Cirencester College
OCR: GCE Media Studies
The centre entered 55 candidates for 2006 January examination. The centre’s results represented a continued decline in results over the previous year and the preceding four years. Following an enquiry about results, (EAR) the centre initiated the appeals process. The OCR appeals committee did not allow the appeal but requested a report on the work of the candidates under appeal. The centre appealed to the EAB for five of its candidates.
The centre argued that there should be some recourse to an independent assessor to challenge the judgements of the OCR principal examiner.
The centre pointed to a decline in the number of A grades over the previous three years and an increase in the number of U grades and believed this to be a very strange distribution and that the actual grades were a long way off the predicted grades.
The centre argued that the cohorts over the past three years had been from an identical intake and had been given identical teaching provision by a stable and experienced staff team. They argued that the statistics showed a lack of correlation between unit 2734 and results for other units and the overall qualification grade.
The centre referred to an absence of up to date exemplar material for the unit to demonstrate what scripts at particular grades looked like. It was claimed that the unit had also caused concern to other centres because of this absence of exemplar materials.
The centre argued that the report from the principal examiner requested at the OCR stage two hearing had emphasised the shortcomings of the January scripts and the noteworthy elements of the June scripts. Furthermore, the principal examiner had stated that the January scripts had been at the upper end of the U grade range and that the June scripts had been at the lower end of the A grade range but the centre did not consider that this was sufficient to explain the large mark difference.
The centre asked what procedure was available to check and to correct deficiencies in the principal examiner’s judgements.
The centre argued that the mark scheme was too generic and not, therefore, fit for purpose.
Referring to the examination question papers, the centre noted that the questions asked were identical in January and June.
The awarding body argued that the unit was long established with experienced examiners. OCR reported that the work had originally been marked by the principal examiner and then re-marked at the EAR stage by a team leader for the unit.
The awarding body argued that all the procedures had been followed correctly and that the awarding body had confidence in the grades awarded.
The awarding body referred to the Code of Practice’s definition of the role of the principal examiner and argued that someone had to have responsibility for the final interpretation and application of the mark scheme.
The awarding body made a distinction between the role of the principal examiner as the guardian of the standard and their role as a marker. OCR accepted that, as a marker, there was a possibility of human error and unreliable marking. The awarding body noted that the team leader who marked at EAR stage had agreed with the marks of the principal examiner in all but one case where he reduced the mark by one.
The awarding body maintained that the principal examiner’s report had used terminology found in the mark scheme and cited examples from the script of one of the candidates to demonstrate this.
The awarding body explained that the mark scheme was a ‘levels of response’ type scheme and operated on a best-fit basis.
Noting that the centre had questioned whether the mark scheme was fit for purpose, OCR argued that this type of scheme was used in a number of different subjects. OCR maintained that the mark scheme had been approved by QCA when the qualification was accredited and that no concerns had been raised about the mark scheme. They also argued that the mark scheme was generic out of necessity.
Noting that the centre had argued for an independent view to challenge the judgements of the principal examiner, the awarding body argued that this would not be in accordance with the Code of Practice. The awarding body noted that there had been a second opinion of the scripts – that of the team leader who marked at EAR stage. This second examiner had acted independently and had altered the marking of the principal examiner where this was deemed appropriate.
The panel agreed unanimously to allow the appeal.
In coming to its decision the panel made no comments about the merits of the candidates’ work.
In making its decision, the panel had regard to
- the principles of the Code of Practice;
- the definition of a post-results review of marking in the Code’s glossary;
- OCR’s instructions to examiners, included in the mark scheme for January 2006.
The panel did not consider that the original examiner (who was also the Principal Examiner) had left a sufficient audit trail to allow the second examiner to gain a full and clear understanding of whether the mark scheme had been applied as intended. The panel was unable, therefore, to see clearly how the second examiner had carried out their marking in an independent manner and in line with the marking scheme.
The panel asked OCR to reconsider this case and recommended a re-assessment of the five candidates’ scripts by a senior and highly graded examiner who had had no connection with this case so far. OCR complied with this request. The remarking of the scripts, conducted under the observation of an EAB observer, led to mark changes for all candidates.
The EAB closed the case.