Issues
Below is a list of some of the issues raised in decisions on cases heard in 2007. They arise mostly from individual appeals but could have wider implications for other subject specifications and awarding bodies.The EAB's detailed decision letters are copied to JCQ (as well as to the regulators and the relevant government departments), so all the awarding bodies can become aware of its decisions and recommendations. In addition, the EAB discusses issues from the appeal hearings at meetings with JCQ and, as necessary, with the regulatory authorities.
Sometimes, the EAB makes recommendations to examination centres and to awarding bodies. Issues for centres are posted on the EAB website.
Importance of an audit trail
In some cases, the panels were concerned at the absence of full audit trails of marking decisions. Awarding bodies were reminded of the importance of keeping a clear and transparent audit trail.
Keeping exemplar material up to date
Where exemplar coursework has been available over a number of years, awarding bodies are asked to regularly review that work and to ensure that it remains valid in all respects.
Comments written by examiners on scripts
In one case, the panel found comments written on scripts by an examiner that left the panel unclear about the mark band into which the examiner had placed the work. Awarding bodies were reminded to ensure that examiners follow their marking instructions meticulously and in line with the principles of the regulators' Code of Practice.
Placing details of assessment opportunities within the specification
In one case, a centre had taught the wrong specification. The centre claimed that the awarding body was at fault because it had not given details within the specification itself of when alterations to the assessment opportunities would take effect. Although this was not the reason for allowing the appeal, awarding bodies were asked to ensure that information about the availability of first assessment opportunities is within the body of the specification itself.
Warning centres of toleration boundaries
Awarding bodies were asked to consider providing clear and explicit warnings to centres if they are close to the limit of marking tolerance when marking coursework. In a number of cases, centres did not know that they had been previously marking close to the limit of tolerance and were therefore surprised by the scale of marking adjustments made by the external moderators. The Code of Practice requires that awarding bodies should ensure that, where possible, coursework is re-moderated by someone other than the original moderator. In one case, the original moderator was the principal moderator. When the centre then requested re-moderation, the scripts were sent back to the principal moderator. The Board believes that in such circumstances another senior marker should be asked to carry out the re-moderation.
Specifications and mark schemes
Awarding bodies are reminded that the only sources of marking criteria should be the specification and the mark schemes. In one of the cases heard the marking team appeared to have been strongly influenced by comments made in the most recent Principal Moderator's reports. It is the belief of the Board that the focus of such reports should remain on the improvement of teaching and learning rather than influencing the marking process directly. Any changes to required standards should be via amendments to the specification andlor the marking schemes and not via the reflective reports sent to centres.