ACCESS TO HE DIPLOMA STANDARDISATION EVENT (Social Sciences) 10th November 2016, 9.30 am -12.30 pm) (One Awards, Peterlee) ATTENDANCE: 11 delegates from 6 providers attended. Angela McDermott (Sunderland College) Bally Kaur (Calderdale College) Ian Evans (Middlesbrough College) Karis Mello(Darlington College) Melanie Cassap (Sunderland College) Nigel Coulson (Sunderland College) Sabine Gretscher (Newcastle City Learning) Sarah Robson (Sunderland College) Steph Garnett (Darlington College) Laura Bell (Bishop Auckland College) In addition there was 1 external moderator (Margaret Close). The facilitator was Sue Scheilling One Awards Lead Moderator. APOLOGIES AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVENT: Aim: To provide opportunities for those involved in the assessment and/or moderation of the Access to HE Diploma to increase their understanding of assessment requirements, and to compare their assessment judgements with others delivering and/or moderating units in the same subject area Objectives: To undertake activities which enable participants to: 1. Compare assessment judgements in relation to student achievement of learning outcomes and assessment criteria. 2. Compare assessment judgements in relation to student achievement of grade indicators. 3. Explore and confirm QAA and One Awards requirements for assessment. SAMPLES OF STUDENT WORK CHOSEN FOR STANDARDISATION Unit title: Psychology – essay Unit title: Sociology - essay Unit title: Values and practice in care – Academic poster The associated learning outcomes and assessment and grade descriptor components were provided on separate sheets. The assignment briefs were not provided. SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM DELEGATES AND MODERATORS Sample 1 – Psychology (essay) Achievement of learning outcomes and assessment criteria AC Comments from delegates and moderators Consensus decision Pass/ borderline/fail 1.1 Considered a good attempt at a sizeable challenge. Themes Pass were considered evident but discussion on lack of clarity as to which themes were covered. Some evaluation was evident. Considered too many ACs covered in this assignment and the title to be very general disadvantaging the student. 2.1 Perspectives considered. Pass 2.2 Discussion and criticism considered weak. Pass 4.1 Terminology used Pass 5.1 A weak response but judged that outline was given. Pass 5.2 There was lack of evidence of a ‘second issue’ although one Fail member considered it was touched upon and would have given a borderline Pass. Grading judgements using grade descriptors GD Comments from delegates and moderators Consensus decision Pass/Merit/ Distinction/ Borderline 1c Merit 2a,b Some discussion re. Pass versus Merit linked to concern Merit about the breadth and depth. 7a,c Members found it difficult to grade component c Merit Sample 2 – Sociology (essay) AC Comments from delegates and moderators Consensus decision Pass/ borderline/fail 4.1 Unclear which perspectives were being considered and lack Weak of evidence of evaluation although some members felt there pass/Fail was an attempt at evaluation. Considered too descriptive. There was a lot of discussion about resubmission and that as this only linked to one AC the whole assignment would need to be submitted. Many would have involved a colleague/IM in this decision and were concerned about appropriate preparation for HE. Grading judgements using grade descriptors GD Comments from delegates and moderators Consensus decision Pass/Merit/ Distinction/ Borderline 1c Should this have been deemed as achieved all GD grades Pass would be at Pass only 2ac Pass 5 Pass 7ac Pass Sample 3 – Values and practice in care – Academic poster Achievement of learning outcomes and assessment criteria AC Comments from delegates and moderators Consensus decision Pass/ borderline/fail 1.1 This was judged to be just met Pass 1.2 There was no mention of the Human Rights Act. Fail 1.3 Weak response with no mention of responsibilities Fail Grading judgements using grade descriptors GD Comments from delegates and moderators Consensus decision Pass/Merit/ Distinction/ Borderline No grading decision made as resubmission would be required. Notes on discussion of level 3 work Use of sources/citation Academic writing skills Developing explanation, analysis Use of comparisons, different arguments and strengths and weaknesses Using the appropriate body of knowledge Detail and depth, use of facts and theories. Ability to follow assignment instructions, meet the assignment style and select appropriate material. AGREED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EVENT 1. The number of LOs and ACs chosen for individual assignments need to be manageable. 2. GD components need to be carefully chosen for the style of assessment 3 .It is good practice to involve a colleague in borderline decisions. This is usual in many Colleges but it is still valuable to highlight it. Date report written: 7th December 2016 Name of facilitator: Sue Scheilling .