Welsh Baccalaureate KS4 National/Foundation Challenges January 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.
Global Citizenship Challenge Principal Moderator Caroline Hawke-Jones There has been an encouraging outcome for the first entries of the KS4 Global Citizenship Challenge. Sharing the best practice from these entries will ensure that in future, centres can focus on delivering teaching and learning programmes that not only build on and enhance the skills of candidates but also encourage their interest and appreciation of being active citizens. Centres are reminded 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 the work is assessed within the confines of the assessment grid. Candidates should have access to the assessment criteria throughout the challenge so they are clear about the skills being assessed. Throughout the moderation process, supportive annotation from assessors was most helpful. Learning Outcome 1 Be able to apply Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Some centres had a very clear understanding of the requirements of this learning outcome and it was evident that time had been spent developing the problem solving skills that lead to successful critical thinking of the global issue. This process enabled candidates to write their Personal Standpoint with confidence and to incorporate the evidence of their own opinions, those of others, different views and arguments. To further the levels of critical thinking, successful centres had incorporated evaluating the credibility of sources into the development of the candidate s skills. This further enhanced the outcomes for the Personal Standpoint. The assessment of the problem solving skills was mainly focused on the sources of information. All centres had provided candidates with a pack of photocopied sources which on the whole had been well chosen. Centres who had provided contrasting pieces, from a variety of sources, gave candidates the opportunity to delve deeper into alternative opinions and to highlight the credibility and evaluation of sources in their viewpoints. For many this allowed them to assess the quality of the arguments and to reach their viewpoints in a logical way. This was an important part of the critical thinking process. However, it was clear that for some candidates the sources chosen were not suitable and this affected the outcome for their problem solving skills. Centres should be encouraged to differentiate the sources of information to ensure access for all levels of candidates. Many candidates had included their own sources and these were most encouraging. Indeed, many had better evidence of problem solving than the centre pieces as, presumably, the candidate had read the source of information before choosing it. This reinforces the point that centres should select sources of information that are suitable for their candidates and consider different sources for different levels of candidates. 1
Problem solving was evidenced through a variety of methods. The most successful centres had taught candidates how to annotate the sources which showed they had read and understood the information contained therein. Some centres had used a highlighting system which was a suitable problem solving method, although those with a key to the highlighting were better. Centres are advised to help candidates to develop problem solving techniques that ensure understanding of the information in the sources. When candidates were struggling, they wrote standpoints based solely on their own opinion. Supplementary outcomes for the analysis and evaluation of sources, in addition to the annotation may further prepare candidates for writing their Personal Standpoint. Credibility of sources was often overlooked in both the preparation for writing the viewpoint and in the viewpoint itself; this requirement is clearly set out in the assessment criteria. It is important that centres spend time developing candidates' skills in evaluating sources of information. Examples of good practice included candidates who discussed the web address, for example.com vs.org, other centres used the acronym RURU to help candidates focus on the source. Centres should ensure that the sources they choose are suitable for the candidates to judge their credibility. There was written evidence of class discussions and this outcome 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. Candidates are often asked to reflect on their school work and this was evident in the portfolios, with many candidates showing a natural confidence in being able to look back on what they had done. On the whole, candidates were very positive about this part of the challenge. Many said they felt they had learnt a lot. What may be of some concern, is that many candidates 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 development. In some instances candidates did not realise they were developing skills, only knowledge. This needs to be addressed in future series. Familiarity with the assessment grid will assist with this; Detailed and well- reasoned reflection on critical thinking and problem solving process. Learning Outcome 2 Be able to apply Creativity and Innovation This part of the challenge presented some very creative and innovative ideas. Where candidates had been encouraged to be independent in their development of ideas, the outcomes were original and clearly focused on the intended audience. Candidates were most successful when their Raising Awareness Packs contained many elements which demonstrated the skills of selection, development and implementation. 2
Some centres gave candidates a specific audience and whilst this can help to focus the decision making for the final product of the pack, it can be limiting. There was evidence of some candidates being directed to what to make for their final product. When candidates were given an opportunity to choose their own audience it was clear that the creativity was enhanced because candidates were willing to take more risks in their choices as they could justify their decision alongside their audience. This process will enable candidates to consider their aims and objectives for raising awareness for their own chosen audience. Therefore, giving candidates a limited choice is not to be encouraged. Centres must also focus on the assessment criteria which states ideas (plural) generated. Many centres used a SWOT analysis to present the analysis of strengths and weaknesses and this is a useful tool. Where centres had used a template, this meant that candidates only had to fill the box which kept the work neat and tidy. However, some candidates may want to write more to justify their decisions and this should be encouraged. Some candidates may want to further develop their raising awareness ideas by using other methods of evaluation of strengths and weaknesses e.g. scoring against specified criteria. Some candidates had drafted their product ideas and then asked for peer feedback. This enabled them to develop their ideas even further before embarking on the final feasible, realistic and effective idea. In some centres, candidates thought about the resources required to make the product and how to distribute (implement) the information to their audience. Some of the final products were very good. Candidates had been most innovative; some had more than one product that complemented the other. Some candidates' work lost the impact of their final product as printouts were in black and white or of a poor quality. If candidates have produced the final product digitally the work could be sent in digital format to the moderator. It is worth noting that there were many hand-made products and these were equally successful to those made on the computer. In this part of the challenge, the most successful candidates included a peer assessment of their final product. This was useful information for their evaluation for LO2. When writing their evaluation for LO2, many candidates focused on the final product and whether this was a good power point or a good leaflet as opposed to reflecting on the process of creativity and innovation. 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 effective was the whole process? 3
Learning Outcome 3 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 Personal Standpoint, all candidates had recognised the value of making the awareness pack. The most successful portfolios were those where the candidate demonstrated their understanding of the global issue from several points of view, this showed a clear development of the skills. There were many pieces of work however, where candidates were obviously only writing from their own point of view. Sometimes these pieces contained large sections of copied and pasted work and this meant there had been limited or no critical thinking or successful problem solving. The PESTLE factors were evident in several different places in the moderated work including in LO1 where candidates had highlighted these factors in the sources. 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 included and this furthered candidates understanding before writing the standpoint. In some standpoints the candidates listed and wrote about the PESTLE factors whilst others mentioned them in a less obvious way. In some portfolios, there was no mention of the PESTLE factors and this will affect the candidate's mark, but centres are reminded it is relevant PESTLE factors that are important. The final outcomes for the raising awareness packs were generally quite pleasing, but centres must work on the development aspect of LO2. This was a significant concern throughout the entries. 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 Centres must ensure they use the official WJEC assessment sheets for the outcomes for each candidate, filling in each LO mark and the total mark. Centres can support moderators by ensuring that all work is clearly labelled. For example where a class discussion had taken place, the sheet should have the title Class Discussion. Centres should always include a copy of the challenge with the candidate s portfolios. One brief and individually packed work is helpful to the moderators. 4
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 was made aware of the purpose and benefit of the activity within the community which resulted in stronger planning and implementation. In many cases there was a lack of candidate evidence. Centres should ensure candidates are familiar with and understand the statements in the assessment grid for this Challenge. Candidates should be advised to tick off the bullet points within each task of the controlled assessment as they complete them. Candidates from some centres included what appeared to be teaching materials and exemplar work. This must be addressed in future, only evidence produced by the candidate for the controlled assessment should be included and considered when assessing the candidates work. The use of templates is accepted, however centres are reminded that they can limit learner responses and that template with leading questions will limit accessibility of the higher band marks. Over use of templates was seen in some instances resulting in very similar work by candidates which must be addressed in future submissions. All centres chose to approach the Community Challenge as a team task which provided additional opportunity for skills analysis and reflection. 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. This should be addressed in the Community Challenge as each candidate should present their own Personal Digital Record. The Challenge requires 10 hours working in or with the community this does not include any time for planning the activity. Although a significant number of candidates appeared to meet this requirement, there was evidence in some to the contrary. Some centres are to be 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, eg limited, basic, detailed, effective. In several cases the annotation referred to lower bands which was not then reflected in the marks awarded. There were also 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. In general, 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 section 6.5 in the Delivery Handbook which provides useful information in regards to what evidence learners should be able to produce. It was clear that many candidates had not developed these skills sufficiently to complete the controlled assessment to the best of their ability. 5
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. It was on occasion difficult to identify what the candidate was setting out to achieve. It is evident that candidates require support in writing aims and objectives and this should be a feature of the teaching and learning programme. More successful candidates showed consideration for 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 these were too general by candidates as they used vague actions such as be innovative as opposed to identifying the specific actions that needed to be completed to ensure success. Some candidates used a lesson plan format which allowed for more detailed planning as well as improved the monitoring and development as candidates would reflect and adapt future lessons. There is scope for candidates to include a number of plans as they need to plan the development of their skills for the activity, plan what preparation is required before the activity can start and plan the 10 hours of the activity. There was very little evidence of candidates monitoring their plan as they completed the 10 hours of the activity. Some candidates provided planning which was unrelated to the actual community activity carried out this should be addressed by the assessor as the planning is no longer valid for the given activity. It was evident that candidates require support with reflection as many tended to describe as opposed to providing evaluative comments. 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 process to address this learning outcome. 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. As candidates were unable to present a detailed and effective audit this restricted the marks available. Although some individual action plans were used, candidates must be taught to use them more effectively referring to specific aspects of self-management. More successful work showed candidates providing evidence for their performance through the reflection referring to specific factors such as management of time and resources, seeking advice and setting personal and team goals. 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. It is appreciated that candidates find the nature of reflection a difficult concept but in order to achieve the higher mark bands, candidates are required to produce a detailed reflection of the development and application of skills both personally and within the team. Examples of content are included in the Personal Effectiveness section on page 28 of the specification. Most candidates were working in teams but there was limited evidence to demonstrate how the team had decided on individual roles and responsibilities and what each individual contributed to the activity. When working in a team it is advised that regular team meetings are held and that each member of the team updates the other members on what they have contributed. The production of minutes is an example of how this can be carried out. 6
Learning Outcome 3 Be able to participate in a Community Challenge. When a detailed brief was provided, candidates were able to show some consideration of the purpose and benefit of the activity. In order to strengthen this aspect in future centres are encouraged to provide evidence for this through an introduction to the Personal Digital Record. It is stated in the specification (page 27) that a Personal Digital Record is to be provided for assessment. This requires an individual digital record by candidates using photographs, videos or text to provide evidence for their participation in the activity. The most successful work saw candidates provide annotated photographs of their activity. Where photographs of the whole cohort carrying out activities is not sufficient as the success criteria requests a personal record from each candidate. Candidates are required to demonstrate evidence of organisation and management of digital information. In order to do this, candidates must present a folder of work which includes all aspects of their evidence (page 27, specification) digitally. Some work presented included empty templates or duplicate grids which would suggest the candidate has basic 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 in future. If a candidate is worthy of band 4 marks for their participation in the activity they must also provide evidence for this through the Personal Digital Record presented. Administration Centres are to be commended on the prompt arrival of work with all arriving prior to the deadline. In a few instances there were missing teacher confirmation sheets which are necessary evidence to confirm that the learner has completed 10 hours of active and purposeful participation. Only one box should be ticked on the confirmation statement. 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 until submission via e-portfolio becomes compulsory. Each candidates work must be an individual file and clearly labelled with candidate number and candidate name. 7
Enterprise and Employability Challenge Principal Moderator Michael Hawthorne The most successful candidates clearly acknowledged each criterion within the challenge and identified the task within the challenge to which the work related. Candidates who fully addressed the creativity and innovation section showed high levels of commitment and enthusiasm which continued into all other aspects of the challenge. Many candidates achieved high quality work in this first series which addressed all the learning outcomes of the highest bands. Learning Outcome 1 Be able to apply Creativity and Innovation Most candidates addressed this criterion successfully and generating initial ideas as a result of researching existing products. This allowed them to base ideas on feasible solutions that had been trialled by others. The most successful candidates used this research to generate a range of ideas within the group, analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each, in order to select a feasible one to take forward. Not all centres undertook the development stage to a sufficient level. There should be evidence to show how an initial idea had been changed or amended to move the idea forward. This can be carried out in several ways but is most effective when groups use graphics to sketch ideas, with written analysis showing the thinking process involved. This method it makes it easier for the candidate to produce a detailed and balanced evaluation of the process they have used in developing the idea. Learning Outcome 2 Understand Personal Effectiveness Almost all candidates undertook an audit of their personal skills but there was little mention of team skills. Many candidates did not include a plan for improvement of the identified skills weakness and how this could be addressed during the challenge. This can limit attainment. Most candidates recorded the performance of their own role and responsibilities through minutes of meetings but recording of time management and working as a team was not always carried out as well. It was often clear from outcomes that candidates did realise that personal effectiveness in a team means encouraging others and allowing them to work to their strengths, yet these aspects were not recorded with the same detail as other aspects of personal performance. Candidates need to consider this issue in order to achieve the criteria. 8
Learning Outcome 3 Understand factors involved in an Enterprise and Employability Challenge 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. Communication skills were generally appropriate. Challenging the accepted methods of producing a visual display will enable candidates to be more creative here. When candidates had produced 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 more engaging and demonstrates detail and effective understanding when the presentation is made. Administration Administration of the Challenge and submission of evidence was good in almost all centres. The use of individual folders, kept candidates work in order. A copy of the Challenge brief should 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 polypockets within the folders to store and sub divide each task, makes it more difficult to follow the process through the challenge and reference work to the learning outcome. Within the pitch, candidates presented some very good work, which often showed their idea developments, with reasoning behind the selection and rejection of the chosen idea. However, this evidence must be legible to the moderator. Centres that photograph the work and reduce the size to an A4 sheet must make sure that all the evidence is clearly visible to the moderator. In some cases, a Centre visit was required to verify the full size evidence. Candidates may not be awarded marks if evidence is not available to the moderator. Centres are advised to ensure that such photographs are in focus and large enough for the detail to be read by the moderator. Welsh Baccalaureate KS4 National/Foundation Report January 2016 9
WJEC 245 Western Avenue Cardiff CF5 2YX Tel No 029 2026 5000 Fax 029 2057 5994 E-mail: exams@wjec.co.uk website: www.wjec.co.uk