GOOD PRACTICE IN ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION THE EXEMPLAR PROJECT Liz Bowen-Clewley

1. GOOD PRACTICE IN ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION THE EXEMPLAR PROJECT Liz Bowen-Clewley

2. OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT Phase 1 Scoping Phase 2 Identification Phase 3 Investigation Phase 4 Publication

3. SELECTION CRITERIA

4. CONCLUSIONS • Emphasis on performance criteria

5. ACTIVITY STANDARDS FOR WHICH ACTIVITY IS PRODUCING EVIDENCE Make a farm gate and fit on site ·sketch drawing and have it checked by the boss ·interpret drawing ·select steel ·cut to lengths ·weld ·assemble ·fit on site 2430 Draw and interpret engineering sketches under supervision 2430 (As above) 4798 Identify and select engineering materials for specified applications 2418 Lay out and mark off irregular fabrication shapes under supervision 2425 Mechanically cut sheet, plate, tube pipe and structural sections 2682 weld steel up to 10mm thick with the manual metal arc welding process in the downhand position 2424 Assemble and mechanically join sheet, plate, tube, pipe and structural sections 2424 (As above) THE FARM GATE MODEL

6. CONCLUSIONS cont. • Judgement statements • The notion of competence in relation to unit standards

7. Elements of Competence • the ability to repeatedly perform individual tasks/activities • to a specified standard • the ability to manage a number of different tasks/activities • inthe job/work role to a specified standard • the ability to respond to irregularities and breakdowns in • routine (contingency management) • the ability to deal with the responsibilities and expectations • of the work environment, including working with others • the ability to continue to learn in rapidly changing work • environments

8. Hierarchy of Workplace Competence

9. CONCLUSIONS cont. • The requirements of level • Impact of moderation • Importance of context • Trialling assessment and moderation processes before use

10. MODERATION All the research evidence that we have on assessors’ behaviour emphasises the very active role their own concepts and interpretations play … They operate in terms of an internalised, holistic set of concepts about what an assessment ought to show, and about how, and how far, they can take account of the context of performance Competency Based Assessment, Alison Wolf 1995

11. MODERATION cont. Viewpoint 1 – England and Wales The moderator is solely an auditor/verifier of assessor judgements. Whilst some minimal review of assessment tasks is incumbent within this role, the key function is to review comparability of standards interpretation and assessor judgements in accordance with this interpretation. Because it is a post-assessment role, this viewpoint has principal impact on later assessment decisions.

12. MODERATION cont. Viewpoint 2 – Scotland, Queensland and early NZQA The moderator has both pre-assessment and post-assessment roles. Assessment tasks and schedules are reviewed before use to ensure they are of appropriate standard, while post assessment verifies that judgements of student work are correct. This role may be seen as raising assessment quality through assisting assessors with advice and training. It has a balance of preassessment task review and post-assessment verification.

13. MODERATION cont. Internal External (should include) (may include) Assessor meetings Assessor meetings Critical friend/peer review Postal moderation Assessor self review Visits

14. MODERATION cont. Wolf (1995)and Black (1994), noted the effectiveness of networks and the designation of a group of “leader” or “master” teachers in a provider environment.. These processes, they argue, will not only improve assessment, but have spin-off into quality of instruction and learning.