1. Understanding Standards: Nominee Training Event
Modern Languages
Spanish
Higher and Advanced Higher

2. Introduction and welcome
Principal Verifier, Deputy Principal Verifier, Team Leaders, Qualifications Team member(s)
Thank you!
House-keeping
Tea and coffee refreshed mid-morning/mid-afternoon
Lunch around 12.30
Close around 15.30
Expenses claim forms on exit
Intro yourself (again) and DPV (now renamed) and TLs –some nominees may not have been used yet during live verification yet.
Thank the nominees for taking part in the verification process.
Ask if there are any new nominees and ensure they are mixed with experienced (been used for live verification) nominees.
Give directions to toilets and fire exits (you will be told on the day if any fire drill planned)
STLs and TLs will not be necessarily standing with you but encourage them to support nominees throughout the day. You might want to share the judgements made on candidate evidence with your TLs beforehand so there is no disagreements amongst the team.
House-keeping arrangement subjects to slight amendments on the day, eg time of lunch

3. Aims of the day
To support Nominees in their understanding of national standards by:
Sharing updates
Reviewing learning points from session 2015/16
Review of Higher and Advanced Higher Course Reports information
Reviewing candidate evidence for Advanced Higher Specialist Study and Higher IACCA
Discussing this evidence and associated Assessment Standards with colleagues
Seeking clarification about national standards
As per the slide – you can keep this brief
Mention if time you may look at N5 IACCA evidence - make sure everyone knows you are referring to the talking performance

4. Nominees should be able to:
Your role
Understand national standards
Participate in Verification rounds
Share national standards, updates and good practice within own centres and other centres in their local authorities
Nominees should be able to:
As per the slide. Maybe highlight that they could share updates among colleagues (next slide)

5. 2016/17 Updates Update on QA arrangements for session 2016/2017
Key Messages for 2015/16 published
Course reports for 2016 diet published (Autumn)
Course Assessment
Removal of Overall Purpose in some question papers
Revised N5/Higher Marking Instructions for Talking performance published (Autumn 2016), including new pegged mark in sustaining conversation
Selection of units for verification in 2016/17
In May the Scottish Government published the report of the ‘Working Group on Assessment and National Qualifications’.
In line with the findings of this report, SQA are significantly reducing the volume of unit verification in 2016/17. We will verify units for the new National Qualification at centres which received not accepted outcomes within the qualification group in 2015/16 or are entering candidates within the qualification group and have not previously been verified. The suspension of the ‘random sample’ element of selections means will be no additional verification of units (excluding the National 4 Added Value unit) beyond this.  
Round 2 will focus on AVU (coursework element) and SSU at AH and IACCA
Key messages – main points included in next slides – learning points
Course reports – main points for information will be in slides on course reports
New N5 and Higher MIs to be used in 2016/17 : same standards but revised wording in detailed marking instructions
(on SQA site ‘MODERN LANGUAGES’) – will be reviewed in detail in workshop 2
N5 and Higher Marking Instructions for the Talking Performance published September 2016
Any changes to UASP – see history of changes on last page of support pack
Removal OP in N5 Reading and Listening papers, Higher Listening and AH Listening

6. Approach to Assessment in Units : Understanding and Using Language
Learning points from 2015/16
Approach to Assessment in Units : Understanding and Using Language
Vast majority of centres used SQA UASPs
Some centres amended UASP questions/tasks to suit the needs of candidates
Few prior verified assessments
Some centre-devised assessments
Most centres submitted very clear and well-organised packages: facilitates the verification process and assists in providing useful feedback to centres.
In line with VKM from Rd
UASPS served their purpose and allowed centres to assess candidates, allowed evidence to be generated across units (combined) and allowed centres to make assessments more relevant to learners’ area/community
If using prior verified, centre must include the certificate/a note to inform the verifier.
Centre-devised: prior verification not mandatory but strongly recommended, especially for reading and listening tasks.
Some centres used a reading/listening task from one language into another. Good practice if the level of the language remains the same, eg not too many cognates or not too challenging. Translation is likely to involve a great deal of adaptation too.
Only the 4th column of the JET can be amended. This column must be adapted if a task is amended.
The answers to the Overall Purpose Questions must NOT be guessable thanks to the other questions in English

7. Approach to Assessment in Units: Added Value Unit
Learning points from 2015/16
Approach to Assessment in Units: Added Value Unit
Majority followed the SQA AVU template although no requirement to use SQA template from session 15/16
Remind colleagues of reduction of number of Assessment Standards (revised version of AVU 3 Assessment Standards)
Centres used contexts that suited the needs of candidates/related to prior learning
Some centres provided audio-recordings for Presentation and Questions in AVU
SIM checked input to slide and notes after Rd 2
After year one and two, AVU in modern languages continue to be free in terms of instruments of assessment but the format remains the same : 2 texts from a choice of texts, 1 presentation, at least 4 questions and answers.
Some centres translated the English texts found on secure site into the target language. Not an issue but the level of language must remain the same.
Choice of texts must be offered to candidates – personalisation and choice
If dual purpose Reading, ensure all the A.S requirements are covered, eg the Overall purpose question, and that the candidate records refer to the A.S of the AVU. There is no requirement to include Overall purpose question in AVU.
Centre are reminded to use up to date version of AVU Support pack – version 2.1 Sept 2015
Audio-recordings not mandatory but useful for effective feedback for Internal and external Verification. Allows for fuller feedback to be given on EV report.

8. Learning points from 2015/16
Approach to Assessment in Units: Talking tasks in Using Language / Added Value Units
Suitable level of language as per specifications
Open-ended questions, unless prompting candidates
Prolonged conversations can be detrimental to overall candidate performance
Some conversations sounded excessively rehearsed
Issues with pronunciation
In line with VKM Rd
These are general points about Talking worth highlighting and do not come from VKM for RD Comments from VKM on approach were more general
Interlocutor skills very important, encourage centres to use open-ended questions and those which encourage candidates to respond with opinions and reasons their answers and on which they could expand.
Useful to remind centres that verifiers not involved in teaching process and verifier role is not to second guess what candidates are trying to say when utterances not understood by a “sympathetic speaker” for the language.
It is not necessary to talk about another context in the conversation but in some instances this helps candidates use different language structures and vocabulary to that already used in the presentation.
Verification teams witnessed different techniques and approaches to achieving natural element: e.g. candidates asked a question in the conversation, paused during the conversation to think about their answers; candidates answered with a mixture of longer and shorter answers; natural interjections, acknowledgement that they have understood the question and responded to it (yes, I agree…etc), asking for repetition or clarification, use of typical exchange techniques such as sounds, idiomatic phrases..
An audio recording of talking at unit not mandatory but allows SQA verifiers to provide more extensive feedback (as opposed to checklist or notes)

9. Assessment Judgements: Understanding and Using Language
Learning points from 2015/16
Assessment Judgements: Understanding and Using Language
Vast majority of centres applied judging evidence reliably and in line with national standards
For Understanding Language, the Overall Purpose Question must be answered correctly to meet the Standard
Useful commentaries relating to candidates’ performances
Useful indication of where each Assessment Standard had been met on the candidates’ scripts
Amended Judging Evidence / ‘centre-devised’ marking schemes
In line with VKM Rd
Centres reminded in VKM to submit range of evidence
Acceptable or additional answers should be made obvious in judging evidence documentation.
Many centres provided commentaries relating to candidates’ performances which proved useful for verification. Centres used Candidate Assessment Records in UASPs to do this.
Use of marking schemes acceptable provided they relate to assessment standards and demonstrate how candidates meet separate assessment standards (see next slide)
Candidates could be asked to justify/further detail their responses to the OPQ if not answered correctly.

10. Assessment Judgements: Understanding and Using Language
Learning points from 2015/16
Assessment Judgements: Understanding and Using Language
Professional judgement and a holistic approach in deciding whether candidates have achieved the Assessment Standards.
Could demonstrate achievement of the Assessment Standards across questions.
Credit evidence which meets an Assessment Standard wherever it is found.
Not always necessary to answer every question accurately or in great detail to achieve the Assessment Standards across the task.
In line with VKM Rd
This is the guidelines at the top of the JET tables (at H/AH but applies to all levels).
For example, 2.3 ‘Communicating with sufficient accuracy’ may be achieved with varying degrees of success throughout a piece of writing. Need to look at piece of writing as a whole with regards to separate assessment standards
Good to include range possible answers in JET. Centres encouraged to populate 4th column JET with range answers. Those provided in SQA UASPs re example answers

11. Approach to Assessment: National 5/Higher IACCA - Performance
Learning points from 2015/16
Approach to Assessment: National 5/Higher IACCA - Performance
Detailed language for N5, detailed and complex language for Higher
Natural flow for many candidates achieved between Presentation and Conversation sections
At Higher, must go into at least one different context
Open-ended questions, unless prompting
Good to hear variety of topics and some conversations with shorter and longer answers
Updated based on VKM Rd 2 (SIM)
Interlocutor skills very important, encourage centres to use open-ended questions and those which encourage candidates to respond with opinions and reasons their answers and on which they could expand.
At N5, It is not necessary to talk about another context in the conversation but in some instances this helps candidates use different language structures and vocabulary to that already used in the presentation.
At Higher, candidates/interlocutors must go into a different context(s)
Verification teams witnessed different techniques and approaches to achieving natural element/sustaining the performance: e.g. candidates asked a question in the conversation, paused during the conversation to think about their answers; candidates answered with a mixture of longer and shorter answers; natural interjections, acknowledgement that they have understood the question and responded to it (yes, I agree…etc), asking for repetition or clarification, use of typical exchange techniques such as sounds, idiomatic phrases..VKM underline that centres should encourage candidates in this vain for conversation

12. Approach to Assessment: National 5 / Higher Performance
Learning points from 2015/16
Approach to Assessment: National 5 / Higher Performance
Ensure questions in Conversation do not lead to repetition of language/structures covered in the Presentation
Some candidates struggled with the complexity of the language of the topic they had chosen.
Supportive interlocutors, without “taking over”
Unnecessarily prolonged performances can be detrimental to candidate performance
Focus on pronunciation when preparing candidates
Updated based on VKM Rd 2 (SIM)
Centres should provide advice to candidates as to what level of language they should be able to cope with and should ensure comprehension of their Presentation before learning it.
Supportive interlocutors and VKM highlights that candidates should be given time to respond or correct their own answers before assessor intervenes
Issues with length in approach – all VKM remind centres to refer to General Assessment doc re length presentation/conversation– some significantly short and other too long. Neither benefits candidates.
Listing nouns and using straightforward descriptions limits scope for candidates to use detailed/detailed and complex language.
VKM 2015 and 2016 highlight issues with pronunciation, intonation and grammatical accuracy (detracting from performances)

13. Assessment Judgements: National 5/Higher Performance
Learning points from 2015/16
Assessment Judgements: National 5/Higher Performance
Majority of centres applied Marking Instructions in line with national standards
Most centres provided detailed commentaries in relation to candidates’ performances
Issues with poor pronunciation / audio-recordings
Breakdown of marks must be provided for verification to proceed
Application of marks for ‘sustaining conversation’ section
Updated based on VKM from Rd 2
Where there were issues with too lenient or too severe application of MI, centres were referred in EV reports to Understanding Standards materials for IACCA
Commentaries again useful for verification particularly where borderline performances with elements of more than one category in either presentation or conversation section
Where centres cross-marked and annotated reasons for confirming or changing decisions in relation to marks for IACCA, this was effective. This provided scope for detection of discrepancies in judgements and for further explanation of how final decisions were reached.
Pronunciation was the main issue for many of the candidates who did not perform well. Verifiers must be able to understand candidates, no matter how good the content of their Presentation/Conversation is.
It was felt that, on occasions, assessors had been lenient regarding pronunciation, possibly because they already had an inclination as to what candidates were going to say.
Some centres had adopted approach of awarding marks for sustaining conversation based on how well candidates answered unexpected questions or certain questions - these marks are to be awarded holistically in light of the quality of whole conversation section (and not only a part). Candidates do not have to ask question to get full marks for sustaining the conversation.

14. Internal Verification
Learning points from 2015/16
Internal Verification
Vast majority of centres provided evidence of internal verification for Unit and IACCA
Effectiveness of Internal Verification
Cross-marking and reasoning behind decisions
Use of the SQA Internal Verification toolkit
Where centres described processes, professional dialogue and reasons in relation to candidate decisions, this was where Internal Verification was seen to be most effective.
Where centres cross-marked and annotated reasons for confirming or changing decisions in relation to Assessment Standards (or marks for IACCA) this was effective. This provided scope for detection of discrepancies in judgements and for further explanation of how final decisions were reached.
Verification teams witnessed examples of how some departments with only 1 subject specialist organised IV activities within the Local Authority
Underline the role IV has to play in helping colleagues understand standards and promoting collegiate discussion.

15. Number candidates (cumul.)
Higher – 2016 Course report information H
Spanish
Number candidates (cumul.) %
% cumul. A
1354
52.1
A-B
1935
22.3
74.4
A-C
2298 14
88.4
A-D
2410
4.3
92.7
No award
190
7.3
100
Entries
2600

16. Where candidates performed well
Higher – 2016 Course report information
Where candidates performed well
QP 1:
Reading: candidates performed particularly well
Translation: well done overall
Directed Writing: candidates coped well
QP 2:
Listening: candidates coped well
Writing: candidates coped well
READ AS LITTLE OR AS MUCH AS REQUIRED – WILL DEPEND ON TIME
Excerpts from Spanish Higher course report: QP 1 and 2
Areas in which candidates performed well
Reading: candidates performed particularly well
Translation: well done overall
Directed Writing: candidates coped well, many opted for Employability option
Listening: candidates coped well
Writing: performance similar to Directed Writing
Points for development (areas which candidates found demanding) and advice to future candidates:
Development points for Reading – OP question was very well done - candidates successful at providing an assertion and a justification, and when using Spanish text to justify their answers, candidates, overall, have written what it means in English too, therefore not losing marks; a considerable number of candidates have dedicated too much time and written too much in English
Advice for Reading: candidates should read questions carefully, and respond giving the correct amount of information, ensuring enough detail is given.
Points for development in Translation: candidates at times were not being precise and accurate enough. There were also examples of not using the dictionary correctly and not allowing themselves sufficient time for translation
Advice for Translation: Candidates should allow enough time to complete the translation where accuracy plays a very important role
Points for development for Directed Writing: A considerable number of candidates struggled in the Directed Writing to be fully accurate when using the preterite and the imperfect tenses to answer bullet points about daily routine, skills they had to use in their job.
Advice for Directed Writing: candidate achieving 8 and 10 were able to demonstrate a flair for the language and performed well across the three categories of content, accuracy and language resource. The stronger essays had used time phrases and connectives which added to the impression of a sense of structure and flow in the language. Very successful candidates also structured their writing into paragraphs
recurring inaccuracies gender, ser and estar usage is another recurring issue, and the lack of precision when using the preterite and the imperfect. Candidates who did not perform well did so mainly because of poor handling of verbs and verbs tenses, as well as the agreement of adjectives.
Points for development for Listening: not providing enough information and lack of detail let down some candidates.
Advice for Listening: candidates should read questions carefully, and respond giving the correct amount of information, ensuring enough detail is given.
Points for development for Writing : some candidates did not demonstrate content, language resource or accuracy as expected at Higher .
Advice for Writing: same as for DW above
Points for development/
advice to future candidates

17. Number candidates (cumul.)
Advanced Higher – 2016 Course report information AH
Spanish
Number candidates (cumul.) %
% cumul. A
170
35.4
A-B
280
22.9
58.3
A-C
387
22.3
80.6
A-D
418
6.5
87.1
No award 62
12.9
100
Entries
480
provide nominees with an overview from the subject specific course report:
This slide - presentation numbers and achievement of As, Bs - candidate performances. This in place of review of course structure which is less relevant this session

18. Where candidates performed well
Advanced Higher – 2016 Course report information
Where candidates performed well
QP 1:
Reading: Candidates generally responded well to the comprehension questions
Translation: some sense units more demanding than others
QP 2:
Listening: generally well done
Discursive Writing: good results generally when essay relevant to title
READ AS LITTLE OR AS MUCH AS REQUIRED – WILL DEPEND ON TIME
Excerpts from Spanish A Higher course report: QP 1 and 2
Areas in which candidates performed well
Reading: Candidates generally responded well to the comprehension questions. Overall purpose - candidates, on the whole, are still not providing a sufficiently reflective or analytical response to this question. Many wrote far too much (in some cases 8 pages) without going beyond a recounting of the facts outlined in the text. Candidates tended to find it challenging to express their ideas through the use of “inferential” type language or to focus on the writer’s techniques or issues such as tenses used, the structure of the text, the use of statistics/direct speech and real life examples.
Translation: some sense units found to be more demanding than others
Listening: some questions in item 1 done well, item two some questions very well done
Discursive Writing: Candidates generally achieved good results when they incorporated appropriate learned material into their answer and when their essays were relevant to the question.
Not on slides but :
Portfolio Presentation of Portfolio work was good overall. essays with question/title which genuinely led candidates to adopt an analytical approach or allowed for two sides of an argument to be developed. Essays also often worked better when there was an element of comparing and contrasting eg characters
Talking Performance:
Most were comfortable and confident in the language with the majority scoring 30 or more out of 50. Fluency and readily taking the initiative were features of good performances.
Points for development (areas which candidates found demanding) and advice to future candidates:
Reading: some questions less well answered and there was evidence of misuse of dictionary/mistranslation in places
Advice for Reading: Time should be divided appropriately between the comprehension questions, the Overall Purpose question and the passage for translation. OP - centres should encourage candidates to draw inferences from the passage and not just provide factual information or repeat the answers to their comprehension questions
Translation: Verb forms/tenses on the whole also presented candidates with difficulties in this section. There was occasional unidiomatic translation from Spanish into English.
Advice for Translation: More attention should be given to the development of translation skills and in particular, ways of converting idiomatic expressions from Spanish into English. Special care should be taken with recognising and accurately translating tenses.
Listening: missing detail/key words in some responses caused marks to be lost
Advice for Listening: Candidates should be encouraged to provide full and detailed answers as far as possible. Teachers/lecturers could advise candidates on how they should use the time they have when looking at questions before they hear the recording on the day of the examination. Strategies for note-taking while they are listening to the recording could also be discussed.
Discursive Writing; Some candidates ran into difficulties when going beyond prepared material and this led on occasion to them not fully addressing the question.
Advice for Discursive writing: Centres should focus candidates on improving grammatical accuracy. Ensure candidates address the question at all times and do not reproduce a well-rehearsed essay which may not be entirely relevant.
Points for development/
advice to future candidates

19. Advanced Higher - Unit Assessments
Refer to the SSU UASP and Unit Specifications for details
Process of planning and researching a specialist study, and selecting and analysing evidence gathered.
Designed to help prepare for Coursework elements: 
a written portfolio of 1,200–1,500 words
a talking performance (part of the discussion with a Visiting Assessor)
Can use the log book in the UASP to record evidence of progress and for External Verification purposes
Specialist Study Unit – reminder
The SSU UASP contains a guide for candidates with step by step instructions.
This Unit is concerned with the process of planning and researching a specialist study, and selecting and analysing evidence gathered. The work you produce during this process can help you prepare for the Coursework elements of AH Modern Languages. These are:
a written portfolio of 1,200–1,500 words
a talking performance which involves taking part in a discussion with a visiting examiner, lasting approximately 20 minutes, where part of the discussion will focus on the findings of your specialist study – ie what candidate thought, opinions etc – not on process undertaken
Update from VKM Rd 2
majority of centres verified used logbook template – where there is variation from this (centre devised log) it has to be clear where candidates are logging evidence against Assessment Standards
Some candidates recorded use of alternative sources e.g. input from other curricular areas for example history department
Candidates encouraged to record date of web link last accessed
A film in ML and transcript count as one course – both contain identical material
Avoid film with English subtitles since not destined for native speaker audience
Combination of novel and poem can be useful (poem shorter) provided the poem provides enough material to aid analysis
Quotes recorded in ‘select evidence’ part of logbook should be in modern language
In some instances candidate should have been encouraged to select more evidence than they did to be able to develop a number of detailed points as suggested in the judging evidence table of unit assessment support pack for Specialist study (SSU).
A range of sources for evidence required.
Centres reminded through key messages to access CPD materials on the SSU on SQA site – webinar and presentation and pass/fail exemplar
Understanding materials for SSU will be published after this event 2016

20. Specialist Study – sources of research/evidence
Option
At least two sources in the modern language, one of which must be written.
Source 1
Source 2
Literature
Written literary text in the modern language (eg novel, poetry, play, short story, etc)
Source in modern language (eg film, documentary, newspaper or academic article, biography, another literary text, etc)
Media
Media text in the modern language (eg film or from television, radio, newspapers, magazines, online, etc)
Written source in modern language (eg newspaper article, novel, academic article, etc)
Language in work
Written text in the modern language related to language in work (eg company/organisation/ government report, company/organisation/ government press release, newspaper or academic article, etc)
Source in the modern language (eg documentary, newspaper or academic article, company report, journal, business article, interviews, surveys, questionnaires, information gathered during work experience, etc)
Found in SSU UASP -show briefly – this is a reminder especially for nominees who did not have opportunity to present at AH

21. Workshop 1 – 1hr approx Specialist Study Unit (SSU)
Review the published Powerpoint on SSU and discuss (15 min)
For each exemplar:
Review the task evidence/logbook with Assessment Standards and Judging Evidence Table
Judge the candidate evidence (Pass/Fail, for each AS + overall)
With your colleagues at your table, discuss:
Has the candidate met the Assessment Standards and why? Does everyone agree?
What further advice would you give to the centre (if any)?
Can you identify examples of good practice?
Judgement and feedback commentary from Principal Verifier/Deputy Principal Verifier after each candidate evidence
Specialist Study Unit (SSU)
Start the workshop with review published SQA powerpoint from the web – this should take 15 min. You can refer your nominees to the CDP webinar SQA page
Perhaps input after this discussion that centres at Rd2 were accepted for SSU and worth highlighting that candidates are encouraged to base their analysis on a number of detailed points – need to select enough points to sustain analysis
There are 4 pieces of candidate - spend around 15 mins on each piece – this workshop should take you to lunchtime – can be completed after lunch if required. The fourth piece of evidence is on Language in work so it may be worthwhile looking at that one after lunch (first three are on literature)

22. Workshop 2 – 2hrs approx Higher IACCA
Review the revised Marking Instructions for N5 and Higher IACCA (15mins). Discuss.
We will listen to several performances. Take notes as you listen (focus on content, accuracy, pronunciation, level of language, variety of language: verbs, tenses, etc)
For each exemplar, we will focus on the Presentation and the Conversation separately:
Referring to the Marking Instructions, note your mark for presentation / Conversation + Sustaining the Conversation
How is ‘Sustaining the Conversation’ exemplified?
What further advice would you give to the centre (if any)?
Can you identify good practice?
Does everyone agree at your table?
Awarded marks and feedback commentary from PV/DPV after each section/performance.
Higher IACCA
Spend time on review of new MI and what has changed in wording:
You can refer to the comparison table I sent you before MI published but this is not for sharing with colleagues
Remind delegates that changes to N5 and Higher IACCA MI valid from Autumn 2016 but still same level of standard, focus on detailed/detailed and complex language at N5 and Higher respectively. Remind them that Productive grammar grid can be found in the ML course and unit support notes
Objective to align N5 and Higher MI – descriptors very often the same but it is the level of language/productive grammar that makes the difference
Principle of judging performances positively and holistically against content, accuracy, and language resource and interaction (conversation only): unchanged
refer nominees to pages Assessment conditions appear – review the changes – one off single assessment event, background noise etc which, while seemingly obvious, was an issue highlighted in some VKM, mention of role of interlocutor – ties in with some Rd 2 VKM where interlocutors could have candidates more time to respond.
Refer nominee to the General MI re holistic assessment and the duration of performances – issues highlighted through rd2 VKM.
Start looking at candidate evidence
Allow at least 20 mins per Higher performance. If a borderline performance, you may need to listen to it again. Allow time for discussion about Presentation/Conversation/Sustaining the Conversation.
If you have time/have completed review of new MI and 3 IACCA performances – use a N5 performance to give nominees chance to standardise with new MI

23. Any Questions? Thank you!
Remember to collect your expenses claim form and return your lanyard
Thank you!
Leave time for questions – could be about other levels/units not covered at this event.
Expenses claim forms should be available –we will find out on the day if these will be available in each room or at the SQA reception desk
Please thank your nominees for taking time out to attend the event.