moderation of authority subjects offered in 2015 · 2016. 7. 29. · this document is a collation...

1604

77

2015 state review panel reports Moderation of Authority subjects offered in 2015

July 2016

2015 state review panel reports

© The State of Queensland (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority) 2016

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority PO Box 307 Spring Hill QLD 4004 Australia Level 7, 154 Melbourne Street, South Brisbane

Phone: +61 7 3864 0299 Fax: +61 7 3221 2553 Email: [email protected] Website: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au

mailto:[email protected]

Contents Foreword _______________________________________________________________ 1 Individual report structure __________________________________________________ 2 2015 subject review panels _________________________________________________ 2

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies — B31 ...................................................... 3 Accounting — B12 ........................................................................................................... 5 Aerospace Studies — A39 ............................................................................................... 7 Agricultural Science — A21 ............................................................................................. 9 Ancient History — B38 ................................................................................................... 11 Biology — A06 ............................................................................................................... 13 Business Communication and Technologies — B28 .................................................... 15 Business Management — B55 ...................................................................................... 17 Chemistry — A44 ........................................................................................................... 19 Chinese and Chinese Extension — B23 ....................................................................... 21 Dance — B19 ................................................................................................................. 24 Drama — B22 ................................................................................................................ 26 Earth Science — A07 ..................................................................................................... 29 Economics — B29.......................................................................................................... 31 Engineering Technology — A18 .................................................................................... 33 English — B45 ............................................................................................................... 35 English Extension — B37 .............................................................................................. 37 Film, Television and New Media — B40 ........................................................................ 40 French and French Extension — B02 ............................................................................ 42 Geography — B34 ......................................................................................................... 45 German and German Extension — B03 ........................................................................ 48 Graphics — A13 ............................................................................................................. 51 Health Education — A19 ................................................................................................ 53 Home Economics — A25 ............................................................................................... 55 Hospitality Studies — A22 ............................................................................................. 58 Information Processing and Technology — A16 ........................................................... 60 Information Technology Systems — A26 ...................................................................... 62 Italian — B04 .................................................................................................................. 64 Japanese — B05 ............................................................................................................ 67 Legal Studies — B21 ..................................................................................................... 70 Marine Science — A47 .................................................................................................. 72 Mathematics A — A36 ................................................................................................... 74 Mathematics B — A37 ................................................................................................... 76 Mathematics C — A38 ................................................................................................... 78 Modern History — B39 ................................................................................................... 80 Music — B26 .................................................................................................................. 83 Music Extension — B36 ................................................................................................. 85 Other languages — B32 ................................................................................................ 87 Philosophy and Reason — A14 ..................................................................................... 90 Physical Education — A24............................................................................................. 92 Physics — A45 ............................................................................................................... 94 Science21 — A43 .......................................................................................................... 96 Spanish — B52 .............................................................................................................. 98 Study of Religion — B20 .............................................................................................. 101 Study of Society — B11 ............................................................................................... 103 Technology Studies — A23 ......................................................................................... 105 Visual Art — B14 .......................................................................................................... 107

Foreword Queensland’s system of senior assessment involves a sophisticated model for quality assurance of educational standards. At its heart is a network of 50 state and 450 district review panels staffed by more than 4000 experienced teachers. Their task is to peer review other teachers’ judgments about the achievements of students to ensure they are accurate and comparable. It is a system that values the professional judgments of teachers and helps to promote authentic pedagogy.

This document is a collation of reports prepared by state review panel chairs, in consultation with Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority officers, on the moderation process for each Authority subject offered by schools in 2015. The reports summarise the:

• implementation status of the syllabus

• assessment requirements and features of the syllabus

• application of achievement standards

• resources available to support implementation of the syllabus.

I encourage readers to reflect on the information in these reports and recognise the value of a system that prizes teacher professionalism and networking, allows curriculum and assessment to be tailored to local needs, and encourages students to show the full extent of their knowledge and abilities.

Chris Rider Chief Executive Officer Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority

2015 state review panel reports 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority July 2016

Page 1 of 108

Individual report structure Reports are ordered alphabetically by their subject panel name. Most reports cover one subject; however some language panels oversee multiple subjects.

The code which is included in the title is the subject panel code allocated by the QCAA for administration purposes. A full list of subject and panel codes is available from the Senior moderation hub (Subject and panel codes: 2015, www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/moderation-hub/panels).

Each subject report provides information organised under five headings:

• Syllabus

Details about the syllabus implementation are noted here.

• Assessment design

The characteristics of valid and reliable assessment instruments are described.

• Application of standards

Examples of evidence that has been matched to particular standards are described.

• Support

A list of online resources to support implementation is provided.

• Report preparation

The names of the officers who prepared the report are provided.

2015 subject review panels The remainder of this report consists of the individual reports prepared by each subject review panel, presented in alphabetical order.

2015 state review panel reports 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 2 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/moderation-hub/panels

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/moderation-hub/panels

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies — B31

Syllabus The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2009 senior syllabus is in its sixth year of implementation.

Assessment design High quality assessment provides opportunities for students to engage with the dimensions and objectives of the syllabus and to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards.

Technique 1: Multimodal presentation As per syllabus requirements (p. 32), this technique requires students to provide supporting documentation of the research process. The most effective instruments demonstrate the following qualities:

• consent forms, transcripts or recordings of interviews as evidence of observing cultural protocols when working with Indigenous communities

• a referencing convention for research notes or journals that acknowledge the sources used

• annotated research notes, journals or bibliographies demonstrating application of the criteria for evaluating sources recommended in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Handbook 2010 (4.2 Selecting and evaluating resources)

• evidence of time management through directions such as progress checkpoints or presentation of draft responses to monitor student progress.

Technique 2: Learning log The purpose of the learning log is to challenge and encourage students to reflect on the contexts and processes of critical inquiry (syllabus, p. 32). The most effective learning logs exhibit the following attributes:

• coverage of a range of contexts including time, place, land, language and relationships (syllabus, p. 10) as evidence of points of view, perspectives and constructions of knowledge

• analysis, synthesis and evaluation of sources rather than just recalling or paraphrasing information or comprehension activities.

Technique 3: Extended written response In constructing an effective response, students are required to respond to a research question or hypothesis through a continuous piece of prose writing (syllabus, p. 33). The most effectively designed instruments possess the following qualities:

• use of accessible language that makes the task clear for all students

• use of cues and prompts that narrow the scope or scale of the response required

2015 state review panel reports: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies — B31 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 3 of 108

• an expectation of appropriate in-text referencing to facilitate consideration of points of view and perspectives over time

• a requirement that Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander cultural protocols be applied to the response developed.

Technique 4: Additional assessment formats The most effective examples of this technique require knowing and understanding the histories, societies and cultures of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples through test items that balance Indigenous views of knowledge.

Application of standards Application of standards judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific criteria and standards drawn from the syllabus standards (pp. 36–38).

For Criterion 2: Managing and processing through critical inquiry, use of research, referencing and shared information from community is ‘skilful’ for Standard A and ‘competent’ for Standard B; and analysis, synthesis and evaluation of sources for quality and validity is ‘thorough and detailed’ for Standard A and ‘thorough’ for Standard B.

For Criterion 3: Reflecting on perspectives and processes, reflection and revision of the decision-making process is ‘logical’ at Standard B. For Standard A, reflection is ‘well developed’ and conclusions are ‘coherent’ and based on information and perspectives.

Support QCAA resources to support implementation of the syllabus include:

• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-studies-2009, in particular: - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Handbook (Teaching & learning tab) - work program requirements, checklist and samples (Work programs tab) - sample assessment products and assessment advice, including Highlighted standards

and Designing effective assessment instruments for Authority and Authority-registered subjects (Assessment tab)

• support materials for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/k-12-policies/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-perspectives

• the Senior moderation hub, which details the QCAA’s moderation and quality assurance policies: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/moderation-hub

• the Senior assessment hub, which groups together all senior assessment resources: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/assessment-hub.

Report preparation This report is based on information gathered by the state panel during moderation processes, and prepared by the state review panel chair in consultation with a QCAA officer.

Lesley Latu Tanneal Micallef State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies — B31 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 4 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-studies-2009

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-studies-2009

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/k-12-policies/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-perspectives

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/moderation-hub

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/assessment-hub

Accounting — B12

Syllabus The Accounting 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Moderation processes provided evidence of schools continuing to engage in effective assessment design practices which enable students to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards across each of the general objectives. When assessing each of the syllabus dimensions, the following features of effective assessment design were identified.

Dimension 1: Knowledge and procedural practices • Instrument-specific standards matrixes include only the objectives being assessed in the

instrument and use the language of the objectives. For example, if the task does not require students to select and organise data to prepare accounting reports, then objective 3 will not be included.

• The scope and scale of the areas of study provide the opportunity for the full range of the standard descriptors to be demonstrated. Tasks assessing Dimension 1 should allow for ‘effective description and thorough explanation of a comprehensive range of terminology, concepts and procedures in relation to relevant accounting practices’ (syllabus, p. 22). Consideration should be given to the types of items selected for the stage of the course. For example: multiple choice, single word, true/false, or sentence answers are ‘appropriate during the earlier stages of the course’ (syllabus, p. 16). If these items are used, a number of items or cluster of items should be used to ensure opportunity is provided for students to demonstrate the Standard A and B descriptors.

• The knowledge component is designed to allow students to demonstrate procedural practices tasks (where applicable). For example, if the practical procedures of the assessment focus on Accounting for cash, questions may be asked about aspects of the bank reconciliation process that has just been completed.

Dimension 2: Interpretation and evaluation • Comprehensive stimulus is provided for students to develop logical and convincing arguments

to justify conclusions, decisions, judgments and recommendations. Stimulus should provide a variety of information (both relevant and irrelevant) for students to be able to make discerning judgments about the applicability of accounting data.

• The task statement uses the language of the objective being assessed. For example, questions assessing Dimension 2 should ask students to analyse and interpret, rather than identify, describe or explain concepts or procedures, as this would be more applicable to objective 1 of Dimension 1 (syllabus, p. 22–23).

2015 state review panel reports: Accounting — B12 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 5 of 108

Dimension 3: Applied practical processes • Opportunities are provided for students to demonstrate ‘thorough synthesis of situations to

effectively solve problems using complex reasoning’ (syllabus, p. 23). For example, students could be provided with source documentation that contains errors within partly completed computerised accounting records to provide the opportunity for students to solve the problem of inaccurate records.

• Complex concepts and related reasoning and skills are applied to organise, process and report accounting information. Effectively designed tasks allow students to solve a number of complex aspects of a topic and synthesise them to prepare data-based reports and outcomes.

Application of standards Moderation processes provided evidence of a high standard of comparability across the state. On most occasions, effective on-balance judgments were evident for each dimension in relation to the application of each of the descriptors across the standards.

To appropriately match evidence to syllabus standards, schools make on-balance judgments about which standard best matches the quality of a student’s work (p. 30).

To make appropriate decisions about levels of achievement, schools should identify the specific objectives being assessed within the instrument-specific standards and ensure the qualities of the student’s responses align with the appropriate qualifiers within the standards descriptors. For example, objective 1 in Dimension 2 at Standard A requires thorough and effective analysis. Thorough and effective analysis requires students to analyse the entire stimulus relating to an accounting situation ensuring it meets the assigned purpose.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/accounting-2010, in particular:

- work program requirements, checklist and samples (Work programs tab)

- sample assessment products and assessment advice, including Highlighted standards (Assessment tab)




Shane Weir Lynda Galway State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Accounting — B12 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 6 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/accounting-2010

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/accounting-2010



Aerospace Studies — A39

Syllabus The Aerospace Studies 2011 senior syllabus is in its fourth year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities to gather evidence on the extent to which students have demonstrated achievements in the general objectives. In Aerospace Studies, there are three distinct dimensions (syllabus, pp. 2–3):

• Dimension 1: Knowledge and understanding

• Dimension 2: Interpretation and communication

• Dimension 3: Critical thinking.

If an extended written response is chosen as the supervised written technique, the syllabus recommends that it is the only item (syllabus, p. 19). This allows students to demonstrate the full range of standards for the extended written response.

Effective assessment items have appropriate scaffolding, with scaffolding reduced from Year 11 to Year 12 to allow the student to better demonstrate independence (syllabus, pp. 22, 24).

When developing an assessment instrument, schools should consider the length of student responses required to complete the task successfully and ensure that the task requirements can be met within the guidelines recommended by the syllabus (syllabus, pp. 20, 22, 24).

To give students opportunities to produce responses that demonstrate syllabus objectives across the full range of standards, assessment instruments should use the language of the objectives and standards descriptors of the syllabus.

Application of standards For each assessment instrument, schools develop instrument-specific standards from the syllabus standards descriptors for relevant dimensions (syllabus, pp. 27–28). Judgments about the student achievements are made by matching the evidence in the student responses with instrument-specific criteria and standards drawn from the syllabus standards.

Where students undertake assessment in a group or team, instruments must be designed so that teachers can validly assess the work of individual students and not apply a judgment of the group product and processes to all individuals (syllabus, pp. 18–19).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/aerospace-studies-2011, in particular:



2015 state review panel reports: Aerospace Studies — A39 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 7 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/aerospace-studies-2011

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/aerospace-studies-2011




Kevin Abraham Russell Sky State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Aerospace Studies — A39 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 8 of 108



Agricultural Science — A21

Syllabus The Agricultural Science 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design Assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the objectives across the range of standards when tasks match the syllabus guidelines, state the conditions of assessment, use the language of the objectives and clearly describe what students are to do.

In order for students to demonstrate the syllabus objectives, assessment instruments must provide opportunities for sustained application of higher order cognition (analysis, interpretation, evaluation and development and justification of conclusions, decisions and recommendations) when responding to research or stimulus materials.

Supporting evidence is required to substantiate decisions made about multimodal responses; however, this evidence should not be the equivalent of an additional piece of assessment. For example, it is excessive to use an extended response of 1000–1500 words as supporting evidence for a presentation of 5–7 minutes.

Effective short response tests meet the assessment conditions of the syllabus. Questions are designed to elicit a response of 50–250 words and provide opportunities for meaningful higher order cognitive responses.

Dimension 1: Knowledge and understanding Assessment for the Knowledge and understanding dimension provides appropriate opportunities for students when the instrument allows students to demonstrate the required cognition, is matched with relevant subject matter and provides challenging material that allows students to demonstrate Standard A descriptors such as ‘discerning and systematic application of understandings to agricultural issues and problems’.

Clearly worded task descriptions that specifically indicate the agricultural concepts to be defined and described, the agricultural systems to be explained and the understanding to be applied provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the Knowledge and understanding objectives.

Dimension 2: Investigation and analysis Assessment that validly assesses the Investigation and analysis dimension involves students in planning inquiry-based investigations, collecting and organising agricultural information, and analysing and interpreting information from primary and secondary sources.

Dimension 3: Evaluating and communication Evaluating and communication tasks involve students in examining and judging agricultural information to draw and justify conclusions and make and justify decisions and recommendations. Students communicate their finding to audiences for a particular purpose.

Evidence that each instrument assesses at least two dimensions is required in a verification folio.

2015 state review panel reports: Agricultural Science — A21 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 9 of 108

Students can demonstrate the higher standards in Investigating and analysis and Evaluation and communication in examinations when questions allow them to respond with thorough analysis, interpretation and evaluation of agricultural information and to draw logical and justified conclusions and make purposeful and justified decisions and recommendations.

Application of standards Evidence was found to support district panel decisions of an on-balance match of the qualities of student work in sample folios to the syllabus standards.

When making judgments at exit, post verification assessment contributes to the evidence in the student folio and the on-balance decision. These responses provide additional information in a dimension rather than replacing earlier responses in the folio. Post-verification responses can be appropriately matched to standards when the assessment instruments are appropriate for the stage of the course. Evidence is required to support judgments and decisions at each stage of the course including monitoring, verification and at exit.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/agricultural-science-2013, in particular:






Jacqui Schiller Colleen Palmer State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Agricultural Science — A21 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 10 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/agricultural-science-2013

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/agricultural-science-2013



Ancient History — B38

Syllabus The Ancient History 2004 senior syllabus is in its eleventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Moderation processes provided evidence of schools engaging effectively with the four categories of assessment. In developing instrument-specific standards matrixes, the topic and genre might be specified, but the standards descriptors should not be altered (syllabus, pp. 62–65). Where an assessment task draws comparisons between personalities or events of the ancient and modern world, the subject matter should be grounded in the ancient world.

Category 1: Extended written response to historical evidence Assessment in this category requires students to address an unseen question or statement using sources provided by the teacher. Questions focusing on a specific historical issue enable students to develop succinct historical arguments within the word lengths described in the syllabus (p. 54). Additionally, considered selection of sources is critical to allow students to effectively engage with all of the standard descriptors for Criterion 2 in the time provided. Brief contextual statements for unseen primary and secondary sources support students in the interrogation of the sources.

Category 2: Written research tasks Category 3: Multimodal presentations Across the state, students have engaged in a variety of interesting investigations and a diversity of presentation modes. Attainment in Criterion 1: Planning and using an historical research process is evidenced in records of research that show research questions, notes, planning and reflections. The design of a research process should be informed by the standards descriptors for Criterion 1. Evidence for judgments in Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry and Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge will be found in the final response.

Category 4: Additional test formats Where Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry is assessed in Category 4, well-designed items provide opportunities to demonstrate the range of Criterion 2 standard descriptors. This involves designing questions in response to primary and secondary sources offering a range of perspectives, including written and visual sources with some contextualisation to enable students to evaluate sources. Consideration is also given to the quantity and legibility of the sources.

Application of standards When making judgments about student responses, teachers make an on-balance decision about the best match to each of the standards descriptors for each criterion. Levels of achievement decisions are made using Table 3: Minimum requirements for exit levels of achievement (syllabus, p. 61).

2015 state review panel reports: Ancient History — B38 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 11 of 108

Criterion 1: Planning and using an historical research process In making judgments for Criterion 1, attention is given to the qualities evident in the research process. Student records of research should reflect the aspects of inquiry (syllabus, p. 18). This includes the use of the relevant aspects of inquiry in the development of questions that will guide the inquiry. The aspects of inquiry are an integral part of the Ancient History syllabus (pp. 13, 18–19, 25–48, and 62–65).

Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry The syllabus glossary (pp. 70–71) provides definitions of key terms used in the Criterion 2 standards such as corroboration, perspective and representativeness. There are three descriptors in this criterion, and the first descriptor includes a number of sub-points. When making a judgment about the third descriptor, attention is drawn to the qualifiers that distinguish between Standards A and B. A ‘reasoned’ decision (Standard B) is one where historical evidence is assembled to provide reasons to support a decision. An ‘insightful’ decision (Standard A) is one where the thinking about historical sources demonstrated for the first two descriptors (for example, about the influence of motives and perspectives, corroboration and reliability) is synthesised and used to justify a decision.

Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Criterion 3 has three objectives. The first descriptor relates to the historical knowledge communicated. The second descriptor refers to the communication of the historical argument, and is described through a number of sub-points. For example, two sub-points of this objective at Standard A are ‘use extensive vocabulary in a succinct and effective manner’ and ‘refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument’ (syllabus, p. 62). The third descriptor refers to the scope of the task.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/ancient-history-2004, in particular:






Darlene Hill Ben Gowlett State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Ancient History — B38 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 12 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/ancient-history-2004

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/ancient-history-2004



Biology — A06

Syllabus The Biology 2004 (amended 2006 and 2014) senior syllabus is in its eleventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Evidence from moderation indicated that there was variety in the design of assessment tasks across the districts.

Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate achievement of the general objectives across the range of standards. This occurs when tasks match the syllabus guidelines, state the conditions of assessment, use the language of the objectives and clearly describe what students are to do.

Extended response tasks (ER) and extended experimental investigations (EEI) provide much of the evidence of the Investigating biology (IB) general objectives in many folios of work. Effective ER and EEI instruments provide students with the opportunity to produce:

• a response to a valid research question

• evidence of the range of the sources used

• justification/rationale for the research question.

In particular, the EEIs provide opportunities to display:

• evidence of primary and secondary data collection

• execution of the experiment

• data analysis and discussion

• evaluation and conclusion.

Effective ERs provide opportunities to display:

• gathering of information and data from a range of sources

• interpretation, analysis and synthesis

• evaluation and decision making processes.

When designing EEI and ER tasks to assess the Evaluating biological issues (EBI) dimension, it is essential that a genuine biological issue is used to give context to the task. Typically, the development of a research question and subsequent justification/rationale provides the opportunity to identify such a context.

When animals are used for scientific purposes, as the basis of an ER or EEI, to comply with the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 schools should:

• register with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries at www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/welfare-and-ethics and nominate the Queensland Schools Animal Ethics Committee (QSAEC) to assess animal use

• ensure all animal use is approved by the QSAEC before the activity begins

• provide an annual report to the QSAEC of activities where animals are used (this includes experiments designed by students as a response to an EEI or ER task).

2015 state review panel reports: Biology — A06 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 13 of 108

http://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/welfare-and-ethics

http://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/welfare-and-ethics

Application of standards On balance, evidence was found to support schools’ match of the qualities of student work in sample folios to the syllabus standards.

Well-designed instrument specific criteria sheets align with the syllabus standards. The process verbs embedded in each standard must be retained to maintain the integrity of each standard in each dimension.

When determining a level of achievement for a general objective, schools make an on-balance judgment considering all of the objectives for that standard. For example, in IB at Standard A, the evidence considered includes ‘interpretation and critical analysis of results with links to theoretical concepts to draw conclusions relating to the question’. The IB general objective also requires students to ‘reflect on the adequacy of the data collected’, ‘identify trends and interrelationships’ in the data and then ‘evaluate the design of the investigation and propose refinements’.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/biology-2004, in particular:






Jim Brennan Colleen Palmer State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Biology — A06 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 14 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/biology-2004



Business Communication and Technologies — B28

Syllabus The Business Communication and Technologies 2012 senior syllabus is in its third year of implementation.

Assessment design Moderation processes provided evidence of schools continuing to engage in effective assessment design practices which enable students to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards across each of the dimensions. When assessing each of the syllabus dimensions, the following features of effective assessment design were identified.

Dimension 1: Knowing and understanding business Instrument-specific standards matrixes include only the objectives being assessed in the instrument and use the language of the objectives. For example, if the task requires students to define, describe and use business terms, facts and concepts, and to explain business principles, processes and practices, but does not require students to use technology application skills for a purpose, then objectives 1 and 2 from Dimension 1 are included in the instrument-specific standards matrix, while objective 3 is not included.

Technology application skills refer to the use of a variety of technology skills that follow identified business policies and procedures resulting in purposeful applications (syllabus, p. 2). Guidelines for the presentation and features to be used when implementing technology skills need to be provided to students. Assessment tasks which ask students to word process an essay, memo or email in an examination only provide an opportunity for students to demonstrate the use of familiar technology application skills (Standard D). The use of technology skills increases in complexity of challenge over the course of study and is contextualised to the selected topic of study (syllabus, p. 5).

Dimension 2: Investigating business issues Short-response prose items requiring one or two paragraph responses can effectively assess objectives 2 and 3. These items are narrowed to ensure students can respond within the syllabus word limit of 50–250 words (syllabus, p. 16). The items can include a range of stimulus which enables students to analyse and interpret business data and information. Relevant and irrelevant data and information, and a range of issues representing significant, insignificant, simple or complex issues, are required in stimulus.

Selection, sequencing and organisation of data and information is evidenced when students visually represent data and information from their research or stimulus provided. Students select data and information which is relevant and significant. This information is classified and organised into a structure which is meaningful and supports effective analysis of business issues, for example, selecting, sequencing and organising data and information into graphs, information graphics, comparison tables or a flow chart.

2015 state review panel reports: Business Communication and Technologies — B28 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 15 of 108

Dimension 3: Evaluating business decisions Evaluating refers to assigning merit according to criteria (syllabus, p. 3). Students evaluate proposed administrative solutions using appropriate criteria which will enable a conclusion, decision and recommendation to be made. When justifying, students provide reasons or evidence from the analysis and evaluation as to why one conclusion, decision and recommendation is more appropriate than another. Justification is sound when the reasoning is logical and the premises are likely to be true (syllabus, p. 24).

Communication involves using mode, genre and language conventions relevant to business to suit the identified audience and purpose (syllabus, p. 3). When constructing assessment items, the audience and purpose of the task is provided to students. Business communication is an underpinning practice and is required to be evidenced in each semester and increase in complexity of challenge over the course of study (syllabus, p. 5).

Application of standards Moderation processes provided evidence of a high standard of comparability across the state. On most occasions, effective on-balance judgments were evident for each dimension in relation to the application of each of the descriptors across the standards. To appropriately match evidence to syllabus standards, schools make on-balance judgments about which standard best matches the quality of a student’s work (syllabus, p. 30).

To make appropriate decisions about levels of achievement, schools identify the specific objectives being assessed within the instrument-specific standards and ensure the qualities of the student’s responses align with the appropriate qualifiers within the standards descriptors. For example, objective 3 in Dimension 2 at Standard A requires insightful analysis of data and information relating to business issues. Insightful analysis is evidenced by perception and high levels of understanding of the business issues within the context of the business situation.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/business-communication-technologies-2012, in particular:






Rachael Jackson Lynda Galway State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Business Communication and Technologies — B28 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 16 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/business-communication-technologies-2012

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/business-communication-technologies-2012



Business Management — B55

Syllabus The Business Management 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design Moderation processes provided evidence of schools continuing to engage in effective assessment design practices which enable students to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards across each of the dimensions. Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate achievement in the objectives across the range of standards by:

• using the cognitive processes identified in the syllabus objectives (pp. 2–3) to write assessment tasks

• designing feasibility studies which provide opportunities for students to:

- determine the viability of a business idea or start-up business

- focus on a specific element of a business and explore it in some depth. Examples of appropriate focuses for feasibility studies include:

technology in an operations feasibility study recruitment strategy for a human resource feasibility study using financial management to determine the feasibility of an event focusing on one element of marketing (e.g. pricing) for a marketing feasibility study

• increasing the levels of complexity of the subject matter and assessment tasks across the two-year course. In the formative year, scaffolding for assessment tasks is required to guide students to produce assessment responses. In the summative year, when assessment techniques are familiar to students, scaffolding is reduced or removed

• combining at least two modes to communicate an assessment response for a multimodal. The two modes both contribute significantly to the response (syllabus, p. 17). For example, a spoken presentation with PowerPoint slides is a multimodal as both the spoken and electronic visual modes contribute significantly to the response

• narrowing the focus of the assessment task to allow students to demonstrate achievement within the assessment technique conditions. To do this, assessment tasks can specify the number of issues to be identified and focus on one area of management (e.g. production processes, pricing strategies, competitive strategies, finance sources or retention strategies)

• designing group or team assessments so that teachers can validly assess the work of individual students and not apply a judgment of the group product and processes to all individuals

• including instructions that advise students to use accepted conventions of in-text citation and referencing in responses to assessment tasks (syllabus, p. 15).

2015 state review panel reports: Business Management — B55 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 17 of 108

Application of standards Moderation processes provided evidence of a high standard of comparability across the state. On most occasions, effective on-balance judgments were evident for each dimension in relation to the application of each of the descriptors across the standards. Where evidence was not matched to the syllabus standards it related to:

• Dimension 2: Applying and analysing management strategies

- objective 1: select and organise business information from primary and secondary sources (syllabus, p. 3). This objective requires both primary and secondary sources to be evident in student work. Primary sources include surveys, questionnaires, and interviews, and are collected by students; a business’s website is a secondary source (syllabus, p. 3). The glossary in the syllabus further clarifies the definition of primary and secondary sources (syllabus, p. 27).

- objective 3: analyse business information and management strategies, and interpret trends, patterns and relationships (syllabus, p. 3). This objective requires students to interpret trends, patterns and relationships where they make meaning of the effect on business outcomes. As stated in the glossary, interpretation requires students to explain the meaning of information or actions (syllabus, p. 27).

• Dimension 3: Evaluating and communicating management strategies

- objective 2: justify recommendations using evidence (syllabus, p. 3). The evidence may be drawn from analysis, interpretation or evaluation of business information and management strategies. A ‘statement of opinion’ is best matched to Standard E (syllabus, p. 25).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/business-management-2013, in particular:






Berenice Furlong Lynda Galway State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Business Management — B55 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 18 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/business-management-2013

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/business-management-2013



Chemistry — A44

Syllabus The Chemistry 2007 (amended 2014) senior syllabus is in its eighth year of implementation.

Assessment design Across many assessment packages, it was evident that schools are designing effective assessment instruments which provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the three general objectives across the full range of standards. Effective assessment packages:

• provide access to the general objectives across the range of syllabus standards

• use instrument-specific criteria sheets developed from the syllabus standards descriptors. These need to be closely aligned with the terminology used in the syllabus standard descriptors to ensure the reliability of their application to student responses

• appropriately match questions in supervised assessments to the criteria they assess

• use Investigative processes questions that provide sufficient scope for students to demonstrate ‘systematic analysis of data’ (Standard A). Items that require students to draw a graph and interpolate data from a graph provide evidence of, at best, Standard B

• use Evaluating and concluding questions that provide opportunities for Standard A descriptors such as ‘analysis and evaluation of scientific interrelationships’ and ‘exploration of scenarios and outcomes with justification of conclusions/recommendations’

• include extended experimental investigations (EEI) that allow the opportunity for students to develop a justified significant hypothesis which can then inform the effective and efficient design, refinement and management of the investigation (Investigative processes, Standard A). A collection of practical exercises that are only loosely linked together does not provide opportunity for this.

An extended response task (ERT) is a response to a question or issue where research is a part of the process used in formulating the response. The design of the task is critical to ensure that there is sufficient scope for students to adequately address a range of objectives in each of the dimensions.

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific criteria and standards drawn from the syllabus standards. It is important that the wording of the syllabus criteria is not significantly changed when writing instrument-specific criteria. On-balance judgments need to consider all the evidence available, including non-attempts.

Generally, evidence was found to support school decisions relating to the match of qualities of student responses in sample folios to the syllabus standards.

Where evidence was not matched to syllabus standards, it related to:

• incorrect matching of Investigative processes and Evaluating and concluding standards descriptors to questions in supervised assessments

2015 state review panel reports: Chemistry — A44 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 19 of 108

• the practice of dividing the standards descriptors into parts, rather than making an on-balance judgment about the match of evidence to the standards as a whole. For example, when making judgments about the Investigative processes objective that refers to ‘formulating a justified hypothesis’, the full Standard A descriptor is ‘formulation of justified significant questions/hypotheses which inform effective and efficient design, refinement and management of investigations’. It is very difficult to validly assess this objective in a supervised assessment.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/chemistry-2007, in particular:






Trevor Jones Susan Scheiwe State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Chemistry — A44 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 20 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/chemistry-2007



Chinese and Chinese Extension — B23

Syllabuses The Chinese 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation. The Chinese Extension 2011 senior syllabus is in its fourth year of implementation.

Assessment design Requirements for assessment programs are described in the syllabuses (Chinese 2008, Section 8; Chinese Extension 2011, Section 4).

For students studying Chinese 2008, at least three of the macroskills must be assessed in Term 3 of Year 12 (Section 8.6).

Relevant conditions of assessment should be specified on task sheets including:

• the time allocated for each task

• the expected length — by the end of Year 12 at least one task of approximately 300 characters for Chinese 2008 and approximately 500 characters for Chinese Extension 2011

• whether dictionaries are used for Writing

• whether the task is prepared or unprepared for Speaking

• whether the texts are heard two or three times for Listening.

Listening texts should be delivered in the ‘slower range of normal background speaker rate of utterance’ (Chinese 2008, Section 8.3.1).

Assessment for composite classes using a Year A/B program must provide opportunities for both Year 11 and Year 12 students to demonstrate the standards.

Instructions and questions should be presented in plain English that is clear and accessible to teenagers. For example, the use of an expression unknown to some students, such as ‘resting on his laurels’, could hinder demonstrating comprehension of the target language text.

Assessment topics must allow students to demonstrate the extent of their knowledge. Tasks centred on festivals, celebrations and geography can often be answered from general knowledge, with little reference to stimulus texts, and are unlikely to elicit ‘evaluation’ or ‘spontaneity’.

Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards. This is achieved by designing tasks that specifically target descriptors in the standards.

Comprehension: Listening and Reading • The choice of stimulus text is crucial. Persuasive texts, news items, feature articles and

reports that present a variety of perspectives — rather than simple informative, instructional or descriptive texts — are more likely to enable the demonstration of Standard A descriptors such as: - knowing and understanding a comprehensive range of information is presented the meaning of familiar and complex language is accurately and clearly demonstrated

2015 state review panel reports: Chinese and Chinese Extension — B23 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 21 of 108

- reasoning and responding detailed analysis and thorough evaluation are evident plausible interpretations of unfamiliar language are drawn from context well-constructed conclusions and well-substantiated decisions are made.

• Tasks require answers and inferences to be derived from stimulus texts. This should not be from students’ personal opinions of the topic, recalled knowledge outside the texts, or visual or written cues in questions or stimulus materials.

• Tasks that ask students to relate the topic of a target language text to events, conditions or attitudes in Australia assume students have such local knowledge, which is not necessarily so.

Conveying meaning: Speaking and Writing • Tasks that request opinions from students need to be on topics of which students have some

life experience, and scenarios need not be highly complex.

• Narrow and very prescriptive tasks, such as describing getting a driver’s licence in Australia, may limit the demonstration of ‘complex language’, ‘flexibility’, ‘spontaneity’ and ‘originality’.

• The syllabuses specify that Writing tasks must not be given in advance, nor should questions for Speaking be provided in advance of the actual conversation, as answers have to be spontaneous (Chinese 2008, Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4; Chinese Extension 2011, Section 4.5.1 Supervised written and 4.5.3 Performance).

• The syllabuses state that dictionaries may be used in the assessment of Writing (Chinese 2008, Section 8.3.4; Chinese Extension 2011, Section 4.5.1). Dictionaries may be hardcopy or online. This does not include translation websites or software; nor should vocabulary lists be provided for Writing tasks.

• For Chinese 2008, Speaking tasks that are open-ended and require coverage of a variety of issues, opinions or perspectives prompt students to use of a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’ (Standard A).

Application of standards • In an authentic conversation, students may need to pause, reflect and formulate their

responses to unseen questions. This is different from being ‘hesitant’ because of a lack of language. Students may use ‘pause fillers’ to create time to respond and teachers should avoid prompting too quickly.

• For Chinese 2008:

- responses in Writing must respond to the task in both content and text type. If a response deviates from the prescribed topic and text type, the response may not demonstrate a ‘wide range of vocabulary’, ‘ideas and purposes’ being ‘conveyed effectively’, and ‘understanding and response to the cultural context’ in which the response is situated

- Writing at Standard A demonstrates ‘complex language’, a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’. A discussion of personality, characteristics and strengths provides more opportunity to demonstrate the range of standards than listing likes and dislikes. ‘Frequent errors’ is a Standard D and Standard E descriptor. While errors may occur in Writing at Standard A, these occur in ‘complex language’ and ‘do not detract from the overall meaning’.



Page 22 of 108

• Sample Speaking task recordings provided for moderation represent the judgments applied to the whole cohort. They need to be sufficiently audible and playable on standard equipment so judgments can be confirmed.

• Levels of achievement are determined by the combination of results for each macroskill. For example, the minimum combination for a VHA (Very High Achievement) is Standard A in any two macroskills and no less than a Standard B in the remaining macroskills (Chinese 2008, Section 8.5; Chinese Extension 2011, Section 4.8.1).

Support QCAA resources to support implementation of the syllabuses include:

• dedicated subject pages — Chinese: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/chinese-2008, Chinese Extension: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/chinese-extension-2011, in particular:






Winnie Edwards-Davis Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 23 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/chinese-2008

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/chinese-extension-2011



Dance — B19

Syllabus The Dance 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment design allows students to meet the full range of syllabus objectives in Choreography, Performance and Appreciation.

Choreography A student’s statement of choreographic intent must accompany each task (syllabus, p. 27). This may be presented in different formats (syllabus, pp. 22–23); however, written responses should be a maximum of 300 words. This choreographic intent is the lens through which judgments about the standards of Choreography are made.

Performance • Effective performance tasks provide a statement of choreographic intent which clearly

indicates the stylistic and expressive requirements of the performer.

• Appropriately complex and challenging movements are selected to allow students to demonstrate both technical and expressive skills, as well as knowledge of dance components and skills (syllabus, pp. 24, 27).

Appreciation • Tasks written using explicit syllabus terminology (e.g. ‘analyse’, ‘interpret’ and ‘evaluate’)

are the most successful in providing opportunities for student responses which clearly linked to syllabus standards.

• Appreciation tasks require referencing to allow students to demonstrate the referencing component of the Appreciation standards.

• The most successful appreciation tasks — particularly for Year 12 — have one succinct question requiring students to demonstrate analysis, interpretation and evaluation in their responses (syllabus, p. 26).

Application of standards When making judgments, schools ensure that all parts of the standard descriptor are considered. For example, in Performance, evidence of ‘sensitive interpretation of choreographic intent’ must be seen and, therefore, the choreographic intent for the performance task must be explicit (syllabus, p. 27). This is also relevant in Appreciation where referencing conventions are part of the A, B and C standards descriptors.

Schools collect evidence on or before the due date which may include evidence provided in drafts of both practical and written tasks, in planning notes and teacher student conferencing. Choreography responses may involve another dancer presenting a student’s choreography.

2015 state review panel reports: Dance — B19 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 24 of 108

In Dance, effective special provisions (syllabus, p. 19) might involve alternative assessment plans and learning experiences to allow students to provide responses as evidence of completing the mandatory aspects of the course.

The highlighted standards resource available on the QCAA website may be of use when matching the qualities in the student responses to the appropriate standards. When making level of achievement decisions, teachers refer to section 5.8: Determining exit levels of achievement (syllabus, pp. 28–29).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/dance-2010, in particular:






Helen Mullins Kathy Owen State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Dance — B19 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 25 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/dance-2010



Drama — B22

Syllabus The Drama 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the objectives across the range of standards. Schools must use the assessment techniques and relevant conditions listed in the syllabus across the dimensions of Forming, Presenting and Responding. Assessment instruments that provide opportunity for students to demonstrate the syllabus objectives across the range of standards address the range of dramatic languages including the elements of drama, skills of drama and conventions of forms and styles.

Dimension 1: Forming Effective practical and non-practical Forming instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate syllabus objectives when:

• the instrument selected and the task design clearly states the dramatic purpose, context and relevant style and conventions

• tasks provide students with stimulus material that suits the instrument and allows for the demonstration of Standard A descriptors. The syllabus clearly outlines the seven assessment instruments that are possible in the Forming technique (syllabus, pp. 17–19)

• the instrument clearly describe the tasks including conditions related to practical or non-practical tasks and documentation required (syllabus, pp. 20–24)

• tasks ensure there is opportunity to demonstrate the objectives with specific reference to the style, conventions and elements of drama and include details of evidence required.

Practical directing instruments require students to actively manage and shape dramatic action and to show evidence through their direction of their ability to synthesise the ‘dramatic languages, purposes and contexts to create dramatic action and meaning’, rather than asking the assigned student actors questions, consulting with them or responding to interventions from the teacher. Directing instruments require students to direct a published playscript excerpt to allow for the full range of standards to be demonstrated. The demonstration of a ‘devised concept’ is an example of a practical Forming assessment instrument as opposed to the ‘Devising — dramatic treatment’ or ‘Devising — original dramatic concept’ non-practical that can be delivered as a written, spoken or multimodal. The demonstration of a ‘devised concept’ such as a ‘one-person show’ demonstrates the Forming objectives rather than Presenting objectives.

Dimension 2: Presenting Effective Presenting instruments clearly state the dramatic purpose and context to ensure students have the opportunity to demonstrate syllabus objectives. They are effective when the published or student-devised playscript offers the opportunity for ‘insightful interpretation’ or ‘perceptive manipulation’ to demonstrate Standard A descriptors through the delivery of text and the use of both voice and movement. Time is allowed to polish, refine and rehearse prior to performance. Syllabus conditions for time need to be considered when designing tasks.

2015 state review panel reports: Drama — B22 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 26 of 108

For example, performing a role in the production of a full-length play will have a performing time that significantly exceed syllabus time conditions for Presenting (syllabus, p. 27).

Dimension 3: Responding Effective Responding tasks are in response to live or live-recorded professional-quality performances to enable students to analyse the use of dramatic languages or evaluate the effectiveness of dramatic action in communicating meaning, and to synthesise a position referring to relevant conventions, elements of drama and supporting evidence from the performance to justify their position. Recorded clips from amateur performances do not provide students with appropriate opportunity for the Standard A descriptors of ‘discriminating analysis of use of the dramatic languages’, ‘perceptive and thorough evaluation’ or ‘discerning synthesis of positions about dramatic action and meaning’. Instruments that require students to simply identify some elements of drama do not provide an opportunity for demonstration of the Standard A descriptor of ‘discriminating analysis of the use of dramatic languages’. Similarly, analysing themes, plot, character, discourses and engaging in research does not allow students to address the Responding standards of ‘perceptive and thorough evaluation … of the dramatic action in communicating meaning’.

Application of standards The glossary included in the syllabus (pp. 34–38) provides schools with clear definitions of terms, including qualifiers and cognitions that are used throughout the syllabus. Schools refer to the glossary to ensure that they are making reliable on-balance judgments when matching student work to the exit standards.

The audiovisual evidence of Standard A, B and C samples is provided to support judgments for both practical Forming tasks and Presenting tasks and should be from the same assessment instrument (syllabus, p. 16). The Presenting evidence requires a continuous recording capturing the sample student for the required performance length rather than lengthy full-scale productions or separate sections which contribute to a performance (syllabus, p. 27). All recorded samples clearly identify the sample student and are accompanied by copies of the annotated instrument-specific standards matrix, task sheet and relevant documentation, e.g. published playscript with the role highlighted.

Students demonstrate Standards A and B in Responding when they evaluate how successfully dramatic languages are manipulated to create dramatic action and meaning. They use drama terminology and applied language skills to communicate the information. In analysing, interpreting, synthesising and evaluating, students appraise the production and select relevant techniques and conventions from the production to justify statements and a position about dramatic action and meaning.

When making judgments at exit, post-verification assessment contributes to the evidence in the student folio and the on-balance decision. It provides additional information in a dimension rather than replacing any earlier responses in the folio.



Page 27 of 108


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/drama-2013, in particular:






Sean Lubbers Helen Radvan Acting State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 28 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/drama-2013



Earth Science — A07

Syllabus The Earth Science 2000 senior syllabus is in its fifteenth year of implementation.

Assessment design Generally, schools’ assessment packages provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate the three exit criteria across the full range of standards:

• Knowledge, conceptual understanding and application

• Working scientifically

• Using information scientifically.

A variety of interesting and creative assessment tasks that aligned to the Earth Science exit standards are being used.

The emergence of the use of stimulus material in written tasks has enabled students to better demonstrate all three exit criteria, including Using information scientifically.

Application of standards While assessment design continues to improve and provide further opportunities to demonstrate the range of exit criteria, it was noted that some schools are adjusting the language of the standards, which reduces the alignment between the judgments about student responses and the match to those exit criteria.

Judgments using the Working scientifically standards are most often made in short or extended field-based investigations. Teachers apply the Working scientifically standards when they evaluate the students’ demonstrated capacity to:

• pose research questions

• plan a range of investigations

• implement the investigations

• record and assess data.

Both short and extended field-based investigations can provide the opportunity to assess the complete range of Working scientifically objectives and standards in the one assessment task.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/earth-science-2000, in particular:



2015 state review panel reports: Earth Science — A07 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 29 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/earth-science-2000




Dr Dianne Nichols Colleen Palmer State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Earth Science — A07 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 30 of 108



Economics — B29

Syllabus The Economics 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Good quality assessment items have a clear alignment between the task and the specific objectives being assessed. The folios that most effectively demonstrate qualities of the higher standards show evidence of opportunities being created to critically use quantitative and qualitative data from a variety of primary and secondary sources (syllabus, p. 15).

Recommended word lengths in the syllabus are able to be followed when the scope and scale of the assessment instrument encourages depth rather than breadth in the student response. Students must purposefully choose relevant points to enhance economic meaning within Dimension 3: Synthesis and evaluation, and longer responses indicate that students are not as effective with their decision making.

Assessment technique: Supervised written assessment The purpose of this technique is to assess student responses that are produced independently, under supervision and in a set time frame. The most effective short response items in supervised written assessments (syllabus, p. 24):

• provide students with opportunities to attempt prose, multiple choice or similar very short responses or practical exercises

• test for content knowledge and higher order cognition.

When developing effective short response items, teachers constructed questions that were unambiguous, allowed for ease of reading and responding by using an appropriate format, and ensured that questions allowed for the full range of standards to be demonstrated (syllabus, p. 25).

With extended written responses, the stimulus is a crucial component of the assessment design. The variety provided should allow students to select and organise data and information and/or examine data to determine validity, depending upon the objectives being assessed within Dimension 2: Investigation.

Assessment technique: Research assessment The purpose of this technique is to assess the research abilities of students and the outcomes of the application of that research. The inquiry process is iterative and is based on the exploration of a research purpose. To direct effective research processes, the inquiry should allow for the collection, sorting and organisation of information and data from a range of sources, and examine relevance, validity and value (syllabus, p. 26).

The most effective research tasks show evidence of authentication of student work using strategies such as teacher-monitored student planning, drafts, documentation of response development and student acknowledgement of resources used (syllabus, pp. 21–22). These tasks also demonstrate the use of consistent accepted conventions of in-text citation and referencing where appropriate (syllabus, p. 22).

2015 state review panel reports: Economics — B29 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 31 of 108

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific standard matrixes drawn from the syllabus (pp. 31–32). Standards awarded are based on an on-balance judgment about how the qualities within the students’ work match the descriptors overall in each dimension. This means that when making an on-balance judgment it is not necessary for the student to have met every descriptor for a particular standard in the dimension (syllabus, p. 29).

Standard A for Dimension 2: Investigation demonstrates a ‘discerning selection, thorough and coherent organisation of data and information from a comprehensive variety of sources’ (p. 31). This variety should reveal both breadth and depth in the types of sources used to demonstrate the discerning selection of information and data.

The glossary in the syllabus (p. 38) provides teachers with assistance for their on-balance judgments of achievement standards. Students should become familiar with the meaning of key discriminating adjectives such as ‘coherent’, ‘complex’, ‘systematic’ and ‘thorough’.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/economics-2010, in particular:






Karen Swift Christine Dowd State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Economics — B29 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 32 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/economics-2010

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/economics-2010



Engineering Technology — A18

Syllabus The Engineering Technology 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Schools have developed a diverse range of assessment instruments that are embedded in and relevant to local contexts across the state.

The syllabus requires that each dimension is assessed at least twice in Year 12 before verification (syllabus, p. 26).

The technical engineering report provides an opportunity for students to achieve across all three syllabus dimensions and to apply the engineering design process to solve an engineering design challenge. Effective task design encourages students to interpret and analyse engineering knowledge and data, and to propose engineering solutions to a range of problems within an engineering context. Solutions to engineering design problems take the form of prototypes that are tested and evaluated with the aim of communicating conclusions and recommendations (syllabus, p. 24). Schools have developed their ability to successfully incorporate evidence of prototype testing and the representation of relevant mathematical and scientific data to determine prototype effectiveness.

Extended response tasks assess students’ application of higher order cognition and may be used in association with the technical engineering report. Students may be involved in expressing and justifying a point of view, explaining and evaluating an issue, or the application of concepts or theories to a circumstance.

Supervised written assessment may be used to determine student achievement across the three syllabus dimensions. Throughout the state, schools have developed supervised written assessment instruments that provide students with opportunities to demonstrate the full range of standards descriptors across the three syllabus dimensions.

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific standards matrixes or criteria sheets drawn from the syllabus standards (syllabus, pp. 29–31).

Across the state, levels of achievement decisions were appropriately made using the syllabus requirements for determining exit levels of achievement. It was evident that schools were appropriately matching student responses in sample folios to syllabus standards descriptors across all three dimensions.

Where evidence did not support school judgments of the match of qualities of student responses with descriptors, it was commonly related to the technical engineering report and the awarding of Standard A or B for Dimension 2: Investigative and analytical processes:

• Standard A

- efficient and mathematically validated engineering solutions based on engineering principles and techniques are proposed

- solutions are analysed in depth and detail from multiple perspectives to identify relevant engineering principles

2015 state review panel reports: Engineering Technology — A18 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 33 of 108

• Standard B

- effective solutions based on engineering principles and techniques, and including mathematical calculations, are proposed

- solutions are analysed in detail to identify relevant engineering principles.

Engineering reports that require students to validate their solutions mathematically facilitate an in-depth analysis and validation of optimal prototypes. Additionally, effective engineering report tasks provide students with opportunities to provide evidence of comprehensive evaluation and valid, well-reasoned conclusions and recommendations based on investigations (syllabus, p. 31).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/engineering-technology-2010, in particular:






Tony Muller Brad Walmsley State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Engineering Technology — A18 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 34 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/engineering-technology-2010

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/engineering-technology-2010



English — B45

Syllabus The English 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Well-designed assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the relevant objectives for all three dimensions:

• Dimension 1: Understanding and responding to contexts

• Dimension 2: Understanding and controlling textual features

• Dimension 3: Creating and evaluating meaning.

Effective instruments are carefully contextualised in terms of purpose and audience to provide opportunities for students to ‘use genre patterns and conventions’, ‘establish roles and relationships’, ‘use textual features for particular purposes’, and ‘create and evaluate meaning’. Assessment design is informed by the syllabus length and time guidelines to ensure the scope of assessment allows students to demonstrate the objectives across the range of standards (syllabus, pp. 27–29). For example, requiring students to compare and contrast two full-length novels and an unseen poem in response to an unseen question conducted under supervised conditions might limit opportunities for students to demonstrate both discerning selection and synthesis of substantive subject matter. Likewise, decisions about genre should be guided by syllabus guidelines on length. A multimodal advertisement, for example, is unlikely to align with the guidelines for Year 12 spoken responses of 5–7 minutes (syllabus, p. 21).

High quality assessment instruments give students clear and definite instructions without being so prescriptive as to limit opportunities for students to exploit genre patterns and conventions and manipulate roles. Specifying how to sequence a feature article for example, could limit opportunities for students to demonstrate the range of standards.

Instrument-specific standards matrixes align with instrument demands and include objectives from each of the dimensions that relate to the task. Schools contextualise standards to align with instrument requirements, without changing the objectives or qualitative descriptors. For example, if students are required to evaluate how Shakespeare represents concepts of racism in Othello in order to influence audiences, schools might replace ‘texts’ with ‘Shakespearean texts’ or ‘Othello’ in the Evaluating objective in Dimension 3: Creating and evaluating meaning (syllabus, p. 29). Likewise, if students are required to create their own representations of leadership in a persuasive spoken response, schools might substitute ‘persuasive speech’ for ‘texts’ in the Creating objective in Dimension 3 (p. 29).

2015 state review panel reports: English — B45 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 35 of 108

Application of standards In making judgments about student achievement, schools match qualities of student responses with the syllabus dimensions and standards descriptors. When making decisions about qualities in responses matched to syllabus standards, teachers consider the whole descriptor. For example, in Dimension 1, students use genre patterns and conventions to achieve purposes. In Dimension 3, students use aesthetic features to achieve purposes. The standard awarded is an on-balance judgment about how the qualities of the student's response match the standards descriptors overall across the three dimensions. It is not necessary for the student to have met every descriptor for a particular standard. On-balance judgments are made by matching evidence in student responses with syllabus standards, taking into account that there may be qualities in the responses that match with more than one standard.

Relative achievement decisions at verification and exit are made by looking for the extent to which standards descriptors have been achieved across the three dimensions at a threshold, typical, or better-than-typical standard.

The minimum requirements for Sound Achievement are applied only at exit from a four-semester course. Decisions about achievement for students who exit after one, two or three semesters are made by matching available evidence in relation to the objectives covered to the stage of the course, with the particular standards descriptors related to those objectives. To be awarded Sound Achievement or above, students who exit after four semesters must meet or exceed the minimum requirements for Sound Achievement in both written and spoken modes. The evidence across all written responses is to be considered independently of the evidence across the spoken responses to confirm that minimum requirements have been met. Teachers should match the evidence of all written or spoken responses with the qualitative descriptors in Section 5.8.2 of the syllabus in order to make an on-balance judgment about the match of all the evidence in that mode with each descriptor. Once the minimum requirements have been confirmed for both modes, schools make relative achievement decisions as described above.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/english/english-2010, in particular:






Edna Galvin Jo Genders State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: English — B45 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 36 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/english/english-2010



English Extension — B37

Syllabus The English Extension 2011 senior syllabus is in its fourth year of implementation.

Assessment design Syllabus dimensions and objectives inform the design of effective assessment instruments. The three dimensions are closely interrelated, involve iterative processes, and describe the complex thinking that students use when working with literary texts and theoretical approaches in their study, and responding to assessment. The three assessment instruments must meet all of the requirements specified in the assessment overview (syllabus, Section 4.6). This overview provides complementary coverage of the syllabus objectives and mandatory requirements.

Assessment instrument 1: Reading and defence Assessment instrument 1 requires students to utilise one reading approach in order to produce two distinct texts: a reading of a selected literary text and a defence of that reading (syllabus, p. 14). Readings are produced when students make meaning of a text by applying interpretive or meaning-making strategies associated with the particular theoretical approach chosen. Direct and indirect references to the selected text are required as part of a reading. The defence requires students to analyse their own reading, and explain how the theoretical approach used has allowed them to make meaning of the text in particular ways. The defence analyses and evaluates the chosen theoretical approach used to produce the reading. In preparing for assessment instrument 1, students must be made aware of the different purposes of a reading and a defence. The completion of a reading and a defence of that reading allows students sufficient opportunities to engage with the range of objectives across the standards.

Assessment instrument 2: Complex transformation and its defence Assessment instrument 2 requires students to select a literary text suitable for a complex transformation (syllabus, p. 14). They select and apply aspects and strategies from theoretical approaches to intervene in the base text and construct a complex transformation. A complex transformation intervenes in the selected base text or part of the text to offer readers an alternative position/s. The defence will evaluate how the re-written text offers readers an alternative position/s through the application of theoretical understandings. The assessment overview of the syllabus details the specific aspects of the process of re-writing that must be addressed in the defence.

Assessment instrument 3: Exploration and evaluation Assessment instrument 3 requires students to select at least one complex literary text and at least two theoretical approaches to apply to the text/s (syllabus, p. 15). Students use these theoretical approaches to produce a close reading of the selected text/s to explore a focus question. Focus questions need to allow students opportunities to explore the strengths and weaknesses of theoretical approaches and how they can complement one another and/or clash in producing close readings of literary texts. This focus question must allow students to evaluate how effective these theoretical approaches have been in producing a close reading. A key

2015 state review panel reports: English Extension — B37 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 37 of 108

element of preparing students for assessment instrument 3 is allowing them independence in the selection of texts and theoretical approaches.

The support that teachers provide for students for assessment instrument 3 will be primarily focused at a theoretical level and may involve guiding students in developing and refining a focus question which will allow them to challenge texts and ideas in theoretically defensible ways. Choices underpinning the selection of literary theories for this task should be informed by the requirement for the exit folio to provide a body of work that allows students to apply and evaluate different theoretical approaches. Literary texts must be sufficiently complex to sustain depth of analysis, and the application and evaluation of the effectiveness of the selected theoretical approaches.

Application of standards In making judgments about responses, schools match the qualities of the work with the syllabus standards. When making decisions about qualities in responses matched to syllabus standards, teachers consider the whole descriptor (syllabus, Section 4.9.2). For example, in Dimension 1, students apply different theoretical approaches to produce interpretations of literary texts. In Dimension 3, students evaluate theoretical approaches used to produce interpretations.

The standard awarded is an on-balance judgment about the best match to the syllabus standards descriptors across the three dimensions. It is not necessary for the student to have met every descriptor for a judgment of a particular standard to be made.

Relative achievement decisions are made by looking for the extent to which standards descriptors have been achieved across the three dimensions at a threshold, typical, or better-than-typical standard. On-balance judgments made at exit are decisions about student achievement in all the dimensions across the assessment implemented over the course.

Exit decisions are based on the evidence in folios demonstrating achievement of syllabus objectives across a two-semester course of study. Each dimension must be assessed in each instrument; each dimension makes an equal contribution to the determination of exit levels of achievement.

Responses to the three assessment instruments all contribute evidence to exit level of achievement decisions. All three responses are summative and represent the fullest and latest information about which the exit standards may be applied.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/english/english-extension-2011, in particular:



- Approaches to reading practices (Teaching & learning tab)





Page 38 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/english/english-extension-2011




Nicola Crawford Ellen Connolly State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 39 of 108

Film, Television and New Media — B40

Syllabus The Film, Television and New Media 2005 senior syllabus is in its tenth year of implementation.

Assessment design The key concepts are integral to Film, Television and New Media assessment design. Specific advice on assessing the key concepts is provided in the syllabus (pp. 29–33). Assessment is effective when key concepts are selected as the focus for assessment and the selected key concepts are explicitly embedded into the task description. An effective assessment package assesses all the key concepts in a balanced way.

An effective design suite uses only two preproduction formats as outlined in the syllabus (p. 37). Careful consideration ensures that the chosen preproduction formats are suitable for the context of the task. The conditions and recommended times for preproduction formats are outlined in the syllabus (pp. 41–42). Time conditions are broad to allow for flexibility in task design; schools select conditions that reflect the specific requirements of the task being undertaken, especially when the design task leads to a production.

Effective design formats require students to use explicit film and television language. Storyboards, for example, are more than descriptions of narrative and contain specific information relating to technical (e.g. shot type, camera angle, camera movement, lighting, transition device) and audio codes (e.g. dialogue, music, sound effects) required for a sequence of shots.

Production tasks are effective when students are given a clear context and/or genre style to adhere to, reflecting the syllabus conditions (pp. 41–42). The task should provide clear guidance to students about how they will be assessed — either in formal roles or completing a section of the film. Direction is not an assessable film role within the guidelines of the syllabus.

In Dimension Three: Critique, students apply the key concepts to analyse and evaluate moving image products and their contexts of production and use. Effective Critique tasks have a clearly defined focus that provides opportunity for students to clearly demonstrate the key concepts being assessed. Critique tasks that are research-based are effective when they allow students to demonstrate analysis.

Application of standards Evidence was found to support decisions of the match of the qualities of student work in sample folios to the syllabus standards. However, there were inconsistencies with the application of standards when students responded to assessment tasks assessing four or five key concepts. In these cases the application of standards could not be supported if assessment instruments did not provide opportunities for students to demonstrate sufficient evidence of ‘detailed, coherent proposals’, ‘products that exploit and realise the potential of production practices’ and ‘cohesive and substantiated judgments.’

Judgments made regarding Production standards in group productions are made based on the documented evidence of each student’s individual contribution to the production.

Students are able to clearly demonstrate syllabus standards when the instrument-specific standards matrix is based on the syllabus exit standards (syllabus, pp. 48–49). While research, referencing and Workplace Health and Safety are elements of key concepts that may be

2015 state review panel reports: Film, Television and New Media — B40 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 40 of 108

embedded within the task, they are not named specifically in the syllabus exit criteria and standards. On-balance judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with syllabus criteria and standards (syllabus, p. 48).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/film-television-and-new-media-2005, in particular:






Keri Church Kathy Owen State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Film, Television and New Media — B40 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 41 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/film-television-and-new-media-2005

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/film-television-and-new-media-2005



French and French Extension — B02

Syllabus The French 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation. The French Extension 2009 senior syllabus is in its sixth year of implementation.

Assessment design Requirements for assessment programs are described in the syllabus (French 2008, Section 8; French Extension 2009, Section 5).

For students studying French 2008, at least three of the macroskills must be assessed in Term 3 of Year 12 (Section 8.6).



• the expected length — by the end of Year 12 at least one task of approximately 200 words for French 2008 and approximately 300 words for French Extension 2009




Listening texts should be delivered in the ‘slower range of normal background speaker rate of utterance’ (French 2008, Section 8.3.1).







2015 state review panel reports: French and French Extension — B02 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 42 of 108







• The syllabus specifies that Writing tasks must not be given in advance, nor should questions for Speaking be provided in advance of the actual conversation, as answers have to be spontaneous (French 2008, Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4; French Extension 2009, Section 5.5.2).

• The syllabus states that dictionaries may be used in the assessment of Writing (French 2008, Section 8.3.4; French Extension 2009, Section 5.5.2). Dictionaries may be hardcopy or online. This does not include translation websites or software; nor should vocabulary lists be provided for Writing tasks.

• For French 2008, Speaking tasks that are open-ended and require coverage of a variety of issues, opinions or perspectives prompt students to use of a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’ (Standard A).



• For French 2008:






Page 43 of 108

• Levels of achievement are determined by the combination of results for each macroskill. For example, the minimum combination for a VHA (Very High Achievement) is Standard A in any two macroskills and no less than a Standard B in the remaining macroskills (French 2008, Section 8.5; French Extension 2009, Section 5.8).


• dedicated subject pages — French: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/french-2008, French Extension: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/french-extension-2009, in particular:






Clayton Forno Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 44 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/french-2008

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/french-extension-2009



Geography — B34

Syllabus The Geography 2007 senior syllabus is in its eighth year of implementation.

Assessment design Assessment instruments are designed effectively when they provide opportunities for students to respond to the key geographical questions of inquiry (syllabus, p. 4) and demonstrate the general objectives across the full range of standards (pp. 73–74).

Assessment technique: Short-response tests Effective short response tests have the following qualities:

• coverage of the four key questions of geographical inquiry (syllabus, p. 4) and key ideas relevant to the focus unit being assessed (syllabus, Section 7)

• questions that are contextualised to specific case studies across a range of scales

• spatial questions that require description of spatial distributions of elements or processes that affect these distributions rather than simple labelling of maps

• paragraph length responses that require thorough and comprehensive recall of geographical concepts and information.

Assessment technique: Practical exercises Effective practical exercises demonstrate the following qualities:

• complex datasets that provide opportunities to identify and explain patterns, complex relationships and anomalies

• two alternative proposals and specific decision-making criteria relating to the data provided

• application of Criterion 4: Research and communication to the data manipulation component only, not written expression.

Assessment technique: Stimulus response essays Effectively constructed essays exhibit the following attributes:

• two distinct sections — analysis and decision-making. The analysis section requires identification and explanation of patterns, processes, relationships and anomalies. Decision-making directs students to apply specific criteria to evaluate alternative options/strategies

• stimulus directly relevant to the topic containing a range of maps, graphs and tables of data, images, diagrams and very little to no textual sources.

2015 state review panel reports: Geography — B34 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 45 of 108

Assessment technique: Reports Effectively designed reports comprise the following characteristics:

• a focused scale of study allowing students to present their findings clearly and concisely

• topics or issues allowing the collection of a wide range of relevant primary data that is measurable (quantitative) rather than only observable (qualitative)

• two distinct sections — an analysis section and a decision-making section.

Application of standards Application of standards judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific criteria and standards drawn from the syllabus (pp. 73–74).

Criterion 1: Knowledge • Standard A requires coverage of geographical facts, concepts and key ideas that is ‘thorough

and comprehensive’.

• Spatial information that is ‘accurate and relevant’, but has ‘limited detail’ is indicative of Standard C.

Criterion 2: Analytical processes • Standard A demonstrates ‘insightful transformation of geographical information’ and ‘accurate

and thorough identification and explanation of simple and complex relationships and anomalies’.

• Standard B responses demonstrate ‘effective transformation’ and ‘significant explanation’ of these elements.

Criterion 3: Decision-making processes Standard A demonstrates evaluation of alternatives that is ‘comprehensive’ and clearly demonstrates that a decision has been made and justified by a ‘well-reasoned and logical argument’.

Criterion 4: Research and communication Standard A demonstrates information that has been presented in a ‘highly effective manner’ as well as ‘proficient’ integration of maps and diagrams that ‘adhere to the geographic conventions’.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/geography-2007, in particular:

- work program requirements, checklist and samples (Work programs tab) - sample assessment products and assessment advice, including Highlighted standards

(Assessment tab)



Page 46 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/geography-2007

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/geography-2007




Jo MacDonald Tanneal Micallef State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 47 of 108



German and German Extension — B03

Syllabuses The German 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation. The German Extension 2009 senior syllabus is in its sixth year of implementation.

Assessment design Requirements for assessment programs are described in the syllabus (German 2008, Section 8; German Extension 2009, Section 5).

For students studying German 2008, at least three of the macroskills must be assessed in Term 3 of Year 12 (Section 8.6).



• the expected length — by the end of Year 12 at least one task of approximately 200 words for German 2008 and approximately 300 words for German Extension 2009




Listening texts should be delivered in the ‘slower range of normal background speaker rate of utterance’ (German 2008, Section 8.3.1).







2015 state review panel reports: German and German Extension — B03 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 48 of 108







• The syllabus specifies that Writing tasks ‘must not be given in advance’, nor should questions for Speaking be provided in advance of the actual conversation, as answers have to be ‘spontaneous’ (German 2008, Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4; German Extension 2009, Section 5.5.2).

• The syllabus states that dictionaries may be used in the assessment of Writing (German 2008, Section 8.3.4; German Extension 2009, Section 5.5.2). Dictionaries may be hardcopy or online. This does not include translation websites or software; nor should vocabulary lists be provided for Writing tasks.

• For German 2008, Speaking tasks that are open-ended and require coverage of a variety of issues, opinions or perspectives prompt students to use of a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’ (Standard A).



• For German 2008:





Page 49 of 108


• Levels of achievement are determined by the combination of results for each macroskill. For example, the minimum combination for a VHA (Very High Achievement) is Standard A in any two macroskills and no less than a Standard B in the remaining macroskills (German 2008, Section 8.5; German Extension 2009, Section 5.8).


• dedicated subject pages — German: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/german-2008, German Extension: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/german-extension-2009, in particular:






Helen Nicolson Setz Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 50 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/german-2008

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/german-extension-2009



Graphics — A13

Syllabus The Graphics 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment instruments are designed to allow opportunities for students to engage with the dimensions and objectives of the syllabus and to demonstrate a range of standards.

Effective assessment tasks allow students to develop suitable design criteria. This provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of client needs and design factors, evaluation and justification. Students demonstrate this understanding by annotating, both in their design exploration and with the development of their design ideas. These annotations describe how design factors are used, how exploration meets the design criteria and how the idea or exploration is used in the design solution or graphical product.

Annotations are also used to demonstrate the synthesis of ideas for the development and final design solution and graphical product.

Assessment technique: Design folios Graphical products are produced as the outcome of the design problem (syllabus, p. 11). Authentic, real-world assessment tasks provide opportunities for students to use the design factors:

• to frame and explore design problems

• to inform solutions

• as criteria against which the effectiveness of graphical solutions are judged.

This provides opportunities for students to demonstrate the full range of objectives.

Effective assessment tasks include design problems based on an identified need or opportunity for a particular audience. This audience allows students the opportunity to ‘identify and describe the design and graphical needs of that particular audience/s’ (syllabus, Section 3.4). Assessment tasks which require students to graphically communicate the design solution for a particular audience allow students the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills associated with the design of the graphical product rather than producing drawings to a strict set of standards.

Design factors included in all assessment tasks are Design strategies, Elements and principles of design, and User-centred design. Design problems which incorporate a particular design style support the development a design solution that meets the needs of the particular user (User-centred design).

Assessment technique: Examination — Extended response tests Extended response tests which respond to a design problem for a target audience in much the same way as a design folio allow students to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards. Frequently, these tests assess fewer than three objectives from each dimension due to the constraints imposed by the conditions of this technique. Sketching the planned graphical product

2015 state review panel reports: Graphics — A13 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 51 of 108

allows students the opportunity to demonstrate a broader coverage of course objectives than spending significant time in the production of high-quality computer-generated graphical products.

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific standards matrixes or criteria sheets drawn from the syllabus standards (pp. 24–25).

The glossary and appendixes in the syllabus (pp. 26–32) provide teachers with assistance when making on-balance judgments based on achievement standards.

To achieve a Standard A, a response should demonstrate ‘succinct and insightful explanation of design problems using the essential aspects of relevant design factors’ and ‘identification and comprehensive description of relevant design criteria’.

Development of ‘a range of feasible ideas’ requires ‘identification and comprehensive description of relevant design criteria’.

Schools should refer to the electronic monitoring resources below when preparing electronic submissions.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/graphics-2013, in particular:



• the Senior moderation hub, which details the QCAA’s moderation and quality assurance policies: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/moderation-hub, including advice on electronic submissions (under Resources)



Wayne Van Den Bos Russell Sky State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Graphics — A13 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 52 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/graphics-2013



Health Education — A19

Syllabus The Health Education 2010 senior syllabus is in its sixth year of implementation.

Assessment design Students are provided with the best opportunity to demonstrate the general objectives of the syllabus when assessment instruments are designed with appropriate breadth and depth. To allow students to demonstrate a range of knowledge and skills across the course of study, it is important to design assessment instruments that assess new information in a new context. Instruments with the same analytical and evaluative focus presented via different techniques limit the students’ capacity to apply a range of subject matter.

Effective assessment instruments ensure the breadth of the task is achievable within the specified conditions and provide instructions that encourage students to address a specific and relevant aspect of a health issue (rather than a complete issue). A specific focus on a relevant aspect of a health issue enables the establishment of relationships in health issues and identifies barriers and facilitators within the context. Such tasks require students to develop decisions that are insightful and justified. Insightful decisions are informed by:

• process of inquiry (syllabus, Section 3.2.4)

• core theories, concepts and strategies (Section 3.3)

• assessment techniques (Section 5.5)

Effective task scaffolding enables students to appropriately determine relevant sources of information and accurately cite those sources. Synthesis of evidence-based practice with interpretation of specific aspects of health theories, concepts and frameworks provides students with the opportunity to evaluate based on analysis of information.

Application of standards When making judgments about the extent to which the students have demonstrated the general objectives of the course, the syllabus standards descriptors are used (syllabus, pp. 24–25).

The on-balance judgments made by schools were generally substantiated by the state panel reaching agreement about the appropriate application of standards. Where there was an issue with on-balance judgments, it was generally associated with Dimension 2: Application and analysis. Analysis is discerning and thorough when the student response considers the significant relationships between relevant primary data, secondary research, context, the health issue and specific health theory. For example, application and analysis from the health issue of homelessness might include primary data analysing relationships between the social determinants triggering youth homelessness, government white papers and agency research, aligned with health theory. Establishment of significant barriers and facilitators occurs when relevant primary and secondary research is considered against relevant health frameworks.

Correct and consistent attribution of sources contributes to use of textual features, selection of subject matter and choice of communication. Relevance of sources is dependent on validity and reliability, which includes currency. Student use of relevant sources contributes to the quality of

2015 state review panel reports: Health Education — A19 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 53 of 108

facts, information, theories and frameworks used for analysis and synthesis. Excessive use of direct quotes tends to impact on synthesis and interpretation.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/health-education-2010, in particular:






Shane Roberts Glenn Amezdroz State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Health Education — A19 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 54 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/health-education-2010



Home Economics — A25

Syllabus The Home Economics 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Schools provide students with opportunities to demonstrate the objectives of the syllabus through clear task descriptions that refer specifically to the syllabus objectives and the task requirements. The associated instrument-specific standards matrix includes the syllabus exit standards that match the objectives being assessed by the instrument (syllabus, p. 33).

Assessment technique: Supervised Supervised written instruments (syllabus, Section 5.5.1) are successful in assessing Dimension 1: Knowledge and understanding when questions are relevant to the key concepts being assessed and require students to describe, explain and apply. This technique also assesses one or more aspects of Dimension 2: Reasoning and communicating processes. Instruments provide opportunities to demonstrate the chosen objectives of this dimension when the stimulus material selected allows students to analyse relevant information or to evaluate the provided evidence to support conclusions or solutions. Stimulus materials are appropriate if they are succinct and allow students to engage in the time provided, or are provided before the assessment if they are lengthy (syllabus, p. 24). Effective questions require conclusions and/or solutions.

Assessment technique: Research Research assessments (syllabus, Section 5.5.2) are effective when tasks include an issue or design challenge as the focus for the research and are achievable in the syllabus word limit. Opportunities are provided for students to demonstrate the range of standards, including Standard A which requires ‘thorough analysis’ and ‘discerning evaluation of evidence’ to justify and support the conclusion, when the issue provided requires a conclusion or the design challenge requires a solution rather than simply research on a topic or statement. Suitable issues are matters significant to the wellbeing of individuals, families or communities; are contemporary and relevant to students, the locality and experiences of the school or community; and avoid value-laden statements and the perpetuation of stereotypes.

Assessment technique: Performance and products Performance and product assessments assess Dimension 1: Knowledge and understanding and Dimension 3: Practical performance, and may also assess Dimension 2: Reasoning and communicating processes. Performance and product tasks are effective when they clearly identify the dimensions and objectives being assessed and are based on a design challenge that provides opportunities to demonstrate these dimensions and objectives. In Dimension 1, these tasks clearly require students to, for example, ‘explain and apply key concepts’ related to practical decisions, or in Dimension 2, to ‘evaluate evidence to justify conclusions or solutions’. Successful performance and product assessment tasks only require students to address the standard descriptors for the dimensions which are being assessed. Instruments which only assess Dimensions 1 and 3 should not require students to ‘evaluate evidence to support solutions’.

2015 state review panel reports: Home Economics — A25 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 55 of 108

Effective design challenges solve problems linked to the wellbeing of individuals, families or communities rather than hospitality contexts. These challenges identify constraints, require students to manage resources and refine a variety of practical skills to produce a product or products for an intended purpose. Performance and product assessment instruments allow students to demonstrate the objectives in Dimension 3 when they require ‘planning, management and reflection’ throughout the process to solve the design challenge.

Effective task instructions clearly describe the evidence and documentation needed for process journals with clear requirements that ‘planning, management or reflection’ are a continuous part of the process. It is made clear in these instructions that student reflection should be on the process and learning rather than just an evaluation of the product. The inclusion of annotated photographs in the process journal allows students to reflect throughout the process as well as display the various practical skills performed during the assessment.

Application of standards Across the state, schools made appropriate decisions about the match of the qualities of student responses with the syllabus standards. Qualities in student responses are matched with the exit standards to make an on-balance judgment about student achievement. Effective decisions are made about the match to standards when the instrument-specific standards matrix is used to make judgments about individual responses and the descriptors used are selected from the exit standards to match the objectives assessed by that instrument.

In Dimension 1, folios match Standard A when the evidence demonstrates the ‘description of a comprehensive range of significant facts’ and ‘thorough explanation and application of relevant key concepts’ on-balance across the folio of responses. When making a judgment about Dimension 1 for an individual assessment instrument such as a supervised written assessment, judgments are made across the entire response rather than item-by-item.

Judgments about Dimension 2 are made on-balance by matching the syllabus standards descriptors with evidence from research, supervised written and, possibly, performance and product assessments. Demonstration of Standard A requires evidence of ‘thorough analysis of significant, relevant information’ and ‘discerning evaluation of evidence to support conclusions or solutions’.

Standard A for Dimension 3 requires evidence of ‘thorough planning’, ‘effective and efficient management’ and ‘perceptive reflection’. This evidence can often be found in process journal documentation.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/home-economics-2010, in particular:







Page 56 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/home-economics-2010




Meredith Gleadhill Helen Radvan State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 57 of 108

Hospitality Studies — A22

Syllabus The Hospitality Studies 2012 senior syllabus is in its third year of implementation.

Assessment design Assessment instruments are effective when they provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the objectives across the full range of standards. Using the language of the syllabus objectives helps to ensure that these opportunities are provided. Assessment design is informed by the dimensions, objectives and requirements of the syllabus. Dimension 1: Inquiring objectives inform assessment design for the research and supervised written assessment techniques. Dimension 2: Planning and Dimension 3: Performing objectives together inform assessment design for the performance technique to ensure opportunities are provided for students to meet syllabus requirements. Schools ensure that students have the opportunity to demonstrate practical skills in creating products and performing services, and management of resources to implement hospitality events. Opportunities for students to demonstrate Dimension 2: Planning objectives are provided when students demonstrate analysis, rather than description, of contextual factors, principles and procedures relevant to the specific hospitality event to be implemented. Opportunities should also be provided to evaluate plans, justify decisions, and provide recommendations for improvement.

The research assessment technique assesses research practices and the outcomes of the application of that research. Research practices include locating and using information that goes beyond the data students have been given and the knowledge they currently have, as described in Section 4.5.2 of the syllabus. Communication strategies for this technique include generic requirements for presenting research such as referencing conventions. These conventions must be followed regardless of the mode of delivery (syllabus, Section 4.5.2).

Questions or statements for supervised written assessment instruments are typically unseen. If seen, teachers must ensure the purpose of this technique is not compromised. The purpose is to assess student responses that are produced independently, under supervision and in a set timeframe to ensure authenticity (syllabus, Section 4.5.1). Permitted material is indicated in the instrument conditions, for example, one page of handwritten notes. Allowing students to bring in completed components of essays (e.g. introductions and/or conclusions) to a seen question compromises the purpose of this technique. Stimulus material may be used to support the assessment instrument and should be succinct enough to allow students to engage with those materials in the time provided; if they are lengthy, students may access them before the assessment. Stimulus material for this technique, whether seen or unseen, is supplied as described in Section 4.5.1 of the syllabus.

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by using evidence of the match of the qualities in the student responses with the syllabus objectives and standards descriptors (pp. 32–33).

For each assessment instrument, schools develop an instrument-specific standards matrix from the syllabus standards. Syllabus standards descriptors are not modified other than to include the genre of the communication, the issue being examined or the context of the hospitality event. For example, the genre of the communication may be changed to research report or magazine

2015 state review panel reports: Hospitality Studies — A22 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 58 of 108

article, the hospitality event to high tea or buffet lunch. Schools do not change the qualitative descriptors of the syllabus standards or add descriptors to standards matrixes. Assessment in Hospitality Studies requires all standards descriptors of the dimension/s relevant to the different assessment techniques be retained in whole. When developing instrument-specific standards matrixes aspects of standards descriptors are not deleted. Evidence for Dimension 2: Planning includes analysis of contextual factors, principles and procedures pertinent to the hospitality event to be implemented.

Digital evidence illustrating typical Standards A and C in practical performance is required to support school’s judgments about the application of standards in Dimension 3: Performing as described in Section 4.5.3 of the syllabus. This should be accompanied by commentary explaining the school’s decisions about standards and be sufficiently clear to illustrate the quality of the product and/or service. A range of practical skills is demonstrated at the Standard A and C. The evidence may be drawn from practical skills performed as part of the learning experiences or from the assessment process (syllabus, Section 4.6).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/hospitality-studies-2012, in particular:






Cheryl Conroy Glenn Amezdroz Acting State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Hospitality Studies — A22 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 59 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/hospitality-studies-2012



Information Processing and Technology — A16

Syllabus The Information Processing and Technology 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment design allows students to demonstrate the dimensions of the syllabus and a range of standards. When designing assessment, schools consider the general objectives in conjunction with the standards descriptors. The general objectives provide schools with guidance to unpack the application of cognitive demands and their associated qualitative descriptors in this subject.

The use of open questions on supervised written assessments assessing Analysis and Synthesis and Evaluation and Communication allows students to demonstrate the full range of standards.

Instrument-specific standards and qualitative descriptors are drawn from the syllabus dimensions (syllabus, pp. 2–3) and the relevant standards descriptors (syllabus, pp. 39–40).

Across effective assessment packages, there is the opportunity to apply the design–develop–evaluate (DDE) cycle approach to problem solving. The use of this approach in the design of extended written tasks and projects allows students to develop responses that are analytical and evaluative. Evidence of the solution of complex problems is most effectively demonstrated when the DDE cycle is expanded into the software development cycle, the information system development cycle or the information literacy cycle (syllabus, p. 19).

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific standards drawn from the syllabus standards. The standards for each level of achievement are mid-range descriptors following guidelines, Determining exit levels of achievement (syllabus, p. 38).



• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/information-processing-technology-2010, in particular:



2015 state review panel reports: Information Processing and Technology — A16 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 60 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/information-processing-technology-2010

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/information-processing-technology-2010




Ross Jardine Russell Sky State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Information Processing and Technology — A16 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 61 of 108



Information Technology Systems — A26

Syllabus The Information Technology Systems 2012 senior syllabus is in its third year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment instruments are designed to allow opportunities for students to engage with the dimensions and objectives of the syllabus and to demonstrate the full range of standards. Schools provide opportunities to demonstrate the dimensions and objectives of the course in assessment instruments by:

• developing contextualised instrument-specific standards matrixes that select the relevant standards descriptors to match the criteria and general objectives that the task is designed to assess (syllabus, p. 21)

• reducing scaffolding progressively from Year 11 into Year 12 to allow students to demonstrate analysis and synthesis across the range of standards

• ensuring students have an explicit opportunity to demonstrate ‘comprehensive and discerning analysis of client needs to inform the design plan’ (Dimension 2: Design and development, Standard A)

• ensuring that opportunities are provided for students to demonstrate ‘comprehensive and thorough testing of components to refine solutions’ (Dimension 2: Design and development, Standard A) by using a variety of techniques for the testing process

• providing opportunities for students to use a ‘variety of complex technical skills and resources’ (Dimension 3: Implementation and evaluation, Standard A) in projects and practical exercises, in particular audio and video tasks, that explicitly address the objectives and standards of the syllabus

• ensuring each folio contains a project that:

- has been completed individually

- contains all elements of the design–develop–evaluate (DDE) cycle

- assesses all three dimensions (syllabus, p. 19).

It is not appropriate to split a product assessment over multiple items. The product assessment technique provides the best opportunity for students to demonstrate the project development model (DDE) as the model of inquiry that underpins the problem-solving process (syllabus, section 4.5.3). The skills of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are demonstrated using problem-solving methods appropriate to the task.

2015 state review panel reports: Information Technology Systems — A26 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 62 of 108

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific standards drawn from the syllabus standards. The standards for each level of achievement are mid-range descriptors following the guidelines given in ‘Determining exit levels of achievement’ (syllabus, p. 20):

• in Dimension 2: Design and Development, students are required to provide evidence of the testing of solutions and the refinement of the solution

• in Dimension 3: Implementation and Evaluation, ‘use of a variety of complex technical skills and resources to present an efficient and effective solution’ (Standard A) is clearly demonstrated when students use a variety of software packages or a variety of technical skills from within a software package to present solutions.

When awarding an exit level of achievement, schools apply the table ‘Awarding exit levels of achievement’ which indicates the minimum combination of standards across the dimension for each level (syllabus, p. 20).



• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/information-technology-systems-2012, in particular:






Colin Thompson Russell Sky State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Information Technology Systems — A26 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 63 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/information-technology-systems-2012

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/information-technology-systems-2012



Italian — B04

Syllabus The Italian 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Requirements for assessment programs are described in Section 8 of the syllabus. In Year 12 ‘at least three of the macroskills must be assessed in Term 3’ (Section 8.6).



• the expected length — at least one task of approximately 200 words by the end of Year 12




Listening texts should be delivered in the ‘slower range of normal background speaker rate of utterance’ (syllabus, Section 8.3.1).






reports that present a variety of perspectives — rather than simple informative, instructional or descriptive texts — are more likely to enable the demonstration of Standard A descriptors such as:

- knowing and understanding

a comprehensive range of information is presented the meaning of familiar and complex language is accurately and clearly demonstrated

- reasoning and responding

detailed analysis and thorough evaluation are evident plausible interpretations of unfamiliar language are drawn from context well-constructed conclusions and well-substantiated decisions are made.

2015 state review panel reports: Italian — B04 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 64 of 108






• The syllabus specifies that Writing tasks ‘must not be given in advance’, nor should questions for Speaking be provided in advance of the actual conversation, as answers have to be ‘spontaneous’ (syllabus, Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4).

• The syllabus states that ‘dictionaries may be used’ in the assessment of Writing (Section 8.3.4). Dictionaries may be hardcopy or online. This does not include translation websites or software; nor should vocabulary lists be provided for Writing tasks.

• Speaking tasks that are open-ended and require coverage of a variety of issues, opinions or perspectives prompt students to use of a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’ (Standard A).



• Responses in Writing must respond to the task in both content and text type. If a response deviates from the prescribed topic and text type, the response may not demonstrate a ‘wide range of vocabulary’, ‘ideas and purposes’ being ‘conveyed effectively’, and ‘understanding and response to the cultural context’ in which the response is situated.

• Writing at Standard A demonstrates ‘complex language’, a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’. A discussion of personality, characteristics and strengths provides more opportunity to demonstrate the range of standards than listing likes and dislikes. ‘Frequent errors’ is a Standard D and Standard E descriptor. While errors may occur in Writing at Standard A, these occur in ‘complex language’ and ‘do not detract from the overall meaning’.


• Levels of achievement are determined by the combination of results for each macroskill. For example, the minimum combination for a VHA (Very High Achievement) is Standard A in any two macroskills and no less than a Standard B in the remaining macroskills (syllabus, Section 8.5).



Page 65 of 108


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/italian-2008, in particular:






Sarina Kearney Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 66 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/italian-2008



Japanese — B05

Syllabus The Japanese 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.




• the expected length — at least one task of approximately 400 kanamajiri by the end of Year 12















2015 state review panel reports: Japanese — B05 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 67 of 108

















Page 68 of 108


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/japanese-2008, in particular:






Paul Dyer Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 69 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/japanese-2008



Legal Studies — B21

Syllabus The Legal Studies 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation. The first cohort of students was verified in 2015.

Assessment design Schools provide students with opportunities for success when the task requirements for assessment instruments have clear and explicit links to the dimensions and use the language of the syllabus objectives and standards.

Questions and tasks that focus on depth rather than breadth are most effective, particularly when the target of the instrument is Dimension 2: Investigating legal issues and Dimension 3: Responding to the law. Assessment design that considers an appropriate scope and scale allows students to validly demonstrate their skills and knowledge as tasks can be completed within the prescribed conditions, in particular the recommended word limits (syllabus, pp. 21–23)

Assessment is most effective when schools choose legal issues and situations that are topical, relevant and authentic (syllabus, p. 11). Appropriate choices are guided by the context of the course of study being the Australian legal system and the impact on Australian citizens and society (syllabus, p. 1). Where two assessment instruments are drawn from the same focus area, the subject matter for each instrument must be different.

Assessment instruments that focus on legal issues provide a clearer alignment between the task and the dimensions being assessed.

Dimension 2: Investigating legal issues involves exploring legal situations to select, analyse and apply legal information, situations and concepts. These essential cognitive verbs are relevant to both examination and extended research techniques. An inquiry-based learning approach underpins teaching and learning of Legal Studies, and therefore the skills of inquiry require explicit teaching (syllabus, p. 11). Effective assessments allow students to use primary and/or secondary sources to select and organise legal information which is then sequenced to facilitate further analysis. This may be achieved either through the use of provided stimulus materials or through student research. Developing an understanding of the differences between ‘identifying’ and ‘examining’ is important and these cognitions are linked within the second objective of this dimension. The resolution of case scenarios is an effective tool to assess the objective ‘apply legal concepts and processes to legal issues to determine legal outcomes’ within this dimension (syllabus, p. 3).

Dimension 3: Responding to the law involves examining the attempts of the law to achieve just, fair and equitable outcomes to legal issues, requiring students to judge, make and justify decisions and recommendations. Assessment instruments that address these aspects explicitly require students to engage with the elements of this dimension.

2015 state review panel reports: Legal Studies — B21 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 70 of 108

Application of standards Decisions about levels of achievement are made according to syllabus information and using syllabus standards descriptors. Section 4.8.1 of the syllabus provides advice on determining standards for student responses to an assessment instrument. The standard awarded is an on-balance judgment about how the qualities of the student response match the standards descriptors in each dimension. This means that it is not necessary for the student responses to have been matched to every descriptor for a particular standard. At verification, schools use Table 3 on page 25 of the syllabus to award an interim level of achievement.

The glossary in the syllabus (pp. 28–29) provides teachers with assistance for their on-balance judgments of achievement standards. ‘Purposeful and discerning’ selection and organisation of legal information should involve ‘relevant and valid’ sources to achieve Standard A. Stakeholder perspectives require thoughtful choices of balance, as the depth of stakeholder response will demonstrate a higher standard of achievement than breadth. For Dimension 2: Investigating legal issues, these perspectives should be more than ‘identified’, they should be ‘examined’. For Dimension 3: Responding to the law, perspectives should be ‘evaluated’. Systematic application is ‘methodical, organised and logical’ for Standard B, and being discerning shows ‘good judgment’ with selections specifically demonstrating ‘value or relevance’ in order to satisfy the requirements for Standard A. ‘Convincing and reasoned’ justification is persuasive and assured by argument or evidence, which is a higher standard that an internally consistent and defensible response that represents Standard B.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/legal-studies-2013, in particular:






Karyl Young Christine Dowd State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Legal Studies — B21 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 71 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/legal-studies-2013

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/business-economics/legal-studies-2013



Marine Science — A47

Syllabus The Marine Science 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design Generally schools were able to design effective assessment instruments which provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the three general objectives across the full range of standards. Effective assessment instruments:

• match instrument-specific criteria sheets with the syllabus standards descriptors. The reliability of judgments is affected when words that are not in the standards are used

• use the language of the dimensions and objectives to frame assessment instruments in order to provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the relevant objectives for all dimensions

• clearly distinguish between the cognitive processes used in different dimensions. For example, in Dimension 1: Knowledge and understanding, ‘application’ involves ‘employing knowledge in a particular situation’ whereas in Dimension 2: Investigation and analysis, ‘analysis and interpretation’ requires students to ‘consider in detail for the purpose of finding meaning or relationships’ and ‘explain the meaning of information or actions’

• use stimulus material related to marine environments, issues or problems

• use tasks that can be completed by students within the conditions (e.g. time and word length) described by the syllabus.

The syllabus clearly distinguishes between the extended marine investigation and the action research (pp. 25–26). An extended marine investigation requires the manipulation of variables either in marine environments or in environments where variables can be controlled and manipulated. An action research is used when students are actively investigating issues or problems in marine environments. The extended marine investigation follows an inquiry-based investigation process where research questions are formulated, a hypothesis developed and students collect, analyse and interpret primary data. A broad action research can lead to an extended marine investigation (syllabus, p. 26). Across the state, extended marine investigations occur in a variety of different marine environments and consider many different contexts.

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific criteria and standards drawn from the syllabus standards. Evidence was found to support most of the decisions relating to the match of qualities of student responses in sample folios to the syllabus standards.


• use of instrument-specific standards that did not reflect the syllabus standards

• the practice of dividing the standards descriptors into parts, rather than making an on-balance judgment about the match of evidence to the standards as a whole

• judgments about Standard A for Dimension 2: Investigation and analysis which requires demonstration of ‘thorough analysis and interpretation of marine information to identify and

2015 state review panel reports: Marine Science — A47 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 72 of 108

explain relationships, trends and patterns’. Drawing a graph based on a small data sample demonstrates ‘simple analysis and interpretation of some marine information’ (Standard D)

• on-balance judgments where all evidence presented, including non-attempts, needs to be considered.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/marine-science-2013, in particular:






Tanya Martin Susan Scheiwe State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Marine Science — A47 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 73 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/marine-science-2013



Mathematics A — A36

Syllabus The Mathematics A 2008 (amended 2014) senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Evidence from the moderation process showed that schools continue to include variety and balance in the types of assessment techniques used within their assessment packages. Reports and extended modelling and problem solving tasks continue to be valuable tools for providing opportunities for students to demonstrate the higher order attributes of the syllabus standards.

Effective assessment provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate the general objectives across the syllabus standards. The assessed objectives in each instrument are identified in an instrument-specific criteria sheet that only includes the objectives relevant to that specific instrument. Scaffolding is only used in the simple questions to allow students the opportunity to show evidence of their ability at the lower end of the complexity continuum. For Standard D qualities to be shown, schools need to use questions where rules or strategies are provided to the students. The use of syllabus language in the design of assessment instruments and items makes their alignment with the syllabus standards explicit.

In extended modelling and problem solving tasks and reports it is important to have processes that ensure the authorship of student responses, as stated in the syllabus update of 2014 (Section 6.3.4). Advice and guidelines about authenticating responses can be found on the QCAA website (see the Support section below).

Application of standards The state panel’s moderation processes showed that, in almost all cases, appropriate judgments about student demonstration of the general objectives of the syllabus were being made — that schools were appropriately applying the standards of the syllabus and making appropriate on-balance judgments.

Some schools have chosen to use marks as a method of determining level of achievement. This approach can be valid; however, several examples were noted where the student was awarded a Standard D in Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures based on a percentage cut-off when the evidence matched the Standard C syllabus descriptors. If marks are used, the cut-offs or grade boundaries must be designed to ensure that judgments correctly match evidence to the syllabus standards.

Levels of achievement decisions are made using all the available evidence. Evidence for Standard C in Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures (i.e. ‘use of rules and formulas in simple routine situations’, ‘application of simple mathematical procedures in routine situations’ and ‘selection and use of technology’) can be found in responses to most questions, including those that are designed to assess Criterion 2: Modelling and problem solving. Likewise, evidence for Standard E in Criterion 2: Modelling and problem solving (i.e. ‘attempted use of given strategies for problem solving in well-rehearsed situations’) can often be found in questions designed to assess Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures.

2015 state review panel reports: Mathematics A — A36 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 74 of 108


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-a-2008, in particular:


- sample assessment products and assessment advice, including:

Highlighted standards Advice about strategies for authenticating student work for learning and assessment Senior Mathematics curriculum glossary (Assessment tab)




Andrew Foster Evan Winter State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Mathematics A — A36 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 75 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-a-2008

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-a-2008



Mathematics B — A37

Syllabus The Mathematics B 2008 (amended 2014) senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Questions that effectively assess Criterion 3: Communication and justification in supervised tests explicitly use words that reflect the cognition in the syllabus standards and show the connections between what students are expected to know and do, and how their responses will be judged.

Effectively designed extended modelling and problem-solving tasks and reports require students to produce open rather than closed responses. Schools are encouraged to use a range of strategies to authenticate the authorship of student responses to ensure judgments are valid and reliable. The Support section below provides details of a resource to support schools in identifying and implementing these strategies.

Effective assessment instruments:

• provide explicit opportunities for students to identify variables and parameters (Criterion 2: Modelling and problem solving, Standard B)

• consider the domain and range as limitations of a model

• only assess assumptions and their associated effects that relate to the mathematics of a situation

• avoid subject matter that is not part of the current syllabus (e.g. quotient rule, binomial distribution calculations performed algebraically).

Application of standards Across the state, evidence from moderation processes substantiates that schools are making appropriate judgments about student demonstration of the general objectives of the syllabus and that the standards of the syllabus are being appropriately applied to make on-balance judgments.

Some mechanical or formulaic methods of grading student work failed to correctly identify the evidence at Sound and Limited Achievement because judgments in Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures criterion used numerical cut-offs that did not align to the standard descriptors.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-b-2008, in particular:



Highlighted standards Advice about strategies for authenticating student work for learning and assessment

2015 state review panel reports: Mathematics B — A37 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 76 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-b-2008

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-b-2008

Senior Mathematics curriculum glossary (Assessment tab)




Peter Antrobus Sue Jones State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Mathematics B — A37 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 77 of 108



Mathematics C — A38

Syllabus The Mathematics C 2008 (amended 2014) senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Schools continue to design effective assessment instruments that provide students with an appropriate balance of opportunities to demonstrate achievement of the general objectives.

Assessment instruments that effectively address Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures and Criterion 3: Communication and justification ensure that opportunities are provided to demonstrate ‘knowledge of the nature of and use of mathematical proof’ and ‘provision of supporting arguments in the form of proof’ respectively.

Use of proofs is not a descriptor in Criterion 2: Modelling and problem solving. Appropriate questions in this criterion provide opportunities for students to ‘investigate and evaluate the validity of mathematical arguments including the analysis of results in the context of problems’ (Standard A). Well-balanced assessment instruments also provide opportunities for students to demonstrate ‘use of problem-solving strategies to interpret, clarify and analyse problems to develop responses in routine simple tasks’ to provide evidence of Standard C.

Where formula sheets are used appropriately they allow opportunities for students to ‘recall, access, select mathematical definitions, rules and procedures’ (Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures).

Application of standards Judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific standards descriptors drawn from the exit criteria described in Section 6.9 of the syllabus. Evidence across moderation processes demonstrated that standards are being appropriately applied.

Using the standards to describe judgments supports evidence-based discussions which help students gain a better understanding of how they can critique their own responses, monitor their achievements and identify how to make improvements. When making judgments about threshold samples, evidence to support a Standard C in Criterion 1: Knowledge and procedures can sometimes be found in responses to questions designed to assess Criterion 2: Modelling and problem solving.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-c-2008, in particular:



Highlighted standards

2015 state review panel reports: Mathematics C — A38 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 78 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-c-2008

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/mathematics/mathematics-c-2008

Advice about strategies for authenticating student work for learning and assessment Senior Mathematics curriculum glossary (Assessment tab)




Bevan Penrose Sue Jones State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Mathematics C — A38 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 79 of 108



Modern History — B39

Syllabus The Modern History 2004 senior syllabus is in its eleventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the full range of syllabus standards. To ensure students engage with the exit criteria effectively, work programs and assessment instruments focus predominantly on the 20th century (syllabus, p. 11).

Category 1: Extended written response to historical evidence Category 1 instruments require students to address a specific unseen question or respond to an unseen statement by using historical sources supplied by the teacher. In Year 11, the provided sources will be ‘clearly for or against’ the question or statement and, in Year 12, some sources will be ‘contestable’ (syllabus, p. 49). Effective Category 1 instruments provide clear, definite instructions, quality reproductions of sources and layout that can be easily navigated under supervised conditions. Category 1 instruments provide opportunities to demonstrate both Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry and Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge across the full range of syllabus standards. This includes opportunities for students to evaluate the accuracy, relevance, reliability and representativeness of the sources provided and, in Year 12, to demonstrate ‘evaluation and application of perspectives’ in order to make decisions (syllabus, p. 49).

Category 2: Written research tasks Category 3: Multimodal presentations Category 2 and 3 instruments involve the investigation of a valid research question arising from the inquiry topic and theme under study. The aspects of inquiry are an integral part of the Modern History syllabus (pp. 19–20, 26–43, 57–59) and provide a framework for student inquiry. While attention should be given to all five aspects in any inquiry, particular emphasis will depend on the inquiry topic under investigation (syllabus, p. 27). For example, sub-questions may focus on just two aspects: backgrounds, changes and continuities: motives and causes and effects, interests and arguments.

However, the records of research will evidence engagement with all five aspects of inquiry. The scope of Category 2 inquiries should be manageable within the lengths prescribed for this technique in the syllabus (p. 50).

Category 4: Additional test formats Where Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry is assessed, instruments should allow students to demonstrate the range of cognitive skills in Criterion 2.

2015 state review panel reports: Modern History — B39 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 80 of 108

Application of standards When making judgments about student responses, teachers make an on-balance decision about the best match to the standards for each criterion. Instrument-specific standards matrixes might specify the genre and topic but the key language of the standards descriptors should not be altered (syllabus, pp. 57–60). When making a level of achievement decision, teachers use the table ‘Minimum requirements for exit levels of achievement’ in the syllabus (p. 61).

Criterion 1: Planning and using an historical research process In making judgments for Criterion 1, the focus is on the quality of the evidence rather than the quantity. The first descriptor of Criterion 1 centres on identification of issues to investigate and development of a research question and appropriate sub-questions. The second concerns the location and organisation of primary and secondary sources that offer a range of perspectives on the inquiry. The third is about creating and maintaining a record of research that demonstrates application of the aspects of inquiry. The fourth is concerned with reflection during the research process to make valid choices in relation to direction or emphasis (Standard A).

Criterion 2: Forming historical knowledge through critical inquiry Criterion 2 focuses on three descriptors that collectively describe the formation of historical knowledge through critical inquiry. The first descriptor relates to using a diversity of sources and is further described by a number of sub-points which detail how sources are used. Standard C of this objective requires the use of both ‘primary and secondary sources’ (syllabus, p. 59). The second descriptor centres on evaluating sources to determine their accuracy, relevance, reliability and representativeness. The syllabus glossary (pp. 65–66) provides definitions of these concepts. Representativeness is defined as ‘whether a source reflects a dominant or mainstream perspective as opposed to a minor or marginalised perspective on an issue or period of time’ (syllabus, p. 66). When making Criterion 2 judgments about Category 2 and 3 tasks, evidence will be found in the final response.

Criterion 3: Communicating historical knowledge Criterion 3 has three objectives. The first descriptor relates to the historical knowledge communicated. The second descriptor refers to the communication of the historical argument, and is described through a number of sub-points. For example, two sub-points of this objective at Standard A are ‘use extensive vocabulary in a succinct and effective manner’ and ‘refer to evaluation processes without disrupting the argument’ (syllabus, p. 57). The third descriptor refers to the scope of the task.


• workshops focused on judgments, which will be offered in Term 2 2016; Modern History: Calibration workshops for teachers, see PD and events for details: https://events.qcaa.qld.edu.au/Catalogue.aspx?yl=3

• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/modern-history-2004, in particular:




Page 81 of 108

https://events.qcaa.qld.edu.au/Catalogue.aspx?yl=3

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/modern-history-2004

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/modern-history-2004





Kevin McAlinden Danielle Flower State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 82 of 108



Music — B26

Syllabus The Music 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design Schools are designing assessment instruments which effectively enable the demonstration of syllabus objectives. Effective assessment instruments provide opportunities to gather information about the extent to which students demonstrate achievement in the objectives in each dimension.

Dimension 1: Composition Effective Composition assessment tasks allow the demonstration of the combination of music elements, compositional techniques, and synthesis and communication of music ideas. They also provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the range of standards. Use of a task-specific standards matrix provides a clear focus and context for the task. The development of a composition may also include documentation of the process, e.g. composer’s journal, recordings, screen shots, diagrams, annotations (syllabus, Section 4.5.3). The provision of composer’s notes to explain and justify the composing intentions is not required by the syllabus.

Dimension 2: Musicology Dimension 2: Musicology entails ‘analysing and evaluating repertoire and other music sources, in a range of contexts, styles and genres, to synthesise and express a music viewpoint and enhance musicianship in Composition and Performance’ (syllabus, Section 2.2) rather than aurally and visually analysing music.

Musicology assessment tasks that give students a purpose and context provide opportunities for students to demonstrate ‘synthesis of findings, justification of music viewpoints, and communication of music ideas’ (syllabus, Section 4.8.3). Musicology assessment tasks are effective when opportunities to demonstrate both analysis and evaluation are explicit in the task. The syllabus glossary describes ‘evaluating’ as ‘assigning merit according to criteria’ (Section 5). Authentic opportunities to evaluate occur when real-life contexts are used.

Providing a defined scope allows students to respond in-depth and demonstrate the qualities of a Standard A response. Effective formal exams contain a limited number of questions that allow students to respond within the conditions for this assessment technique (syllabus, Section 4.5.5). The standard achieved is determined from evidence across the exam paper.

Dimension 3: Performance ‘The focus of this assessment is music performance to an audience’, (syllabus, Section 4.5.6). Where practicable, performances are for an appropriate audience beyond the classroom. Performing in an authentic context allows students to communicate music ideas through ‘discerning synthesis and convincing expression’. Repertoire choice needs to be taken into account to ensure students have the opportunity to demonstrate the range of standards. Syllabus conditions require performances of ‘approximately three minutes in length’ and that when the student is performing within an ensemble, ‘the student’s part must be independent and aurally identifiable (one person per part)’ (syllabus, Section 4.5.6).

2015 state review panel reports: Music — B26 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 83 of 108

Application of standards The descriptor ‘effective’, which is used in all dimensions at Standard B, is described as ‘meeting the assigned purpose’ (syllabus, Section 5).

When awarding a standard in each dimension, an on-balance judgment about how the qualities of the student work match the standards descriptors overall is made. Relative level of achievement decisions at verification and exit are made by looking for the extent to which standards descriptors have been achieved across the three dimensions at a threshold, typical and better than typical standard.

Section 4.8.2 of the syllabus (pp. 24–25) describes the awarding of an exit level of achievement.


• online mini-assessment workshop: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-2013/mini-assessment-workshop

• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-2013, in particular:






Helen Leyden Meredith Baxter State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Music — B26 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 84 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-2013/mini-assessment-workshop

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-2013/mini-assessment-workshop

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-2013



Music Extension — B36

Syllabus The Music Extension 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design A wide range of investigating tasks was evident in student folios, with the majority of responses presented as written responses. Table 1 of the syllabus provides a range of assessment techniques and conditions of assessment for the Investigation of music sources criterion, including extended responses, multimedia presentations and oral presentations (syllabus, p. 22).

Investigating tasks that centre on a topic or argument provide succinct direction and illicit effective responses when there is a clear link between the music sources and the analysis of sources. Effective responses were characterised by a correlation between the topic and the best-suited techniques of presentation for the topic. Investigating tasks may have a direct or indirect relationship to the Realising assessment task (syllabus, p. 21). Effective Investigating tasks provide opportunities to undertake explicit analysis, exploration and synthesis of music sources.

In the performance specialisation of the Realising assessment task, tasks can be recorded across multiple performances and in a variety of contexts appropriate to the style and genre. Performance choices should allow students to demonstrate the full range of exit standards (syllabus, p. 24). Table 4 of the syllabus (p. 25) outlines the assessment conditions for the performance specialisation. Composition assessment tasks should allow for responses in any genre and/or style and, for this reason, the standards should be awarded comparably, regardless of genre or style (syllabus, p. 23).

Application of standards Schools effectively applied the standards across the Investigation of music sources and Realisation of the work criteria.

Audiovisual documentation of performances should allow the performer to be seen and heard clearly (syllabus, p. 25) and be clearly annotated to indicate identified students. Section 7.5.4 of the syllabus outlines guidelines for audiovisual documentation (see the Support section for further advice on preparing electronic submissions).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-extension-2008, in particular:




2015 state review panel reports: Music Extension — B36 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 85 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/music-extension-2008




Jo Cunningham Meredith Baxter State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Music Extension — B36 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 86 of 108


Other languages — B32

Syllabuses The Other languages panel covers the following language subjects:

• Indonesian 2008

• Indonesian Extension 2009

• Korean 2008

• Latin 2008

• Modern Greek 2008

• Vietnamese 2008.

In 2015, no schools offered Indonesian Extension 2009.

The Indonesian 2008, Korean 2008, Latin 2008, Modern Greek 2008 and Vietnamese 2008 senior syllabuses are in their seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design Requirements for assessment programs are described in the syllabuses as follows:

• for Latin 2008, Section 6

• for Indonesian Extension 2009, Section 5

• for all others in this group, Section 8.

For all syllabuses excepting Latin 2008 and Indonesian Extension 2009, at least three of the macroskills must be assessed in Term 3 of Year 12 (Section 8.6).



• the expected length of written responses, which by the end of Year 12 is specific to each syllabus, excepting Latin 2008




For all syllabuses excepting Latin 2008 and Indonesian Extension 2009, Listening texts should be delivered in the ‘slower range of normal background speaker rate of utterance’ (Section 8.3.1).




2015 state review panel reports: Other languages — B32 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 87 of 108













• For all 2008 syllabuses excepting Latin 2008:

- the syllabuses specify that Writing tasks must not be given in advance, nor should questions for Speaking be provided in advance of the actual conversation, as answers have to be ‘spontaneous’ (Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.4)

- Speaking tasks that are open-ended and require coverage of a variety of issues, opinions or perspectives prompt students to use of a ‘wide range of vocabulary and grammar’ and a ‘range of cohesive devices’ (Standard A)

- the syllabuses state that dictionaries may be used in the assessment of Writing (Section 8.3.4). Dictionaries may be hardcopy or online. This does not include translation websites or software; nor should vocabulary lists be provided for Writing tasks.

• For Indonesian Extension 2009:

- all tasks for Speaking require spontaneous language use in realistic situations; for Writing, at least one task should demonstrate spontaneity of expression with no prior preparation (Section 5.5.2)

- the syllabus states that dictionaries may be used in the assessment of Writing (Section 5.5.2). Dictionaries may be hardcopy or online. This does not include translation websites or software; nor should vocabulary lists be provided for Writing tasks.



Page 88 of 108



• For all 2008 syllabuses excepting Latin 2008:




• Levels of achievement are determined by the combination of results for each macroskill. For example, the minimum combination for a VHA (Very High Achievement) is Standard A in any two macroskills and no less than a Standard B in the remaining macroskills (Latin 2008, Section 6.4; Indonesian Extension 2009, Section 5.8; all others, Section 8.5).


• dedicated subject pages: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages, in particular:






George Orfanos Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 89 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages



Philosophy and Reason — A14

Syllabus The Philosophy and Reason 2004 senior syllabus is its eleventh year of implementation. The revised Philosophy and Reason 2014 senior syllabus was implemented with Year 11 for the first time in 2015.

Assessment design Many of the schools offering the subject are able to produce effective assessment instruments which provide opportunities for students to demonstrate achievement across the full range of standards. In packages that were determined not to be effective, it was often because students were not afforded opportunities to demonstrate the Application criterion. Effective assessment instruments ensure that students are able to select and apply:

• appropriate procedures and techniques of deductive reasoning in solving problems

• critical reasoning in reaching and evaluating conclusions, and solving problems.

When assessment instruments do not require students to evaluate philosophical theories and views, this limits opportunities for students to demonstrate the relevant standards and meet syllabus requirements.

Instrument-specific standards matrixes align with instrument demands and include only the objectives that relate to the task. Effectively designed instrument-specific criteria and standards are aligned to the syllabus criteria and standards (syllabus, p. 44), matched to the requirements of the assessment instrument and clearly indicate which aspects of the syllabus criteria and standards descriptors are being assessed.

Application of standards The syllabus standards descriptors are used to make judgments about the extent to which students have demonstrated the general objectives of the syllabus. It is therefore imperative that the judgments about student achievement are made by matching the evidence in student responses with instrument-specific criteria and standards drawn from the syllabus standards (syllabus, p. 44).

Schools match qualities of student responses with the syllabus standards descriptors for each criterion. The standard awarded is an on-balance judgment about how the qualities of the student's response match the standards descriptors overall. It is not necessary for the student to have met every descriptor for a particular standard. On-balance judgments are made by matching evidence in student responses with syllabus standards, taking into account that there may be qualities in the responses that match with more than one standard.

Relative achievement decisions at verification and exit are made by looking at the extent to which standards descriptors have been achieved across the three criteria at a threshold, typical, or better-than-typical standard.

Once the standards have been determined in each of the three criteria — Knowledge, Application and Communication — the table ‘Minimum requirements for exit levels’ (syllabus, p. 47) is used to determine the exit level of achievement.

2015 state review panel reports: Philosophy and Reason — A14 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 90 of 108


• dedicated subject pages — Philosophy and Reason 2014: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/philosophy-reason-2014, Philosophy and Reason 2004: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/philosophy-reason-2004, in particular:






David Shapland Jo Genders State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Philosophy and Reason — A14 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 91 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/philosophy-reason-2014






Physical Education — A24

Syllabus The Physical Education 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Effective written or spoken assessment instruments are those that establish a clearly discernible task statement and focus students towards Dimension 3: Evaluating. Task statements direct students’ working through the use of cognition words that align with the syllabus objectives. Effective instruments highlight the requirement for students to make decisions, reach conclusions, solve problems and justify solutions and actions. Assessment tasks that direct students towards these processes allow students to use information, understandings and skills previously gained in Dimension 1: Acquiring and Dimension 2: Applying.

Succinct task statements are also a feature of effective assessment instruments. These instruments clearly articulate a task that possesses a targeted focus, demonstrating appropriate scope and scale. A more refined task focus provides the opportunity for greater depth in student responses allowing for the demonstration of understanding of the required concepts and principles, and enhanced opportunities to make discerning links between concepts.

In addition, effective instruments should include targeted scaffolding, modelling the processes and skills required (syllabus, p. 24). The syllabus requires that scaffolding be reduced from Year 11 to Year 12 to allow students to better demonstrate independence in research (syllabus, p. 24). Where scaffolding is provided it should assist students to undertake the research process and gather appropriate information to be used in the response. Where scaffolding provides excessive structural assistance or additional requirements to those in the task statement, student responses tend to deviate from the requirements of the task.

Physical performance instruments require students to analyse, synthesise and evaluate data and/or information in the development of a performance. Performances involve the creative input of students and the application of technical skill in solving a problem or providing a solution (syllabus, p. 25). Schools must implement strategies to provide evidence of decisions including clear and detailed annotations on criteria sheets for physical performance assessment (syllabus, p. 25). Schools provide students with the best chances of success when the task requirements for physical performance assessment have clear links to the criteria and are concisely articulated within the assessment instrument.

Application of standards Moderation processes provided evidence of a high standard of comparability across the state. On most occasions, appropriate on-balance judgments were evident for each dimension in relation to the application of each of the descriptors across the standards. Where there was an issue with on-balance judgments, it was generally associated with visual evidence supporting Standard A in Dimension 3 of physical response assessment. Visual evidence in authentic contexts should substantiate that student responses demonstrate the Dimension 3: Evaluating characteristics of decision making, reflection, initiation of change and/or modification of personal and/or team strategies to solve problems (syllabus, p. 31). Visual evidence may include a variety of authentic contexts and be gathered across a period of time as physical performance develops across a unit of work.

2015 state review panel reports: Physical Education — A24 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 92 of 108

Visual evidence should also be accompanied by commentary, explaining the school’s decisions about standards (syllabus, p. 26). This commentary matches what the student is currently demonstrating on camera to the qualities described in the syllabus standards, and provides direct evidence of the school’s decisions about student performances in relation to the standards.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/physical-education-2010, in particular:






Ross Stewart Glenn Amezdroz State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Physical Education — A24 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 93 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/hpe/physical-education-2010



Physics — A45

Syllabus The Physics 2007 (amended 2014) senior syllabus is in its eighth year of implementation.

Assessment design When designing supervised assessment items to provide opportunities in the Knowledge and conceptual understanding dimension, it is recommended that schools review the assessment advice: Interpreting ‘complex’ and ‘challenging’ (see Support below). This describes the level of challenge in the aspects of familiarity, synthesis and abstraction.

Items that validly assess the Evaluating and concluding dimension require students to use the cognitive processes in the standards descriptors of this dimension; i.e. analysis and evaluation, exploration, and justification. Reproduction, interpretation and comparison are not aspects of Evaluating and concluding but rather assess the criteria of the Knowledge and conceptual understanding dimension.

Effective assessment instruments use exit standards in their entirety. When used in isolated parts, particularly from the Investigative processes dimension, exit standards no longer accurately reflect their encompassing general objectives, as detailed in Section 4 of the syllabus.

Well-constructed instrument-specific criteria sheets specify the concepts, theories, principles, processes and/or phenomena that are relevant to the instrument, but do not alter the key cognition/degree words of the syllabus standards or deconstruct the exit standards. Such further guidance could specify the physics, lead the students through a series of steps dictating a solution, or otherwise prevent students from demonstrating the standards. The key cognition and degree words are clearly identified in the Highlighted standards (see Support below).

When setting assessment conditions, it is recommended that schools review the advice for assessment techniques in Section 7.4 of the syllabus. The assessment conditions for a written response in extended experimental investigations and extended response tasks for Year 11 and Year 12 students are outlined in Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.3 respectively, and the assessment conditions for the recommended time of a supervised assessment for Year 11 and 12 students is outlined in Section 7.4.2.

An effective extended experimental investigation collects primary data that allows students to demonstrate ‘systematic analysis’ and to ‘identify relationships between patterns, trends, errors and anomalies’. Although this is commonly done by investigating the effect of more than one independent variable, another effective approach is to progressively refine an experiment to eliminate sources of error. The data collected should have sufficient data points to allow student responses to demonstrate the full range of standards by ‘analysing and evaluating complex scientific interrelationships’ and ‘exploring scenarios with justified conclusions’.

An extended response task requires students to respond to a ‘physics question, circumstance or issue’ (syllabus, p. 25). Effective instruments in this category allow students to demonstrate a full range of standards by using questions and generic structures requiring students to ‘formulate a hypothesis or question’ and then ‘justify conclusions and recommendations’. Tasks should be sufficiently open-ended to allow for ‘exploration of scenarios and possible outcomes’ and address physics concepts that allow for ‘analysis and evaluation of complex scientific interrelationships’.

2015 state review panel reports: Physics — A45 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 94 of 108

Scaffolding is useful in providing students with an outline of the expected format of an assessment response but should not specify the expected physics concepts or lead the student through a series of steps dictating a solution (syllabus, p. 23). It is expected that such scaffolding would be more detailed in Year 11 than Year 12. Inappropriately detailed scaffolding may not allow students the opportunity to demonstrate the full range of standards.

Application of standards Teachers who annotate student responses with feedback using the language of the syllabus standards aid panels looking for evidence to support the school’s placement of their students by relating the evidence of achievement to the associated standard.

Across the syllabus criteria, Standard E is described in terms of evidence of student performance, e.g. ‘reproduction of isolated facts’ (Knowledge and conceptual understanding), ‘recording of data’ (Investigative processes), ‘statements about outcomes’ (Evaluating and concluding). When a student does not respond to an item on a supervised assessment, it is not appropriate to match this to Standard E. However, this non-response must be considered as part of the evidence when making an on-balance decision about the student’s achievement in the relevant criterion (or criteria) for the instrument as a whole. Where a student has not submitted a response to an extended experimental investigation or extended-response task, teacher’s notes describing the student’s in-class performance can be used as evidence to support judgments.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/physics-2007, in particular:


- sample assessment products and assessment advice, including Highlighted standards and Interpreting ‘complex’ and ‘challenging’ (Assessment tab)




David Austin Gary Emerson State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Physics — A45 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 95 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/physics-2007



Science21 — A43

Syllabus The Science21 2010 senior syllabus is in its fifth year of implementation.

Assessment design Very directed collections of specified information which do not provide opportunities for open-ended responses tend to restrict student responses to a typical Standard C. In order for students to have the opportunity to demonstrate the higher standards, extended experimental investigations need to allow students a level of openness of inquiry (syllabus, p. 18).

Units of work and assessment which addressed complex scientific interrelationships between key concepts in differing focus areas provided ample opportunities for students to demonstrate very high levels of achievement.

Where assessment design explicitly directed students to address the full range of exit standards across all dimensions, the match of standards and student achievement was obvious. When there is a clear alignment between task expectations and syllabus standards (i.e. if a task genuinely requires students to analyse, synthesise, justify and evaluate), this is usually reflected in student responses.

Effective assessment questions and tasks that require genuine analysis allow students ‘to break up a whole into its parts, to examine in detail to determine the nature of, or to look more deeply and to detect the relationships between parts’ (syllabus, p. 42). Items that allow students to demonstrate Standard B or higher in analysis allow data, either provided or collected, to be analysed and interpreted by identifying trends and anomalies.

Effectively designed instrument-specific criteria and standards are aligned to the syllabus criteria and standards (syllabus, pp. 35–36), matched to the requirements of the assessment instrument and clearly indicate which aspects of the syllabus criteria and standards descriptors are being assessed.

Application of standards Where evidence was not matched to syllabus standards, it was generally related to coverage of the objectives in the Investigative processes dimension. Drawing a graph demonstrates ‘presentation of scientific data/ideas to make meaning accessible’. In order to meet the objective requirements of ‘analysis of data and information’, students must go beyond graphing to demonstrate their ability to ‘analyse’ which is ‘to break up a whole into its parts, to examine in detail to determine the nature of, or to look more deeply and to detect the relationships between parts’. Similarly, graphing does not address the objective ‘assessment and management of risk, safe selection and use of equipment and technology to gather data’ (syllabus, p. 35).

When a student’s position on the issues and impacts of science was not informed by scientific understanding and scientific evidence, this often prevented them from demonstrating the higher standards across a number of dimensions and objectives.

2015 state review panel reports: Science21 — A43 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 96 of 108


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/science21-2010, in particular:






Ian Stewart Gary Emerson State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Science21 — A43 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 97 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/sciences/science21-2010



Spanish — B52

Syllabus The Spanish 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.




• the expected length — at least one task of approximately 200 words by the end of Year 12















2015 state review panel reports: Spanish — B52 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 98 of 108

















Page 99 of 108


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/spanish-2008, in particular:






Jesús Bergas Paz Lester Ford State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer



Page 100 of 108

https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/languages/spanish-2008



Study of Religion — B20

Syllabus The Study of Religion 2008 senior syllabus is in its seventh year of implementation.

Assessment design The syllabus describes three core components which should span and inform all four semesters of study:

• Australian religious perspectives

• world religions

• the nature and significance of religion.

Effective assessment packages integrate these three core components across all semesters of the course (syllabus, p. 7) and contain the mandatory range of assessment techniques to meet verification requirements (syllabus, p. 64). Assessment instruments should include instrument-specific criteria and standards matrixes developed from the Standards associated with exit criteria (syllabus, pp. 62–63). The following were identified as characteristics of effective assessment.

Effective multimodal presentations and research assignments:

• direct students to identify and investigate a religious phenomenon using the five stages of the inquiry process (syllabus, pp. 10–12)

• allow students to demonstrate the formation, testing and justification of an hypothesis

• direct students to establish the validity of sources through brief and discerning statements in either bibliographies or research notes.

The syllabus provides guidelines in Section 8.3 to inform the development of instruments based on an ethnographic investigation (syllabus, pp. 44–45). Ethnographic investigations include opportunities to observe, record detailed field notes and conduct interviews in order to gain information about the daily life of an adherent and the link between religion and behaviour (syllabus, pp. 44–45). A verification folio must contain evidence of ethnographic investigation (syllabus, p. 64).

Effective response to stimulus instruments:

• require students to engage with the stimulus materials provided to inform responses

• include a manageable number of questions.

Effective short responses to unseen questions under supervised examination conditions require more than recall of key ideas and concepts about religion, and include questions that provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the full range of standards for Criterion 2: Evaluative processes.

2015 state review panel reports: Study of Religion — B20 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 101 of 108

Application of standards When making judgments about student responses, teachers make an on-balance decision about the best match to the standards for each criterion.

Criterion 1: Knowledge and understanding At Standard A, students will draw on a divergent range of materials, issues and phenomena in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts.

Criterion 2: Evaluative processes At Standard A, students demonstrate ‘critical analysis’. Critical is defined in the syllabus as ‘to refer not to one’s attitude toward the content but to ways of thinking that enable us to recognise the assumptions and bias that we might impose’ (syllabus, p. 82).

Criterion 3: Research and communication At Standard A, research questions are ‘well-constructed’ and ‘pertinent’ to the diverse issues students have identified (syllabus, p. 63).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/study-of-religion-2008, in particular:






John Thomas Danielle Flower State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Study of Religion — B20 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 102 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/study-of-religion-2008

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/study-of-religion-2008



Study of Society — B11

Syllabus The Study of Society 2012 syllabus is in its third year of implementation. In 2015, the Year 12 cohort of students was the second to exit using this syllabus.

Assessment design Across the state, moderation processes indicated that schools are designing effective assessment. Effective assessment packages provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the dimensions and objectives of the syllabus (pp. 2–3) across the full range of standards, while also catering for diverse school contexts. Effectively designed assessment instruments align clearly with the core content of the syllabus, allowing students to demonstrate the use of subject-specific terminology, appropriate core theory and relevant theorists (syllabus, pp. 5–6).

Assessment technique: Supervised written The supervised written assessment technique assesses a range of cognition and ensures authenticity as it is produced independently, under supervision and in a set time frame. The verification folio requires one supervised written assessment instrument which must be implemented as an extended written response to an unseen task or question (syllabus, p. 21). This technique is designed to assess sustained analysis, synthesis and evaluation to fully address a problem, question or hypothesis (syllabus, p. 15).

While the supervised written, short response assessment may include a range of item types (syllabus, p. 15), effective instruments are designed to allow the full range of standards to be demonstrated. This involves considering the combination and overall length of responses and the use of succinct stimulus materials to allow students to engage with them in the time provided (syllabus, p. 16).

Assessment technique: Extended response The purpose of the extended response technique is to assess the sustained application of higher order cognition (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) to known and provided materials, stimulus and concepts. This technique may be presented in a variety of modes. When implemented, it may occur over a period of time in class and possibly in students’ own time; however, research is not the focus of this technique (syllabus, p. 19). Effectively designed extended response instruments allow students to demonstrate the full range of standards through the careful selection of provided material, stimuli and concepts. This provides opportunities for students to demonstrate Standards A and B descriptors for this technique.

Assessment technique: Research Effectively designed research assessment instruments incorporate an inquiry approach (syllabus, p. 8). When a research task has a clearly defined scope, students have the opportunity to be discerning both in the evaluation of complex data (Dimension 2: Critical processes) and the use of mode and genre to insightfully achieve particular purposes (Dimension 3: Communication).

2015 state review panel reports: Study of Society — B11 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 103 of 108

Application of standards An on-balance judgment is a decision about how the qualities of the student work match the standards descriptors overall in each dimension. In the majority of sample folios provided, there was evidence to support the on-balance judgments made by schools about the standard awarded in each dimension. It is not necessary for the student to have met every descriptor for a particular standard to be awarded in a particular dimension (syllabus, p. 22).


Dimension 1: Knowledge and understanding This dimension focuses on the ability to describe and use factual information and comprehend and explain facts, terminology, ideas and theories and describe the connections between them. Standard A responses are ‘accurate’ with ‘detailed descriptions’ and ‘thorough explanations’. These qualities enable responses to demonstrate ‘detailed descriptions of complex relationships’ (syllabus, p. 23).

Dimension 2: Critical processes This dimension encompasses the interpretation and analysis of data and information to make, evaluate and justify decisions. Standard A responses display evidence of ‘accurate interpretation and discerning analysis of information’ as well as ‘discerning evaluation of complex data’. Scaffolding provided on assessment instruments should help students to complete the task by modelling the process and skills required, rather than specifying a series of steps dictating a solution (syllabus, p. 18).


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/study-of-society-2012, in particular:






Patrick Cordiner Claire Stevens Acting State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Study of Society — B11 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 104 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/study-of-society-2012

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/study-of-society-2012



Technology Studies — A23

Syllabus The Technology Studies 2013 senior syllabus is in its second year of implementation.

Assessment design The Technology Studies 2013 senior syllabus requires that students use a design process to respond to real-world design problems in consideration of individual and community needs or identified opportunities for improvement or advancement. Design processes are ways of thinking and working that are used to explore design problems to develop viable and innovative solutions. During the interpretation of design problems, students use design factors to identify design criteria that facilitate the development and evaluation of ideas and products throughout the design process. Design is a process that supports students to develop innovation and creativity.

In the context of the syllabus design process:

• design tasks provide students with a real-world context based in a field (e.g. personal, domestic, commercial, agricultural, environment, transport, communication, health or recreation) within which they identify a human need for an individual or a community

• students logically document their thinking within a design process that they have authentically experienced — overt scaffolding of student responses that document or template an artificial process restricts opportunities for students to display evidence of Standards A and B across the three syllabus dimensions

• the syllabus requires the documentation of a design process through the use of a design folio. A design folio provides evidence of student thinking during the solution of a real-world authentic design problem through various stages of a design process including exploring a design problem, developing ideas and producing products. The product produced as the end result of a design process is tested and evaluated in relation to design criteria that the student has identified previously in the design process. Evidence of communication in a design folio is substantively demonstrated through annotated sketches, drawings and photographs. Paragraphs of written text should be kept to a minimum.

The report assessment technique assesses the sustained application of higher order cognition as students explore the relationships between technology and society (syllabus, p. 20), which provides evidence of the syllabus objectives across all three dimensions.

Application of standards Across the state, level of achievement decisions were appropriately made using the syllabus requirements for determining exit levels of achievement. It was evident that schools were appropriately matching student responses in sample folios to the syllabus standards descriptors.

Where evidence did not support school judgments of the match of qualities of student responses with descriptors, it was commonly related to Standard A and B descriptors for Dimension 1: Analysing design problems, Dimension 2: Applying design factors and communicating and Dimension 3: Synthesising and evaluating designs. In particular, in design folios where minimal evidence of Dimension 1: Analysing design problems was provided, support for schools’ application of standards for Dimension 2: Applying design factors and communicating and Dimension 3: Synthesising and evaluating designs was correspondingly difficult to support.

2015 state review panel reports: Technology Studies — A23 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 105 of 108

The exploring stage of the design process requires interpretation of the design problem using design factors and the establishment of a design brief and design criteria. The identification of comprehensive or effective design criteria allows students to provide evidence that aligns to Standards A or B for objectives in Dimension 2: Applying design factors and communicating and Dimension 3: Synthesising and evaluating designs.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/technology-studies-2013, in particular:






Tim Osborne Brad Walmsley State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Technology Studies — A23 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 106 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/technology-studies-2013

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/ict-design/technology-studies-2013



Visual Art — B14

Syllabus The Visual Art 2007 senior syllabus is in its eight year of implementation.

Assessment design Assessment is effective when it provides opportunities for students to demonstrate the objectives through the non-hierarchical and non-sequential processes of researching, developing, reflecting and resolving. Effective assessment design builds in opportunities for students to develop their own personal focus in response to a set concept which they address through the inquiry model (syllabus, p. 6).

The purposeful integration of making and appraising tasks provides opportunities for engagement in both the concept and the student-devised focus. If an appraising task is aligned to both the concept and the student-devised focus of the making task, this allows students to explore and synthesise the interrelationship between their chosen focus and other contexts and media relevant to the concept (syllabus, p. 33). This alignment allows students to reflect on their own work and the work of artists who are relevant to the making task. It also provides students with opportunities to demonstrate Standards A and B as they develop and resolve their body of work.

Many schools encourage students to independently develop their own source images rather than appropriating from other sources including the internet. Where source images are appropriated, the original artist and artwork should be acknowledged (syllabus, p. 28). Similarly, when documenting final resolved works, the scale of the work should be clearly indicated. This can been done effectively through a clear, wide, photographic shot of the work, displayed as it would be viewed by an audience. Using digital templates sourced from major galleries and institutions enables students to visualise and communicate how their works would be viewed and installed in a gallery context.

Effective appraising tasks enable students to select artists and artworks which were closely aligned to the focus, approach or media area being explored in their body of work. These tasks direct students to critically analyse a small number of works to a depth which enables them to form ‘an independent and informed viewpoint’ (syllabus, p. 33) and demonstrate ‘comprehensive’ research into these specific works.

Effective making tasks use logical sequencing. Through an initial series of making tasks using visual language and expression, they allow students to engage with the concept and begin to develop a personal focus in response to the concept. Effective tasks also require research of the concept and personal focus through concrete and tactile investigations and experimentation with media and materials. Students commence a body of work by beginning with the process of developing an art work and reflecting on their initial use of visual language and expression. This provides them with opportunities to attempt divergent paths and to provide evidence of a purposeful considered selection, manipulation and exploitation of materials, technologies, techniques and processes' leading towards a discerning resolution (syllabus, pp. 19, 28, 32).

2015 state review panel reports: Visual Art — B14 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 107 of 108

Application of standards Sample folios provided evidence to support on-balance judgments on the standard awarded in each dimension. Many submissions showed evidence of students working in performance art or time-based media such as film and electronic imaging. Schools innovatively document evidence of student work in these media areas to show planning, preliminary design and experimentation within these media areas.


• dedicated subject page: www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/visual-art-2007, in particular:






Janelle Williams Kathy Owen State Review Panel Chair Senior Education Officer

2015 state review panel reports: Visual Art — B14 51TModeration of Authority subjects offered in 2015


Page 108 of 108

http://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/senior/subjects/arts/visual-art-2007



moderation of authority subjects offered in 2015 · 2016. 7. 29. · this document is a collation...

Documents