Some Questions (1 Viewer)

[Trebla]

Three questions and maybe some more if more come to my head:

- If a course is 'negatively scaled' then is it correct to say that the raw mark is always higher than the scaled mark? Similarly, if a course is 'positively scaled' then does that mean the raw mark is always lower than the scaled mark?

- If a course 'scales up' really high like Mathematics Extension 2, what if person scored a raw mark of 100? Obviously he/she would get the maximum 100 scaled mark, but what about those behind him/her?. Say 1st was 100 and second was 98, then would second be scaled to like 99.9, while first receives 100? If that is the case then would it be valid to say that people at the very top of some courses would be minimally affected by scaling?

- With the aligning process, there is a standards setting procedure used to determine which range of raw marks fit into a particular band. If English Standard and English Advanced are aligned differently, then why are their performance descriptors identical?

 

[insert-username]

If a course is 'negatively scaled' then is it correct to say that the raw mark is always higher than the scaled mark? Similarly, if a course is 'positively scaled' then does that mean the raw mark is always lower than the scaled mark?

Scaling only applies when your aligned marks are taken and used to calculate UAI. Raw marks are first aligned, then judged, before they get anywhere near scaling. Marks do get adjusted, up and down, by the Board of Studies to move the mean and accurately place students into bands, so no, I doubt that the raw marks are always higher than the scaled marks if the course is scaled down and vice-versa.


- If a course 'scales up' really high like Mathematics Extension 2, what if person scored a raw mark of 100? Obviously he/she would get the maximum 100 scaled mark, but what about those behind him/her?. Say 1st was 100 and second was 98, then would second be scaled to like 99.9, while first receives 100? If that is the case then would it be valid to say that people at the very top of some courses would be minimally affected by scaling?

If you score 100 in an exam, you are the top and you can't go any higher. So yes, it's valid to say that scaling means crap all if you top or come close to the top of your course - it's always better to get the highest mark you can in an exam than to rely on scaling to pull you up. It's important to keep in mind though that raw marks are aligned first and averaged with your moderated assessment mark by the Board of Studies before they are scaled by the Universities Admissions Centre.


If English Standard and English Advanced are aligned differently, then why are their performance descriptors identical?

I think this is because students in Advanced English do better overall (there's the Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 people doing Advanced). So a band 6 answer for English Advanced would definitely be expected to be far better than a top answer for English Standard.


I_F

 

[Lazarus]

Uh, I thought I'd better correct some of those answers... insert-username, you might want to refer to this flowchart to see how things fit together. Aligned marks don't get 're-scaled' or anything like that. Raw marks get aligned, and raw marks get scaled. Two different procedures applied to the same marks.

- If a course is 'negatively scaled' then is it correct to say that the raw mark is always higher than the scaled mark? Similarly, if a course is 'positively scaled' then does that mean the raw mark is always lower than the scaled mark?

In fact those terms mean the reverse of what you've suggested.

If a course has been "positively scaled", its raw marks have been adjusted upwards.

- If a course 'scales up' really high like Mathematics Extension 2, what if person scored a raw mark of 100? Obviously he/she would get the maximum 100 scaled mark, but what about those behind him/her?. Say 1st was 100 and second was 98, then would second be scaled to like 99.9, while first receives 100? If that is the case then would it be valid to say that people at the very top of some courses would be minimally affected by scaling?

Yes, that's correct.

Students who are placed around the middle of the candidature will always be affected the most by scaling.

- With the aligning process, there is a standards setting procedure used to determine which range of raw marks fit into a particular band. If English Standard and English Advanced are aligned differently, then why are their performance descriptors identical?

A very good question.

The Masters Review of the new HSC identified the differing raw band cut-offs between Standard and Advanced as an "anomaly" and recommended that both courses be aligned in the same way. But as far as I'm aware, this advice was never adopted.

 

[insert-username]

Two different procedures applied to the same marks.

I was under the impression that it was the aligned marks from BOS that were scaled, not the raw. Apologies.


I_F