Feedback on Central Verification June 2007

Introduction 5 days in June 2007 Team of 6 verifiers Verification of Graded Units 1, 2 and 3 Centres worked hard to meet the deadlines for the events Most centres submitted full documentation which greatly assisted verifiers

General Issues Process for Not Accepted decisions Candidates who have completed, and failed, graded unit examinations, enrolling at new centres

Graded Unit 1 11 centres verified 2 Not Accepted decisions, both subsequently released

Graded Unit 1 – Good Practice Clear marking guidelines, consistently applied Evidence of double marking Extended and updated marking schemes and checklists Strong internal verification

Graded Unit 1 – Areas for Improvement Accepting work below the level of the award (SCQF Level 7) Hard marking/lenient marking – not applying the marking scheme Not following marking scheme/marking guidelines

Graded Unit 2 16 centres verified 3 Not Accepted decisions, 2 subsequently released

Graded Unit 2 – Good Practice Clear marking guidelines, consistently applied Evidence of double marking Extended and updated marking schemes and checklists Strong internal verification

Graded Unit 2 – Areas for Improvement Use of half marks not permitted (giving credit for partially correct answers) Marking scheme not applied consistently Few instances where there was no evidence of marking IV changing grades/marks without justification Setting the standard at SCQF Level 8

Graded Unit 3 16 centres verified No Not Accepted decisions Wide range of quality – generally the marks awarded were consistent with the quality of work Some outstanding projects

Graded Unit 3 – Good Practice Good use made of reflective diaries/learning journals which led to good evaluations Excellent extended marking schemes, incorporating checklists