examiners’ report/ principal examiner feedback june 2011...2011/08/24 · centres chose to do ca7...
TRANSCRIPT
Exam iners’ Report /
Principal Exam iner Feedback
June 2011
History
Cont rolled Assessm ent
5HA04 01 / 5HB04 01
Edexcel is one of the leading exam ining and awarding bodies in the UK and
throughout the world. We provide a wide range of qualificat ions including
academ ic, vocat ional, occupat ional and specific program m es for em ployers.
Through a network of UK and overseas offices, Edexcel’s cent res receive the
support they need to help them deliver their educat ion and t raining
program m es to learners.
For further inform at ion, please call our GCE line on 0844 576 0025, our
GCSE team on 0844 576 0027, or visit our website at www.edexcel.com .
I f you have any subject specific quest ions about the content of this
Exam iners’ Report that require the help of a subject specialist , you m ay find
our Ask The Expert em ail service helpful.
Ask The Expert can be accessed online at the following link:
ht tp: / / www.edexcel.com / Aboutus/ contact -us/
Alternat ively, you can contact our History Advisor direct ly by sending an
em ail to Mark Bat tye on [email protected].
You can also telephone 0844 576 0034 to speak to a m em ber of our subject
advisor team .
June 2011
Publicat ions Code UGO28188
All the m ater ial in this publicat ion is copyright
© Edexcel Ltd 2011
PM Report on CA 2 0 1 1
Cent res are rem inded that an E9 report has been writ ten by the person who
m oderated their work, which provides feedback specifically on the
perform ance of their own candidates. This can be accessed via
www.edexcelonline.co.uk and all exam inat ions officers in schools and
colleges will have the necessary login and password details. These individual
reports should be read in conjunct ion with this Report , which will also
highlight st rengths and weaknesses of the work seen this sum m er and offer
som e guidance for schools as their next cohort undertakes this unit .
General Com m ents
Work from approxim ately 67,000 students, subm it ted by 1244 cent res, was
m oderated this sum m er. The m ost popular choices were CA5 on Vietnam ;
CA8 on policing; CA11 on Britain 1955-1975 and CA6 on protest in the USA.
There were also a num ber of cent res who did CA9 on Northern I reland;
CA10 on the I m pact of War; CA4 on China under Mao; CA1 on Germ any
1918-39; CA2 on Russia 1917-39 and CA 3 on the USA 1919-41. Few
cent res chose to do CA7 on I ndia, CA12 on Britain 1970-90 or CA13, a local
study. However, when cent res did choose to do one of the less popular
tasks it was often well prepared, perhaps reflect ing the enthusiasm of the
teacher or the special relevance of the topic for the students.
The efforts m ade by the teachers involved to check the requirem ents of this
unit , to prepare their students appropriately and to m ark accurately, were
great ly appreciated by the m oderat ing team . The vast m ajor ity of the work
we saw from candidates m ade a genuine effort to engage with the dem ands
of the new specificat ion and did credit to both students and teachers. The
adm inist rat ion and presentat ion of the work was also usually thorough and
diligent and this m ade the m oderat ion process very st raight forward in m ost
cases.
Nevertheless, som e problem s did ar ise from a m isunderstanding of the
regulat ions. Most of these issues will be dealt with at the appropriate point
in this report . However, the fact that at any point there are 2 sets of tasks
available, did lead to som e cent res adopt ing a ‘pick ‘n’ m ix’ approach. I t
m ust be st ressed that Part A and Part B MUST be from the sam e task. I t is
also ant icipated that next year som e cent res m ay not realise that the first
set of tasks will no longer be valid. I t is vita l that centres ensure the
tasks com pleted w ill st ill be valid at the point w hen they are
subm it ted.
Part A
Although every task had four bullet points in Part A, providing the
opportunity for different students to answer different enquiry tasks, m ost
schools chose to prepare their students for a single enquiry focus. The
candidates were usually clear that this was an enquiry, requir ing an
invest igat ion and weighing of the evidence, rather than a sim ple descr ipt ion
of the situat ion. Som e cent res reworded the bullet point into a quest ion, to
provide a focus for their students’ analysis which is ent irely appropriate for
m any candidates.
I t should be noted that the enquiry focus heading should be used in
conjunct ion with the bullet point . Thus, for CA3 (2009-2011) the first
enquiry focus was ‘Problem s in Am erican society in the 1 9 2 0 s’ and
the choice of bullet points within that focus was The im pact of prohibit ion
and organised cr im e OR The extent of racism . These could be rephrased in
various ways, for exam ple, ‘To what extent did prohibit ion and organised
cr im e cause problem s within Am erican society in the 1920s?’ or ‘What was
the im pact of prohibit ion and organised cr im e on Am erican society in the
1920s?’ Students were expected to weigh the evidence for and against the
idea that the im pact of prohibit ion and organised cr im e caused problem s in
Am erican society but they were not expected to cover m ore than one bullet
point or to suggest alternat ive causes of problem s.
Where the enquiry focus is on the extent of change or significance of an
event , Level 4 requires evaluat ion from the candidate. An analysis of what
changed or a com parison of before and after does not have the necessary
elem ent of weighing up different aspects in order to reach a judgem ent for
Level 4 m arks. Sim ilar ly, in CA8, the enquiry focus was on Changes in
policing and the m ost popular bullet point was A com parison of the
invest igat ive m ethods used in the cases of Jack the Ripper (1888) and the
Yorkshire Ripper (1975–81) . Answers here needed to m ake com parisons
between the invest igat ion m ethods used in the two cases in order to show
changes in policing. The task was not sim ply an analysis of each case or
even a com parison of the two cases.
Cent res should also ensure that candidates address the key points of the
enquiry focus and do not see it as an opportunity to write everything they
know. CA1 covers Germ any from 1918-39, it does not cover the period of
the Second World War, so com m ents about the success of the Nazis in
solving econom ic problem s should not focus on what happened after 1939.
Furtherm ore, the bullet point on the role of Hit ler in the r ise of the Nazis is
specifically on the per iod 1925-32, so answers which focused on the
Versailles Treaty and Munich Putsch cannot be highly rewarded. CA10 on
the I m pact of War covers the period up to 1950 and thus answers on the
changing role of wom en should include changes after the war as well as
during the war.
Therefore the focus often provides an indicat ion of the expected approach
( the extent of .. , turning points, the success of …, the im pact of ..) and the
bullet point narrows the enquiry within a specific date range, specific
policy, or a group of society. Students should not at tem pt to cover m ore
than one bullet point or to provide a general overview. I nstead they should
offer a focused analysis and evaluat ion – how far did the situat ion change,
was an event a turning point , were these policies successful, what was the
role of a factor, what were the effects, which cause was m ost im portant etc.
This is intended as a focused analysis and relat ively short pieces often
scored highly while lengthy descript ions or analyt ical pieces which aim ed to
cover all aspects, were less highly rewarded. Moderators expressed
surprise at the am ount som e students were able to write in 1 hour but they
noted that the high scoring pieces were often based on concise and well
ordered notes whereas candidates who t r ied to cram too m any details into
their notes often produced unst ructured essays which failed to establish an
argum ent . Cent res are also rem inded that notes should be in the form at of
m ind m aps, bullets points, short phrases etc but should not const itute the
basis of a draft answer.
Students generally seem ed com fortable with this style of assignm ent and
work was seen across the full range of the m ark schem e. Teachers were
also confident in dist inguishing between descript ion and the provision of
relevant inform at ion at Level 2, analysis which focused on the quest ion at
Level 3, and sustained analysis and evaluat ion at Level 4. I t was
part icular ly helpful where the work was annotated to indicate where the
various qualit ies were displayed that just ified the final m ark awarded.
Underlining of phrases such as ‘The effect of this was …’, and ‘This was very
effect ive because …’, or m arginal annotat ion such as ‘L2 narrat ive’, ‘L3
analysis’, and ‘good evaluat ion of effect iveness’ was very valuable for
m oderators, rather than the use of t icks.
The following exam ple shows good pract ice in m arking and assessm ent
through the use of com m ents such as : L3 analysis; accurate support ing
info; judgem ent .
I t is acceptable for teachers to help their students prepare for this work and
it is expected that class discussions will consider a range of points on the
issue in quest ion. Teachers m ay also discuss how to plan an essay –
possibly using one of the alternat ive bullet points as an exam ple. However,
students are expected to plan their own essays. I n a sm all num ber of
cases, the students m ade basically the sam e com m ents, in the sam e order.
I n such cases, the m oderator looked at the notes and plans of each student
to see if it seem ed as though a tem plate had been used. Moderators
queried several occasions where students all produced ext rem ely sim ilar
essays and where undue support seem ed to have been offered. Som e
students who seem ed to have basic literacy suddenly included polysyllabic
phrases or students who had apparent ly writ ten their work without any
notes or plan, st ill m anaged to include specific dates, figures, and even
quotat ions.
I n the early stages of a new assessm ent teachers are som et im es unsure
about the level of assistance that is perm issible and this results in varying
levels of guidance being given. This clar ificat ion is offered both to reassure
teachers that som e support is perm issible and to define the point at which
such guidance should stop. Discussion of individual details and general
advice about planning and st ructur ing an essay are both acceptable but
specific advice about the plan to be followed or the detail to be included in
the assessed work, should not be given.
One aspect of Part A that did cause anxiety am ong teachers and som e
difficulty for m oderators, was the st rand within the m ark schem e for
rewarding the ident ificat ion and use of sources. Students are not required
to reference their sources through footnotes (although this is obviously
acceptable) but they should m ake it clear that they are select ing and
deploying inform at ion from a range of sources. This m ight be done through
direct com m ent in the text , for exam ple ‘as Leonard and Whit tock say’ or
‘the picture on page xx of Waugh and Wright ’. Since they can prepare a
bibliography to br ing into the write up session, som e students num bered
the item s on their bibliography and then put the num ber of the relevant
work in the m argin or in brackets in the essay, as in the exam ple below. I f
the student did not indicate the sources in som e way, it was also possible
for the teacher to annotate the work to show which sources have been used
to provide the details being used.
I n what is for m any students and teachers, their first Cont rolled
Assessm ent , this was not always done very clearly. There were a num ber
of quest ions at inset sessions or through the website to say that the
im portance of sources being explicit ly indicated had not been realised. I n
each case, the teachers were reassured that students would not be
penalised if there was som e indicat ion by the teacher that a range of
sources had been consulted. However, this is an elem ent of the m ark
schem e at all levels and centres should be aw are that high m arks w ill
not be possible in the future w ithout a clear indicat ion of this
personal elem ent of enquiry and select ion and deploym ent of
inform at ion and it should also be possible for the m oderator to see this in
the student ’s notes.
I n order to m eet the requirem ent to use a range of sources, students are
expected to use 5 or m ore different sources of inform at ion. There are no
rest r ict ions on the type of sources to be used – they can be textbooks, work
by histor ians, books for the general public, websites, m edia sources etc.
However, the expectat ion is that ‘sources’ here m eans sources of
inform at ion ( i.e. works of som e kind) rather than short ext racts or im ages
which are used as sources in Unit 3. I f students wish to have quotat ions,
ext racts from prim ary sources or exam ples of propaganda with them in the
write up session, these m ust form part of the perm it ted 2 pages of notes,
they cannot be in addit ion to their notes.
Since students are rewarded for ident ifying and select ing m aterial from
appropriate sources, they should not be provided with a standard set of
sources and told how to use them in the essay. I t is recognised that
schools with large cohorts m ay have problem s resourcing this aspect of the
enquiry and it is perfect ly acceptable to m ake a core set of texts and list of
websites available to students for them to consult and m ake their own
select ion of detail. I n the sam e way, all the class will have access to the
sam e source if a film clip is used or a visit to a m useum is organised but
individual students will m ake different use of these sources. Therefore the
candidates’ bibliographies m ay be sim ilar but m oderators would expect to
see m arked differences in the notes m ade, and the use m ade of these
sources. A single bibliography used by all students is not appropriate.
I t was also part icular ly helpful where cent res had provided som e indicat ion
of how students had been prepared for this assessm ent , for exam ple
explaining that som e texts had been provided for all the class and the
hom ework was then to study and select the sect ions they wanted to use, or
explaining that students had been given a list of suitable internet sites but
they had m ade their own select ion of m aterial.
Part B
I n both Bi and Bii a problem arose when students t reated the work on the
representat ions in the sam e way as they would t reat sources in a Unit 3
quest ion. The quest ions in Bi and Bii were not asking about how reliable or
how useful the representat ions were and therefore an approach which
focused on issues such as nature, origin and purpose, often did not score
highly.
Students need to appreciate that representat ions give an overall im pression
or interpretat ion and their discussion of the representat ions needed to
include an understanding that this port rayal has been created through the
select ion, om ission and t reatm ent of details.
Som e answers included descript ions or explanat ions of the representat ions,
especially where one representat ion was visual. This was unnecessary and
som et im es st rayed into a descr ipt ion or explanat ion of the policies or events
being represented rather than focusing on the representat ion itself.
Many students used charts or m ind m aps for their notes in Part B, often
colour coding sim ilar it ies/ differences in Bi or the different cr iter ia in Bii.
This approach often led to focused and well st ructured answers.
Part Bi
The quest ion Bi sim ply asks ‘How different ’ two representat ions are. The
vast m ajor ity of the answers were at Level 2: they could ident ify sim ilar it ies
and/ or differences in detail but did not com pare the overall port rayal. Som e
students gave lengthy descript ions of their content , often only m aking any
points of com parison at the end, while others assessed them for reliabilit y
or discussed them in term s of the cr iter ia that would be used in Bii – both of
these approaches are inappropriate for this quest ion and could not score
highly. Som e students m oved away from the focus of this quest ion when
they began to explain why the representat ions differed – this quest ion just
asked how m uch they differed.
I t was noted that m any students began by discussing each representat ion in
turn and then drawing out sim ilar it ies and differences in a third paragraph.
While it is possible for such an approach to reach Level 3 once the answer
begins to com pare representat ions, if a paragraph is only about one
representat ion, it should not be annotated as Level 3. I t was also com m on
for answers to juxtapose an analysis of each representat ion and the only
elem ent of com parison cam e from the use of words such as ‘whereas’,
‘however’ and ‘but ’. Students should be rem inded to m ake explicit their
judgem ent on the nature, extent or significance of the differences.
The m ost successful approach was where students began their answer by
ident ifying and com paring the overall im pression created in each
representat ion and then used the detail of each representat ion to support
their analysis. The following exam ple began by ident ifying sim ilar ity and
then difference in port rayal (as noted in the annotat ion) and then went on
to show how sim ilar it y or differences in detail created differ ing levels of
sim ilar ity and difference.
There were som e ext rem ely im pressive answers which highlighted subt le
nuances of difference in apparent ly sim ilar representat ions, or which
showed that despite different details, the overall port rayal was sim ilar.
Good preparat ion was often seen here, with notes in the form of a Venn
diagram , a m ind m ap, a chart etc and often the use of colour coding.
Part Bii
This was the quest ion where the biggest reduct ion in m arks occurred and it
was m ainly because of an unbalanced approach to the m ark schem e.
Students had clearly understood that they were to apply various cr iter ia to
these three representat ions but m any of them t reated this as a source
evaluat ion exercise. Therefore there were m any answers which assessed
reliabilit y and discussed bias within the representat ions but which relied on
an analysis of the representat ion alone. Com m ents about object ivit y or
accuracy were often based on reasoning from the nature / or igin / purpose
of the representat ions rather than a close analysis of the content and the
use of addit ional contextual knowledge. Others t reated this as a cross
referencing exercise point ing out that one representat ion did not include the
sam e aspects as appeared in another. However, the m ark schem e clearly
has a bullet point in each level about the use of inform at ion about the
period and this should be given equal weight with the bullet point requir ing
the analysis of the representat ions.
This problem was part icular ly m arked at the higher levels. I t is not enough
at Levels 3 and 4 to assert ‘These details are accurate because I know this
did happen’, or to say ‘This coverage is not com plete because it does not
m ent ion XX’. Candidates’ ow n know ledge needs to be used to
support any com m ent about accuracy or to explain w hy it is
significant that som ething has been om it ted. Com m ents about
com prehensiveness should also take account of the focus of the
representat ion, for exam ple if the focus of a representat ion is on the
student protest m ovem ent , the com m ent that it does not cover civil r ights
protests, should not be highly rewarded. Even where addit ional own
knowledge was present in the answer, it was som et im es used to explain the
representat ion or the context rather than to test and evaluate the accuracy
/ com prehensiveness of the representat ions. However, it was also
not iceable in Bii that som e students seem ed to have lim ited knowledge of
the overall context , possibly because cent res had focused their teaching on
the bullet point focus for Part A.
The num ber of students whose m ark for this piece was reduced, m any of
them very able students, suggests that this aspect of the m ark schem e had
not been fully st ressed by teachers when preparing students for this task.
Cent res should note that this point has already been m ade in the Principal
Moderator ’s Report of 2010:
To access the higher levels it is necessary to use som e contextual
knowledge about the topic/ period in order to aid their judgem ent .
Moderators noted that som e students were put into the Level 3/ 4 m ark
bands but had not supported their judgem ents with som e contextual
knowledge.
This point has also been m ade very clear ly in the support m aterial for each
CA and the exem plificat ion m aterial on the Edexcel website, for exam ple,
the m oderator ’s com m ent on page 35 of the CA8 support docum ent states:
This ext ract suggests a response in level two. A key feature of source 3 is
selected – the accuracy of its port rayal of im provem ents in policing. The
judgm ent is supported from the content of source 3 which is m atched to the
student ’s own knowledge of developm ents in the CI D. However there is lit t le
developed explorat ion of how far the reorganizat ion of the detect ive branch
did actually im prove policing. I nstead the student describes the reorganized
force. The student refers to im provem ents, using source 3, but there is no
linkage of that to own knowledge as part of reaching a judgm ent about the
accuracy of the port rayal.
To som e extent , these issues have been taken into account this year.
How ever, this is som ething w hich teachers need to address urgent ly
so that their students are able to access the higher m arks next
year.
Most students used the cr iter ia suggested within the m ark schem e but
teachers are rem inded that , while other valid cr iter ia m ay be used, the
focus should be on the overall representat ion. I ndividual details obviously
cont r ibute to the overall im pression but students should not get bogged
down in a m inute exam inat ion of individual details. They should be thinking
about which representat ion is ‘best ’ because it is m ost accurate or m ost
com plete presentat ion of the overall issue; they m ight want to consider
whether the ‘best ’ port rayal is one that is very factual or totally object ive, or
whether one which conveys the em ot ion of the period is ‘best ’. Purpose
here is not an aspect of reliabilit y but whether the author intended to
produce an in-depth analysis or an overall int roduct ion, whether they
wanted to sum m arise the situat ion or to challenge the stereotype, since this
will obviously affect the type of representat ion they produce. Another
possible cr iter ion is the focus of the author – whether a detailed port rayal of
one aspect of the issue is ‘bet ter ’ than a wide, overall port rayal.
There is no preferred approach here – som e students st ructured their
answer around the cr iter ia while others t reated each representat ion in turn
and both approaches are perfect ly acceptable. However, students should
m ake clear which cr iter ion is being applied. Som et im es a paragraph began
by stat ing that accuracy would be assessed but actually assessed the extent
of coverage. Som et im es answers blurred from accuracy into purpose,
especially if they t reated accuracy as m eaning reliabilit y. For Level 3 and
Level 4 m arks to be awarded, each of the cr iter ia m ust be seen to be
applied.
I n m any cases, students assessed the representat ions as sources and
discussed whether the purpose or bias of the author affected reliabilit y or
how the representat ion would be used as a source. Som et im es the answer
was phrased in term s of st rengths and weaknesses of the representat ions or
students wrote about what they could learn or infer from the
representat ion. Candidates should be clear that in Bii they are assessing
how the range of detail, the t reatm ent of the m aterial, and the author ’s
purpose or his object ivity affects the quality of the representat ion. I t m ight
help them to grasp this concept if they prepare for the task by thinking
about the decisions m ade in com piling a souvenir m agazine or creat ing a
t im e capsule – if there is only space for one representat ion, which one
would best convey the specified issue?
I t is understandable that teachers will discuss with their students the best
way to approach this quest ion and the support m ater ial for each CA on the
Edexcel website includes som e student support m aterial which exem plifies
for students the way the m ark schem e is applied to the two representat ions
in the worked answers. However, these support pages should not be used
in the cont rolled condit ions write-up sessions and the third representat ion
should not be one of the representat ions used in this sect ion of the support
m aterial.
Students also need to be aware of the precise focus on the issue in Part B.
For exam ple, in CA6 the focus is the im pact of m ass protests, so the
representat ions need to be assessed in term s of their port rayal of that
im pact ; m any students becam e confused by the fact that Representat ion 1
was a Bob Dylan song and they often discussed what im pact the song had
on society at the t im e. A sim ilar situat ion occurred in CA5 on Vietnam
where Part B is about the port rayal of ways that people reacted to the war
but som e students discussed the way the newspaper which was
Representat ion 1, influenced people’s at t itudes towards the war.
The select ion of a third representat ion needs to be done with care. I n som e
cases where a pr im ary source was used there was often lit t le sense of
overall port rayal and students tended to evaluate it for reliabilit y or ut ilit y.
Other representat ions were very br ief, offer ing lit t le opportunity for
students to apply cr iter ia such as object iv ity or accuracy. There were
excellent exam ples of the use of film , television or song as the third
representat ion, often producing very thought ful responses from students.
Where a film or television program m e is used, cent res should provide
students with a br ief synopsis of the content for their use in the write up
session and this should be sent to the m oderator, there is no need to send
the actual DVD.
Cent res are rem inded that in the support m aterial on the website som e of
the representat ions are used in the sam ple worked answers and in the
sect ion where the m ark schem e levels are exem plified, and these m ay not
be used as the third representat ion . However, any of the three
representat ions in Sect ion 6, ‘Addit ional representat ion sources’ m ay be
used and cent res are now also free to use one of the representat ions set by
Edexcel in the tasks valid from 2009-2011.
Adm inist rat ion
On the whole, the adm inist rat ion of the Cont rolled Assessm ent was correct
and the work was well presented. However, delay was som et im es caused
by the failure to include a copy of the third representat ion. I ndeed, when
there are two valid sets of tasks and a choice of bullet points within each
Part A, it is desirable for the cent re to include a copy of the com plete CA.
There is a checklist on the Edexcel website of the m aterial to be sent to the
m oderator and this will be updated before next year. Cent res are also
rem inded that som e Cont rolled Assessm ent topics are a forbidden
com binat ion with certain exam ined units.
The following points are all problem s which occurred this year and which
should be avoided next year:
There were som e occasions when the m ark on the Optem s or
Coursework Authent ificat ion Sheet did not m atch the m ark on the
work. This caused unnecessary delays since the m oderator had to
return the m aterial to the school for verificat ion. The final,
m oderated m ark should be entered on all docum ents and clearly
indicated on the work.
Cent res are rem inded that in addit ion to the sam ple ident ified on the
Optem s, the work of the highest and lowest scoring candidates
should be included, and clearly indicated, either on the Optem s or on
the work.
I f the student who received the lowest m ark did not com plete all
three parts of the task, it would be helpful to also receive the work of
the candidate who did com plete all three pieces and received the
lowest m ark.
All the work included a Candidate Authent ificat ion Sheet but various
different form ats were used; cent res are asked to use the latest
version, available to download from the Edexcel website.
I t is essent ial that the com plete Cont rolled Assessm ent task is
subm it ted with the work. This is the only way m oderators can know
what was used as the third representat ion in Bii but also, since two
sets of tasks are valid at any one t im e, m oderators need to be certain
which task is being com pleted.
Candidates should write the enquiry focus t it le on their work – this is
especially im portant if the candidates have not all done the sam e
focus.
I t is helpful to have the work packaged either in the order listed on
the Optem s or in rank order. I deally the Bibliography, plan and notes
for Part A will be packaged with Part A, the plan and notes for Bi with
the Bi work, and the plan and notes for Bii with the Bii work, so that
m oderators can easily refer to the notes and check that they are
appropriate. I t is not necessary to package each student ’s work in
folders or plast ic wallets and staple or t reasury tags are perfect ly
adequate but paperclips are not ideal as they often com e loose. I t is
also essent ial that each piece of paper is clearly nam ed – including
the plans and notes; m oderators said that when packages cam e loose
in the post it was difficult and t im e consum ing to m atch up the
answers and notes from individual students.
Where there is m ore than one teaching group or year group, internal
m oderat ion m ust be carr ied out and the final total clearly indicated –
it is especially im portant to ident ify it clearly if the m oderated m ark is
different from the or iginal m ark. Som et im es 2 m arks were present
on a piece with no indicat ion of which was the final m ark; even where
it was clear that adjustm ent had taken place there was often no
explanat ion and it sim ply seem ed that the higher m ark was adopted.
Even if different teaching groups have com pleted different Cont rolled
Assessm ent tasks, the m arks m ust be internally standardised since
any adjustm ents m ade to the m arks by the m oderator will be applied
to the whole cohort .
Although it is not required, m oderators find it ext rem ely helpful to
see indicat ions on the body of the work showing where the various
levels have been reached. Ticks or com m ents such as ‘good’ are not
as helpful as br ief annotat ions which help the m oderator to
understand not only the level that has been awarded but the
rat ionale for the m ark within that level. Since the m ark schem es for
all 3 tasks have m ore than one elem ent to be rewarded at each level,
m oderators need to be sure that the m ark is appropriate. Most
annotat ions were clearly related to the m ark schem e but they m ust
be carefully applied. Level 4 requires sustained perform ance – an
annotat ion of L4 against the first paragraph cannot be just ified.
However, m oderators noted that accurate m arking often seem ed to
be cent res which also annotated the work carefully.
Many cent res also gave som e indicat ion of how the different parts of
the Cont rolled Assessm ent had been undertaken. Once again, this is
not required but m oderators found it helpful to know whether
candidates had com pleted each task in a single session, what
resources the cent re had provided for the Part A enquiry, whether
candidates had been directed to produce their notes in a specific
format etc.
Cent res are rem inded that candidates are allowed 1 side A4 for a plan
for each task and then 2 sides A4 notes for Part A and Bii and 1 side
A4 for Part Bi. This does not m ean 3 pages of notes or 2 pages of
notes plus som e photocopied pictures. The regulat ions also state
clear ly that the notes should not const itute a draft answer. Cent res
should collect in the notes and check that they are suitable before the
write-up session, allowing t im e for students to produce a fresh set of
notes if necessary. The notes should be bullet points or m ind m aps
but nothing approaching sentences or a draft answer. Moderators
often refer to the notes to see the use of sources in Part A or the
addit ional own knowledge in Bii. I f the candidate has not used any
notes or plan, it is helpful to have this clearly stated, especially if the
answer contains specific details, such as quotat ions, stat ist ics,
specific dates or individuals, so that the m oderator knows they have
received the full subm ission of work for that candidate.
Conclusion
I t is appreciated that this new style of task and the use of cont rolled
condit ions was a t im e of anxiety for both teachers and students but there
was a huge am ount of im pressive work seen. At the highest level there was
m uch work that dem onst rated A Level qualit ies and both students and
teachers can be just ly proud of the outstanding standard achieved. There
were also m any Level 2 and Level 3 pieces which showed careful
preparat ion, genuine understanding and thought ful com m ents. At Level 1
candidates were less able to focus their work on the dem ands of the
individual tasks but even so, there was often a conscient ious effort to write
about the topic.
Moderators were also im pressed by the care and at tent ion dem onst rated by
teachers. The high standard of work from m any cent res reflected thorough
engagem ent with the tasks and appropriate preparat ion. Marking
annotat ions showed the m ark schem es being carefully applied, with a good
sense of what different iated one level from another. Although the m ajority
of m ark changes were reduct ions, som e cent res applied the m ark schem es
too st r ict ly and in som e cases m arks were raised. Cent res should pay
careful at tent ion to any indicat ion in the E9 that there was evidence of
severity or generosity and adjust their m arking accordingly. Even if m arks
were not reduced this year, com m ents on the E9 should be t reated with due
at tent ion since they signal the possibilit y that changes m ay be m ade in
future years. When adjustm ents to m arks were recom m ended, and so
regression of the whole cent re was likely to occur, it is im portant to note
that such work was always escalated to a senior m oderator. Thus every
centre w here this happened had the judgem ent of their or iginal
m oderator confirm ed by a second m oderat ion of the w ork by either
a team leader or the pr incipal m oderator.
Cent res where teachers and/ or students found a task diff icult , or where
m arks have been altered, should note that there is a great am ount of
support available. Support m aterial was placed on the website in
Septem ber 2009 and further m aterial has becom e available since then,
including a podcast and exem plificat ion of m arking as well as inset
m eet ings. While new textbooks have not been produced for all Cont rolled
Assessm ent opt ions, there are som e generic pages on how to conduct an
enquiry and how to assess representat ions, that teachers m ight st ill f ind
useful to read even if the content is not the sam e as the CA they have
chosen to study.
Further copies of this publicat ion are available from
Edexcel Publicat ions, Adam sway, Mansfield, Not ts, NG18 4FN
Telephone 01623 467467
Fax 01623 450481
Email publicat [email protected]
Order Code UGO28188 June 2011
For more informat ion on Edexcel qualificat ions, please v isit
www.edexcel.com / quals
Pearson Educat ion Lim ited. Registered com pany number 872828
with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE