KS4 National/Foundation Welsh Baccalaureate: Challenges August Award 2016
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at: https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/marktoums/default.aspx?l=en Online Results Analysis WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer at the centre. Annual Statistical Report The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Enterprise and Employability Challenge Principal Moderator Michael Hawthorne The outcomes of the KS4 Enterprise and Employability Challenge were very encouraging with most candidates producing quality work as a result of a detailed and well planned approach to the enterprise they had undertaken. It was encouraging to see candidates enthused by the brief set and becoming fully involved in an enterprise challenge which they enjoyed. This approach has led them to become fully engrossed in the tasks and have shown enthusiasm for the concept, giving them the opportunity to develop their creativity and interest to produce innovative ideas to a high standard. To achieve the highest marks candidates have identified and addressed each criterion within a Learning Outcome and ensured that evidence exists for each one. The most successful candidates have shown immense enthusiasm and commitment which has ensured that their evidence does address all the criteria within a Learning Outcome Learning Outcome 1 Be able to apply Creativity and Innovation Many candidates addressed this criterion well by generating initial ideas as a result of researching existing products. This allowed them to consider a wide range of possible ideas and opportunities based on feasible solutions that broaden their outlook and encourage them to generate a wider range of possible solutions. Successful candidates used their research to generate a wide range of ideas within the group, analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each, in order to select a feasible one to take forward. Overall this Learning Outcome is not well addressed by all candidates. There is a requirement to generate realistic ideas. Often this is limited to one idea with insufficient consideration of strengths and weaknesses in a SWOT analysis. This first section can be well developed in a group where members bring forward one idea as a result of individual research. By discussing the SWOT analysis, the group can take one idea forward giving reasons why one idea was selected and other ideas rejected. Many candidates do not achieve the best marks as there is little evidence of development to a sufficient level. The second criterion requires candidates to develop and implement the selected idea. This development requires them to consider how the chosen idea could be evolved, changed or improved in some way. While candidates need to consider how these developments could improve their initial idea they should be aware that in the end, as a result of analysis, they may consider the first idea was the best. This is perfectly acceptable. The use of customer surveys and prototypes has helped many candidates make informed decisions. There then needs to be clear evidence of how the selected idea was implemented. Candidates need to put significant detail into their evaluation of the process involved in developing a new concept and reflect on its strengths and weaknesses to achieve the higher bands
Learning Outcome 2 Understand Personal Effectiveness All candidates had undertaken a skills audit in one of several forms but it is the analysis of the skills identified that is needed to achieve higher marks. The requirement is for an audit of personal and team skills. While most Candidates considered their personal skills few considered team skills within their evidence. Candidates need to undertake an audit or analysis of the skills they have identified and consider how these skills are important for the Challenge and their role within the group. They need to have a plan of how they will develop and improve their skills within the Challenge. Few Candidates had considered which skills they needed to improve and how they planned to improve them. When conducting a skills audit candidates should be encouraged not only to use a tick box system but also to consider each skill in terms of why it is important, how it is useful in the challenge and what they can do to improve identified skills. There was generally good recording of performance within the group through minutes of meetings but it is important to recognise that all candidates need to identify their personal contribution. In lower mark bands candidates did not always identify their individual contribution, what they did when they worked as a team and how their skills were used to best effect. While many candidates evidenced time management and appropriate behaviour within a team situation those in the lower mark bands did not provide sufficient evidence. Many candidates encourage others in a team and allow the team to work to their strengths but evidence is needed to show that it has taken place. Many candidates had clear and realistic reflection of the development and application of their skills but too often candidates told a story of the enterprise initiative and did not actually reflect on personal and team work skills. There is a need for candidates to reflect on their development of both personal skills and team skills. Candidates could consider questions such as what went well? What did not go so well? What would I / we do next time? They also need to realise that identifying improvements is not a weakness but a strength and achieves higher marks. Learning Outcome 3 Understand factors involved in an Enterprise and Employability Challenge Again in this series, it was evident from the work submitted that there was significant enthusiasm for the Enterprise and Employability Challenge undertaken. Candidates that became enthused by the Challenge became motivated and achieved higher marks. Candidates who had enthusiasm for the idea and product or service were more easily able to convince others when it came to the pitch. A well-structured and creatively developed visual display should draw on the idea development section produced earlier in the Challenge. When candidates had taken this approach they were successful in achieving higher marks for the pitch. Almost all candidates understood the factors involved in developing a business proposal. Work was well structured but few achieved the higher band of a creatively developed Visual Display as they had not included the full range of display materials that had been generated in the development of ideas. Candidates should be encouraged to show their idea generation and development in the pitch as well as any point of sale material, advertising costing and forecasts. Communication skills were generally appropriate. 1 P a g e
Challenging the accepted methods of producing a visual display will enable candidates to be more creative here. When candidates had produced graphics and/or prototypes as part of the idea development process they were more structured in their approach and better able to communicate their ideas with reason. Having an artefact as part of the pitch is often more engaging and demonstrates detail and effective understanding when the presentation is made. When writing the reflection many candidates told a story of the process by which the Challenge was achieved and did not give a well-reasoned reflection on the use and development of the personal skills and team skills achieved in the challenge. Administration Administration of the Challenge and submission of evidence was good in almost all centres. The use of individual folders, kept candidate work in order. A copy of the Challenge brief must be included with the candidate work but this was not always the case. It is easier for the moderator to understand the context of the work and allocate marks when the brief is included. The use of individual folders which allow moderators easy access to the whole of the Challenge is a strength with most centres. Within the pitch, candidates present some very good work, which often shows their idea developments, with reasoning behind the selection and rejection of the chosen idea. This must be legible to the moderator. It is good practice to identify the candidate input where group photographs are used. Most candidates presented their work in the order of the tasks within the brief which is good practice. However, some had no order to the portfolio which made the moderation process more difficult to achieve. 2 P a g e
Global Citizenship Challenge Principal Moderator Caroline Hawke-Jones This is the second series for the KS4 Global Citizenship Challenge. There has been most encouraging developments in the work submitted from centres, with many clearly following guidance set out in this report for the January series. There has been exemplary practice in some centres and the outcomes are shared here. From the work submitted in this series it is clear that candidates have enjoyed this Challenge. This creates a most optimistic scenario as we encourage our candidates to become more aware of global issues whilst supporting them to become active global citizens. As in the January series it is important to remind centres that the theme of Global Citizenship is the context in which the skills of critical thinking and problem solving, creativity and innovation are to be evidenced and it is important that that work is assessed within the confines of the assessment grid. Centres must continue to focus on making sound and consistent assessment decisions that have been supported by reliable and robust internal standardisation and internal moderation procedures. LO1 Be able to apply Critical Thinking and Problem Solving It was clear that many centres had spent time choosing a challenge brief that was best for their candidates. Furthermore, success in this LO1 was often dictated by the choice of sources of information provided by the centres for candidates to use in the controlled assessment. In this series there was evidence that centres are being more careful about their choice of sources and ensuring they are appropriate in terms of content, levels and that they are relevant and up to date with sources attached. Differentiated sources are now in evidence and this must definitely be encouraged. It is essential that all level of candidates are able to access the information contained in the sources as this is the basis for the problem solving process and critical thinking process for the controlled assessment. Prior to the assessment, centres must spend time in the classroom developing candidates' skills in reading information and being able to identify key information and factors. This will lead to candidates making judgements and drawing conclusions about their own opinions and those of others. Hence, if the sources used are suitable for that candidate he or she will be more successful in this part of the Challenge. The sources chosen by candidates as their own choice of information were most often relevant and as in the January series had better evidence of problem solving skills than the centre pieces as presumably the candidate had read the piece before choosing it. This confirms the point that centres should choose sources that are most suitable for their candidates. As before, the evidence of problem solving focused on the sources. The candidates who were most successful were able to pick out the relevant PESTLE factors in the sources. Many used highlighter pens to show where this evidence was. A colour key is essential in this process in order to ascertain that candidates have understood the content and they are not just highlighting indiscriminately. Candidates who were able to comment on the credibility of the sources including the date and author (publisher) on the sources went on to include this information in their standpoints. This process can be supported by using RURU (relevant, up to date, reliable and useful) or some other problem solving technique. 3 P a g e
Centres are advised to help candidates to develop problem solving techniques that ensure they understand the information in the sources. Supplementary outcomes for the analysis and evaluation of sources, in addition to the annotation may further prepare candidates for writing their personal viewpoints. Centres that had encouraged candidates to summarise their findings, including the PESTLE factors went on to write better standpoints which included the expression of own views and consideration of those of others. This does not need to be in a structured template, indeed writing frame and templates should be discouraged for candidates who are likely to achieve higher mark band. All that is required is a blank page after the source, for candidates to summarise the key factors in the source (including relevant PESTLE factors) Many centres included class discussions and the largest majority of candidates enjoyed this opportunity offered by centres and it is most definitely to be encouraged. This activity was often referred to in the standpoint and this should be encouraged since the key to developing critical thinking skills is to get into the habit of questioning rather than simply accepting information you read or hear. The class discussions provide a platform for this process. Candidates often referred to the class discussions in their evaluations and so they had clearly enjoyed this part of the challenge. There has been a real development in the quality of the personal standpoints. The choice of Challenge Brief was an important factor in the outcome. Some centres had chosen a global topic that had quite a relevant, local perspective and this enabled candidates to write with quite a passion about the impact of the global issue on the area where they were living. The most successful candidates who achieved outcomes in MB4 were able to express their own views, those of others and incorporated the information from the sources. Their notes included a commentary on the credibility of the source of information and the relevant PESTLE factors were covered as part of the standpoint and not as a separate section of bullet points. Candidates should be taught how to structure their standpoints in order to achieve the best outcomes. It was clear in a small number of cases that candidates had copied and pasted work directly from the Internet. Candidates are not allowed access to the Internet whilst writing their standpoint and this control must be securely in place for the next series, otherwise centres may be faced with concerns over plagiarism. Additionally candidates should not be copying large sections of information from the paper sources. If sources are suitable then candidates should be able to understand the information and hence copying may be avoided. The reflections for LO1 are still one of the weaker areas of this learning outcome. The most successful centres had clearly asked candidates to complete their reflection for LO1 straight after writing their standpoints. However, many candidates still thought the outcome was the understanding of the global issue and whilst this is very important there was a lack of evaluation about the skills of critical thinking and problem solving. This needs to be addressed in further entries. Familiarity with the assessment grid will assist with this; Detailed and well-reasoned reflection on critical thinking and problem solving process. Centres need to spend time on teaching candidates how to reflect successfully and ensure enough time is factored into the CA for this to be done properly. 4 P a g e
LO 2 Be able to apply Creativity and Innovation In this series some of the final outcomes for the Raising Awareness Packs have been wonderful, with games, videos, artefacts, bunting etc. being produced alongside the more expected posters and PowerPoints. Where candidates had been encouraged to be independent in their development of ideas, the outcomes were original and clearly focused on the intended audience. Some centres are giving candidates a specific outcome to develop and whilst this can help to focus the decision making for the final product of the pack, it can be limiting. When candidates were given an opportunity to choose their own raising awareness pack it was clear that the creativity was enhanced because candidates were willing to take more risks in their choices as they could justify their decisions alongside the audience. This process will enable candidates to consider their aims and objectives for raising awareness for their audience. Therefore, giving candidates a limited choice is not to be encouraged. It is worthy of note, that many of the successful raising awareness packs were made by hand with paper and glue and not produced using ICT facilities and centres must not feel that they are disadvantaged by not having these facilities. It was the creativity and innovation that shone through. Likewise centres must not feel as though they must have budding artists or architects to achieve higher marks, it is the development of ideas that generates the marks and therefore time must be spent on teaching candidates how to do this. Centres must also focus on the assessment criteria which states ideas (plural) generated. Candidates must select a number of ideas and then make purposeful decisions about which one to develop. Many centres used a SWOT analysis in helping to make a choice. Centres are reminded that templates can limit the outcomes for some candidates who may be better creating their own SWOT and showcasing their understanding. The development aspect of this learning outcome is still the area most centres are losing marks. It is not enough to produce a SWOT then a final outcome. There must be evidence of development. This could be in the form of research from the Internet for ideas, spider grams, action plans, mood boards, 1st draft ideas, feedback from peers on draft ideas, 2nd draft of idea, further SWOT, final product, feedback from audience, photographs of stages and photographs of final outcomes. Candidates could use highlighters to show where text/images/data had changed from the previous draft. In centres where candidates have been working together in a team, there must be clear evidence of the contribution that each candidate has made. In some cases it was hard to ascertain a contribution and may affect candidates' marks. Again candidates should not be copying from the Internet for their final outcomes. They must be original in their ideas as copying can raise concerns over plagiarism. In some centres, candidates had started their work for LO2 with clear intentions, but the outcomes were completely different. For example a candidate said they were going to make a website and all the development followed this idea, only for there to be a leaflet as the final outcome. Centres must make sure candidates are clear about the assessment criteria for this learning outcome. If there are difficulties faced mid process, this should be highlighted in the reflection. Accordingly centres must check that candidates' ideas for the Raising Awareness Packs are realistic. 5 P a g e
As before in LO2 in their reflection, some candidates focused on the final product and whether this was a good PowerPoint or a good leaflet and opposed the reflecting on the process of creativity and innovation. This is still a weak area and affecting marks for LO2. If centres refer to the delivery handbook, it suggests that candidates should be taking into account the lessons learned during the process and this includes from the inception of the ideas for the pack to putting the final full stop on the finished product how was that whole process? This reflection should be completed straight after the completing the Raising Awareness Pack. LO3 Understand the issues involved in a Global Citizenship Challenge It was quite clear from the portfolios that candidates had understood the challenge. All candidates had identified that the global issue they were focusing on was real and in addition to writing their standpoint, all candidates had recognised the value of making the awareness pack. Many had said in their reflections how much they had enjoyed this challenge and how much they had achieved from taking part. The PESTLE factors were evident in several different places in the moderated work but mostly in LO1 where candidates had highlighted these factors in the sources and written about them in their standpoints. Generally, when the PESTLE factors were picked out early on in the sources, it meant they were more evident in the standpoint. Early identification in the sources also meant that when class discussions took place, the PESTLE factors were used and this furthered candidates understanding before writing the standpoint. Supportive annotation from the assessors was very helpful in the part of the challenge. The most successful candidates incorporate their understanding of PESTLE factors into the standpoint as part of their written summary rather than in a separate section. In some portfolios, there was no mention of the PESTLE factors and this will affect the candidates mark, but centres are reminded it is relevant PESTLE factors that are important. The final outcomes for the raising awareness packs were significantly better in this series but centres must continue to work on the development aspect of LO2. This was a significant concern throughout the entries. However by making this developmental link to the first generation of ideas and the final outcome will mean centres will create comprehensive packs which cover all the skills and therefore improve their marks. Centres must also insist that candidates do not copy and paste large amounts of information from the Internet into their raising awareness packs. Centres need to be thoughtful about using templates. These can prevent some candidates from reaching their full potential, leading questions will limit accessibility of the higher band marks and may be more useful when teaching candidates the skills required for this challenge. Administration Basic administration errors such as missing signatures, missing centre numbers and missing marks on assessment sheets can be avoided with some forwarded planning. Candidates should also be encouraged to put their name on every page of their work. What may be of greater concern was the problem of missing work. Moderators are only able to judge the work that is in front of them and therefore if work is missing then it must be deemed the centres responsibility. Again forward planning can hopefully avoid these problems. Marks will have been adjusted to account for missing work. 6 P a g e
As every centre approaches the Challenge in a slightly different way, then it is important that the centre gives as much support to the moderator as possible so that they can understand the challenge that has been set in order to moderate marks to the best outcome. Therefore including Challenge Briefs is essential but also, centres need to make sure that pages and notes (that have been included for moderation) have a title on or some indication of what the page is contributing to. A good example of this was class discussions were sometimes just a few lines of writing. A simple heading at the top of the page would enable to the moderator to see straight away what the work was. Many centres had used workbooks to complete the controlled assessment and this worked well for the sources of information and problem solving. It worked less well for other parts of the challenge e.g. the creativity and innovation as candidates were fixed to an A4 workbook to showcase their ideas. It would be most helpful if centres could organise their submissions into an order to support the moderation process. This would mean putting the sources of information and problem solving alongside the standpoint first and the associated reflection. Next all the evidence for LO2 including the development and final outcomes for the raising awareness pack and finally the evidence of reflection for LO2. However, it is absolutely feasible to put the reflections for both LO1 and LO2 together. And finally, the supporting annotation offered by assessors is so important to support the centres moderation outcomes and therefore this is to be encouraged in all instances. 7 P a g e
Community Challenge Principal Moderator Catrin Evans A variety of Challenge Briefs were seen which provided candidates with an opportunity to undertake valuable community activities. The most successful Briefs included sufficient detail so that the candidate could identify the purpose and benefit of the activity within the community which resulted in stronger planning and implementation. In the few where the brief didn t allow opportunity for candidates to achieve the higher bands it was due to the restrictive nature of the task. Either the time frame of the individual activity wasn t long enough to require detailed and effective planning or the task itself had been simplified and distributed amongst teams within the given cohort and so didn t allow candidates to recognise appropriate and realistic aims, objectives and risks and allocate the necessary responsibilities and activities for themselves. A vast improvement was seen this series in the evidence provided by candidates, with the strongest presenting very well-structured and effective digital records which showed good understanding of the assessment grid for this challenge as each of the areas were addressed. It was clear that the strongest candidates had been given the list of tasks as well as the assessment grid along with the Brief and therefore had a clear understanding of what was required. The majority of centres chose to approach the Community Challenge as a team task and did so successfully; however some centres should refer to the specification (page 33) to ensure that they are familiar with the requirements for collaborative work. A team is defined as having 3 to 6 members and when undertaken there are several principles to consider including that the evidence must be clearly attributable to each individual member of the group and that learners must provide an individual response as part of any task outcome. The use of templates is accepted, however centres are reminded that they can limit candidate responses and that templates with leading questions will limit accessibility of the higher band marks. Over use of templates was seen once again in some instances resulting in very similar work by candidates as well as restricting the marks awarded and centres should address this for future submissions. Centres are reminded that the Challenge requires 10 hours carrying out the doing aspect of the Challenge through working with or in the community which does not include time planning the activity. Although a significant number of candidates met the requirement with purposeful and valuable activities, there was evidence in some to the contrary. There were a minority of instances whereby the Challenge Brief didn t allow for the necessary hours as the task was geared more towards raising awareness and centres are reminded that this isn t an appropriate activity for this Challenge. Generic briefs are available on the WJEC website and many centres adapted these successfully. Failing to provide opportunity for the required hours not only hinders the candidates at LO3 but also has a detrimental effect on the candidates ability to reflect in detail on the planning process as well as on the skills they develop during the doing aspect of the Challenge. 8 P a g e
Some centres were commended on the annotation provided along with the teacher confirmation providing additional evidence for the candidates participation. Annotation through the work as a whole needs to be strengthened, ensuring use of the key differentiators when choosing the appropriate mark band, e.g. limited, basic, detailed, effective. In several cases the annotation referred to lower bands but wasn t then reflected in the marks awarded or vice versa and so any annotation must be relevant to the assessment process. There were a few instances where work provided was unrelated to the community work that had been identified yet there was no reference to this by the assessor which suggests greater focus on assessment is needed in future. Many centres showed a good understanding of the assessment grid and were awarding marks accurately. In some cases centres were too generous in their awarding of marks especially for LO1 and LO2 which are assessing the process of applying the two skills Planning and Organisation and Personal Effectiveness. Assessors should refer to page 7 of the Delivery Handbook which provides useful information in regards to what evidence candidates could include. Learning Outcome 1 Be able to apply Planning and Organising The most successful work began with a clear and focused brief allowing the candidates to present appropriate and realistic aims and objectives that were relevant to the work undertaken. In a minority of instances it was difficult to identify what the candidate was setting out to achieve. The most successful candidates were given a sufficient Challenge in terms of length of the given activity and its complexity which allowed for detailed and effective planning amongst all members of a group. More successful candidates showed consideration for the various examples of content listed in the specification (page 28) such as setting targets, required resources, risks but this was inconsistent across centres. All centres had obviously included action plans as part of their teaching and learning which is to be commended. On occasion the individual action plans were too general by candidates as they used vague statements such as complete task, create resources as opposed to identifying the specific actions that needed to be carried out to ensure success. In some coaching examples, candidates used a lesson plan format which allowed for more detailed planning as well as focused the monitoring and development as candidates would reflect and adapt future lessons. Although the work is carried out in teams, centres are reminded that some aspects of this Learning Outcome must be individual as the candidates should provide evidence of planning their contribution to the task in order to ensure the success of their team activity. Evidence of implementation and management of the plan was generally weaker than other aspects of the Learning Outcome and should have a greater focus in future teaching and learning programmes. It was evident that candidates require support with reflection as many tended to describe the activity as opposed to providing evaluative comments on the planning process itself. This should be a feature of the teaching and learning programme prior to the controlled assessment with candidates being taught to refer specifically to the planning and organisation to address this learning outcome. 9 P a g e
Learning Outcome 2 Understand Personal Effectiveness The most successful work included a clear skills audit with detailed analysis by the candidate along with a plan for improvement which related to the community activity itself. Some provided an individual learning plan through the use of SMART targets. Some candidates analysis was limited due to the skills audit template chosen as they required short answers or tick boxes without any further analysis by the candidate. As a result candidates were unable to present a detailed and effective audit which restricted the marks available. The use of an analytical tool is permitted in terms of the skills audit but centres are reminded that candidates must show an understanding of the results by referring to the strengths and weaknesses identified and identifying which areas they intend to improve in the given task. Presenting a computer generated audit alone is not sufficient. Some candidates were able to provide basic reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of their own performance, although this is clearly an area for development for future submissions. The strongest candidates included a clear plan for improvement in terms of skills and then used these to focus their reflection following the doing aspect of the Challenge. Most candidates were working in teams but in some instances there was limited evidence to demonstrate how the team had decided on individual roles and responsibilities and what each individual contributed to the activity. Successful team tasks tended to use a group action plan effectively in order to allocate responsibilities both for the planning stage and the doing part of the Challenge. Minutes of meetings were another successful tool to show each team members contribution. Learning Outcome 3 Be able to participate in a Community Challenge When a well-defined brief was provided, candidates were able to show consideration of the purpose and benefit of the activity. In the minority of cases where the brief lacked focus this was reflected in the candidates inability to identify and discuss the purpose and benefit of the activity within their chosen community. On the whole very good evidence was seen in this series for the Personal Digital Record with candidates showing variety and individuality in their chosen presentation with many using annotated photographs effectively. In some cases candidates also included videos as evidence of participation. Centres are reminded that the digital record is an individual task and so identical photographs of whole cohorts or groups presented for all candidates is not sufficient. Candidates are required to demonstrate some evidence of organisation and management of digital information. In a few cases work presented included empty templates or duplicate grids, which implies lack of organisation skills. Centres must ensure that the Learning Outcome as a whole is considered when providing a mark and not focus on the participation element alone. 10 P a g e
Although a confirmation statement was provided by many centres, its completion wasn t always appropriate. Centres are reminded that only the statement which best reflects the candidate s participation during the Challenge itself should be chosen. Additional comments relating to the candidate s role within the Challenge is useful for moderation in order to better understand the marks allocated however these should be applicable to the individual candidate and not a general comment that is used for the cohort as a whole. Many centres provided valuable and interesting opportunities to candidates which allowed for 10 hours doing as is required for the Challenge. This must be extended across all centres. Administration On the whole centres are to be commended on the prompt arrival of work however submitting work by the given deadline must be a focus for some in the next series. In a few instances there were missing teacher confirmation sheets which are necessary evidence to confirm that the candidate has completed 10 hours of active and purposeful participation. All confirmation sheets must be completed correctly as is noted above. A copy of each of the Challenge briefs used should be included with the candidate work as this was not always adhered to in this series. Providing a variety of briefs within a cohort is permitted and by some centres was administrated very well however there were a minority of instances whereby the planning related to the brief provided yet the personal record and reflection related to a different activity with no reference to the change by the candidate or assessor. This must be addressed for future submissions. The candidates' evidence must be in the form of a Personal Digital Record and it is expected that all work is submitted to the moderator in digital format, this can be on CD, DVD or USB or via e-portfolio. Each candidate's work must be an individual file and clearly labelled with candidate number and candidate name. Principals Report KS4 Welsh Baccalaureate /LG 11 P a g e