SQA Update – QST (1) Role of QST - to support SQA Officers with: - subject specific knowledge/guidance - expertise in delivery and assessment - review feedback from centres (Units, AEs etc.) - project developments/updates In summary, the QST are an independent group of FE practitioners whose aim is to effect ongoing improvements to our HN portfolio and ensure standards associated with delivery and assessment are understood
SQA Update – QST (2) QST met twice in 2012 - 1 May & 25 October 2012 Membership: - Marian Forgan, Perth UHI and Moira Winning, Anniesland College - Catherine Mancini, Ayr College and John Ogden, Edinburghs College - Alison Hamilton Edinburghs College, and Lynne Gorman, Langside College (Gavin Rees, Stow College) QST Action Grids on HN subject pages - subject specific information
SQA Update - Statistics Uptake of HNC/D Accounting, Administration & IT and Business remains high (top 10 each year) Statistics for HN Graded Units 2011 & 2012 Factors to consider: - introduction of new Group Awards - change in cohort - changes in delivering centres/recruitment/staff - nature of the subject - type of assessment
SQA Update – other issues Consultation questionnaire for centres and candidates May 2012 Prior verified assessments (on secure section) HN Subject pages - Arrangements Documents - Feedback Forms (Unit specifications) - Feedback Forms (Assessment Exemplars)
SQA Update – Update Letters March 2012 – amendment required to Graded Unit 1 (Exemplar 1) May 2012 – amendments to Task 3 of Graded Unit 1 (Exemplar 3) July 2012 – Revision to Error Tolerances September 2012 – Update letter covering 3 HN subject areas Mapping of AATs revised Accounting Qualification 2013 to HNC/HND Accounting
Delegate Contribution Forms – individual comments (1) Graded Units – delivery, materials, marking Graded Unit – assessment, marking, making an assessment decision Teaching approaches regarding learner engagement Timetabling issues – ie covering all necessary content from contributing Units for GU2 Timing of delivery is up to centre staff and may depend on how academic year is structure – 2 semesters/3 blocks
Delegate Contribution Forms – individual comments (2) Centres experiences of delivering Research Skills along with Graded Unit 2 Feedback from EVs confirms that more centres are delivering Research Skills and feedback has been mixed. Some centres think that whilst it buys more time to deliver GU2, the assessment burden is more than the benefit because the GU2 project has to then be mapped to the Research Skills Unit requirements in addition to the GU2 requirements. Can also have effect on delivery hours by teams if delivered outwith Accounting Team by eg a Communications Team.
Delegate Contribution Forms – individual comments (3) FRA – marking scheme issues, eg where candidate omits a complete working/note but has correctly completed most other sections As long as candidates have correctly completed at least 5 notes then this should not be an issue. Assumption has been made that comment relates to candidates who have completed other parts of the tasks but not completed 5 notes. In this situation Assessor judgement is crucial – take a step back and identify if the candidate had at least completed the accounting policies and fixed asset notes have been specifically mentioned. If one, or both, of these had not been completed then this would require reassessment. Assessor should judge if the lack of completion of the notes requires complete reassessment of the whole Outcome or if oral questioning would allow any gaps to be filled. This depends on how well the candidate has completed the rest of the assessment. If candidate had only minor errors or not reached the error tolerance threshold then it is unlikely that the assessor will require a full reassessment.
Delegate Contribution Forms – individual comments (4) MAPC – comments on Outcome 3 (Variances) Marking is quite specific regarding Error Tolerance. Perhaps difficulty comes in how the narrative fits into the Error Tolerance. Much of the marking of variances is consequential. If what the candidate reports regarding variances is correct and in line with their own calculations then this is likely to be acceptable. If the logic of the reporting on the variances is not correct then this is an error of principle. Assessment exemplars contain examples of how candidates may be assessed – they (and the suggested solutions) are not exhaustive. Equally acceptable answers, in the opinion of the assessor, should be annotated and recorded in centre documentation.
Delegate Contribution Forms – individual comments (5) AST exemplar – is contract assessment to be updated to remove formulae? This will depend on outcome of discussion sessions MADM – do centres have SQA approved alternatives for Outcome 1 relevant costing? SQA approved alternatives would be on the Prior verified assessments section of the secure website.
Delegate Contribution Forms – individual comments (6) Report writing standard in Management Accounting subjects The standard of writing required will be dependent on the level. The wording in the Unit specification is often a clue to the level of detail required. SCQF level 7 (HNC) candidates are often asked to analyse but at HND candidates are asked to evaluate. The information provided at level 8 is required to be more in depth and presented in an appropriate manner. Use of bullet points and notes only without sufficient explanation to present evidence to Assessor that candidate has an understanding of the nature of what they are being asked then they are likely to be asked to reassess. The assessors professional judgement is required to identify if the submission is at the correct level.