Hey Mil, and everyone else who does software
I found this in the Board Update, Sept. 2002. Read and tell me what you think.
Love, Weisy
2001 HSC Courses With Relatively Low Performance in Bands 5/6
In a standards-referenced system there is no reason
why the percentages of students achieving each
standard should be the same across courses.
When discussing the proportion of students in the
higher bands for courses it is important to remember
that no students UAI is at all affected by a course
having a relatively low percentage of students placed in
the higher bands. The UAI is a number between 0 and
100 that shows the students rank in the state. The
universities continue to base the UAI on the raw
examination marks and the school assessment marks
and uses their traditional scaling process for each
subject to achieve a single rank based on the students
best performance in ten units.
In Table 5.1 of his report on the 2001 HSC examination
program Professor Geoff Masters listed eight courses
which the Board could decide to look at more closely
as perhaps having unusually low percentages of
students in Bands 5 and 6. These courses were Studies
of Religion I and II, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering
Studies, Software Design and Development, Legal
Studies and English (Advanced).
The Board adopted his recommendation and set up a
project to help it understand possible reasons for the
lower band proportions in these courses. A separate
project is looking at English (Advanced).
In undertaking the project the Board was assisted by
six teachers for each course. The teachers formed the
view that more students should have been awarded
Band 6 in their course.
They then worked with Board officers to explore the
various reasons as to why the proportions might have
been lower than they might have expected.
Performance descriptions
Two sets of performance descriptions were considered
not to be appropriate to the higher ranges. As a result
the performance descriptions for Software Design and
Development will be reworked and workshopped prior
to their use in this years standards setting process.
As well, descriptions related to communications skills
will be added to the Engineering Studies performance
descriptions for this years judging so that judges are
more able to delineate between bands and reward
higher achievement.
Syllabuses
While syllabus-related factors were not considered by
the group to be as significant as other factors, it was
recommended that the Board investigate a possible
review of the Studies of Religion syllabus. The Boards
decision to reduce the level of content in Physics and
Chemistry syllabuses was noted with approval.
Examination setting
It was felt that the examination questions might not
have provided enough opportunities for students to
demonstrate higher band characteristics. Also, in the
first year of the New HSC, students were not necessarily
familiar with the nature of responses expected for
various types of questions and the papers could have
provided more guidance in this regard. Masters made
several recommendations about improvements to the
process of setting HSC examination papers and all of
these were put in place throughout the setting of all
2002 HSC examination papers.
Marking
The marking process was identified as a likely
contributing factor. The group felt that in some instances
the marking guidelines and their application did not
award the range of marks that matched the quality of
responses, perhaps due to some overly-rigid application
of the marking guidelines or else because the
guidelines were not fully consistent with the question.
Once again, significant steps have been taken this year
to address these issues in the marking process. In
particular, the Examination Committee Chair will be
fully involved in the pilot marking phase and any
changes necessary to the marking guidelines following
pilot marking will be made at the marking centre by the
Exam Chair and the Supervisor of Marking.
Standards setting
It was suggested that there should be more consultation
between the judges and key marking personnel about the
responses that questions were actually eliciting during
marking and issues that were arising in the marking
process. This would help judges to be fully aware of aspects
of the performance scales and the aspects that would be
best shown in a written examination. These views are
being incorporated into the judging process for 2002.
Each of the adjustments to the 2002 HSC process is
expected to assist students to be appropriately recognised
for performance at the highest standards. It is also likely
that the impact of many issues will diminish as students
and teachers become familiar with the New HSC and
as ongoing developments, including those associated
with the Masters Review, are embedded into processes.The Board adopted his recommendation and set up a
project to help it understand possible reasons for the
lower band proportions in these courses. A separate
project is looking at English (Advanced).
In undertaking the project the Board was assisted by
six teachers for each course. The teachers formed the
view that more students should have been awarded
Band 6 in their course.
They then worked with Board officers to explore the
various reasons as to why the proportions might have
been lower than they might have expected.
I found this in the Board Update, Sept. 2002. Read and tell me what you think.
Love, Weisy2001 HSC Courses With Relatively Low Performance in Bands 5/6
In a standards-referenced system there is no reason
why the percentages of students achieving each
standard should be the same across courses.
When discussing the proportion of students in the
higher bands for courses it is important to remember
that no students UAI is at all affected by a course
having a relatively low percentage of students placed in
the higher bands. The UAI is a number between 0 and
100 that shows the students rank in the state. The
universities continue to base the UAI on the raw
examination marks and the school assessment marks
and uses their traditional scaling process for each
subject to achieve a single rank based on the students
best performance in ten units.
In Table 5.1 of his report on the 2001 HSC examination
program Professor Geoff Masters listed eight courses
which the Board could decide to look at more closely
as perhaps having unusually low percentages of
students in Bands 5 and 6. These courses were Studies
of Religion I and II, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering
Studies, Software Design and Development, Legal
Studies and English (Advanced).
The Board adopted his recommendation and set up a
project to help it understand possible reasons for the
lower band proportions in these courses. A separate
project is looking at English (Advanced).
In undertaking the project the Board was assisted by
six teachers for each course. The teachers formed the
view that more students should have been awarded
Band 6 in their course.
They then worked with Board officers to explore the
various reasons as to why the proportions might have
been lower than they might have expected.
Performance descriptions
Two sets of performance descriptions were considered
not to be appropriate to the higher ranges. As a result
the performance descriptions for Software Design and
Development will be reworked and workshopped prior
to their use in this years standards setting process.
As well, descriptions related to communications skills
will be added to the Engineering Studies performance
descriptions for this years judging so that judges are
more able to delineate between bands and reward
higher achievement.
Syllabuses
While syllabus-related factors were not considered by
the group to be as significant as other factors, it was
recommended that the Board investigate a possible
review of the Studies of Religion syllabus. The Boards
decision to reduce the level of content in Physics and
Chemistry syllabuses was noted with approval.
Examination setting
It was felt that the examination questions might not
have provided enough opportunities for students to
demonstrate higher band characteristics. Also, in the
first year of the New HSC, students were not necessarily
familiar with the nature of responses expected for
various types of questions and the papers could have
provided more guidance in this regard. Masters made
several recommendations about improvements to the
process of setting HSC examination papers and all of
these were put in place throughout the setting of all
2002 HSC examination papers.
Marking
The marking process was identified as a likely
contributing factor. The group felt that in some instances
the marking guidelines and their application did not
award the range of marks that matched the quality of
responses, perhaps due to some overly-rigid application
of the marking guidelines or else because the
guidelines were not fully consistent with the question.
Once again, significant steps have been taken this year
to address these issues in the marking process. In
particular, the Examination Committee Chair will be
fully involved in the pilot marking phase and any
changes necessary to the marking guidelines following
pilot marking will be made at the marking centre by the
Exam Chair and the Supervisor of Marking.
Standards setting
It was suggested that there should be more consultation
between the judges and key marking personnel about the
responses that questions were actually eliciting during
marking and issues that were arising in the marking
process. This would help judges to be fully aware of aspects
of the performance scales and the aspects that would be
best shown in a written examination. These views are
being incorporated into the judging process for 2002.
Each of the adjustments to the 2002 HSC process is
expected to assist students to be appropriately recognised
for performance at the highest standards. It is also likely
that the impact of many issues will diminish as students
and teachers become familiar with the New HSC and
as ongoing developments, including those associated
with the Masters Review, are embedded into processes.The Board adopted his recommendation and set up a
project to help it understand possible reasons for the
lower band proportions in these courses. A separate
project is looking at English (Advanced).
In undertaking the project the Board was assisted by
six teachers for each course. The teachers formed the
view that more students should have been awarded
Band 6 in their course.
They then worked with Board officers to explore the
various reasons as to why the proportions might have
been lower than they might have expected.
