28 January 2014, OCNNER Peterlee ATTENDANCE: Diane Musgrave, Bishop Auckland College Elaine Allcock, Darlington College Victoria Lappin, Gateshead College Benita Tuson, Middlesbrough College Judith Booth, New College Durham Liam Mallam, South Tyneside College Donna Topping South Tyneside College Chris Challen, South Tyneside College Marie Andrews Stockton Riverside College Melanie Cassap Sunderland College 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.