select committee on education and recreation report on the quality assurance of the nsc

Select Committee on Education and Recreation

Report on the Quality Assurance of the NSC

19 February 2014

Dr Mafu S Rakometsi

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE NSC RESULTS?

Role of Umalusi, principles, approaches and processes of QA

Dr Mafu Rakometsi - CEO of Umalusi

Role of Umalusi Umalusi is the quality assurer in general

and further education and training of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF)

The Council ensures that the qualifications and curricula within GFET are of quality, that providers of education and training have the capacity to deliver and assess qualifications and are doing so to expected standards of quality, and that assessments are of the required standard

Establishment of Umalusi

Established through the promulgation of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act, 2001 (GENFETQA Act number 58 of 2001, as amended 2008)

Two predecessors, namely the Joint Matriculation Board - JMB (1918) and the South African Certification Council - SAFCERT (1986)

Umalusi started work in 2002 having taken over from SAFCERT

Establishment of Umalusi Umalusi was established as a band education

and training quality assurance body under the GENFETQA Act in 2001 (NQF levels 1-4):

Quality Assuring exit point assessments for qualifications in schools (National Senior Certificate), FET Colleges (N3, NCV) and for Adult (GETC)

Accrediting Independent schools, private FET Colleges and Adult Learning Centres as well as private assessment bodies

Umalusi’s brief In 2007 the review of the Implementation of the

NQF was completed and in 2008 the GENFETQA Act was amended creating Umalusi as one of three Quality Councils with extended mandates, the other two being Council on Higher Education and the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations

The object of the amended Act is to enhance the quality of general and further education and training through:

Development and management of a sub-framework of qualifications for GFET

Umalusi’s brief Quality assurance of: Qualifications and curricula Provision through the accreditation of

private providers of education and assessment, to

provide and assess these qualifications Exit point assessments of the

qualifications

Umalusi’s brief

Certifying learner attainments for these qualifications

Conducting research on matters pertaining to the GFET sub-framework of qualifications

Advising the Minister on matters related to the GFET sub-framework of qualifications

Quality Assurance of the DBE 2013 National Senior Certificate

ExaminationEmmanuel Sibanda – Acting Sen. Manager :

Quality Assurance of Assessments

PURPOSE: To ensure that the question papers are of the required

standard (standard captured in the NCS and SAG’s) To ensure that the question papers are relatively:

- fair- reliable- representative of an adequate sample of the

curriculum - representative of relevant conceptual domains

- representative of relevant levels of cognitive challenge

Moderation of question papers

Moderation of the question papers

Approach: Question papers set by panel of

examiners – DBE Internally moderated by DBE Externally moderated by Umalusi Subsequent moderations and approval

Moderation of the question papersCriteria : Technical criteria Internal moderation Content coverage Text selection, types

and quality of questions

Predictability Cognitive skills Marking

memorandum or guidelines Language and bias


Findings: Areas of Good Practice Percentage of question papers and

memoranda approved after first and second moderation ( Nov 2013- 70% ; Mar 14 – 78%) (out of 130 papers)

Simultaneous moderation of final and supplementary question papers.


Findings: Areas of Concern Adherence to timeframes and impact on

quality of setting and moderation. Question papers requiring more than four

moderations. 2 papers for November 2013 (Isizulu HP P1, Isixhosa

HL P1) and 2 for March 2014 (Business Studies, Isizulu HL P1)

Definition: Internal assessment refers to any

assessment conducted by the provider , the outcome of which count towards the achievement of the qualifications

Umalusi appoints panels of moderators / subject specialist to carry out this mandate

Moderation of internal assessment

Purpose of Umalusi’s verification: To verify the rigour and appropriateness of the DBE

moderation process – linked to DBE plans Ascertain the degree to which assessment bodies/provinces

are attempting to ensure standardisation across Ascertain the standard and quality of the tasks Determine the extent and quality of internal moderation and

feedback. Determine the reliability and validity of the assessment

outcomes

Moderation of internal assessment

Moderation of Internal Assessment

Approach 1 (June/July 2013)- verifying the DBE SBA

moderationPROVINCIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Subjects

All Mathematics, Life Sciences, Physical SciencesAccounting, English FAL, History, Geography, Life Orientation,


Approach 2 (June/July 2013)- Umalusi independent

moderation (own sample)PROVINCIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Subjects

All Economics, Business Studies, Mathematical Literacy, Music, (Practical subjects)Mechanical Technology, Electrical Technology


Areas of good practice: DBE conducted very rigorous

moderation and provided useful verbal feedback to PDE’s at the end of each moderation session

General adherence to policy in terms of number of tasks done, presentation of learner evidence/portfolios.


Areas of concern: While internal moderation is being done in

most schools, much of the focus is on compliance (monitoring) and not on qualitative issues (actual moderation)

Persistent problem of lack of constructive feedback given back to learners after moderation

Teachers are still unable to develop tasks pitched at appropriate cognitive levels: focus is more on lower cognitive level.

Monitoring of Examinations• “State of readiness”• Conduct of examinations• Marking

State of Readiness

Monitored the DBE state of readiness visits in 6 provinces: Eastern Cape, Free State, Kwazulu-Natal, Limpopo, Northern Cape, Gauteng

Comprehensive approach that monitors exam systems (including SBA)

Monitoring of Examinations“State of readiness”

Findings: All provinces have working examination

systems in placeOf concern: Many vacant posts and use of contract staff In some PDE’s closer monitoring printing of

question papers needs attention Inefficient or lack of coordination with districts

wrt exam related processes

Monitoring of the writing phase

Findings:Generally examinations conducted in line with policy Isolated instances of non-compliance (suitability of

venue, identification of learners)

No of exam centres No of exam centers monitored by Umalusi

Total number of Umalusi monitors

6699 159 36

Monitoring of the marking process

Number of marking centres

No of marking centers monitored by Umalusi

Total 118 77

Monitoring of marking processFindings:Marking centres were generally well organised and suitable for the task.Inadequate and inexperienced security and in some provinces,Absence of communication facilities reported at one centre in one province

PURPOSE:Moderation of marking determines the standard

and quality of marking and ensures that marking is conducted in accordance with agreed practices

Umalusi engages the following during the moderation of marking

Pre-marking/memorandum discussion: centralised memo discussions recommended - this will ensure consistency across marking centres

Moderation of marking (centralised and on-site)

Verification of marking

Marking verificationMemo discussion meetings:Areas of good practice: The memo discussions for the approval

of final memoranda went relatively well in 2013. Provision of an extra day of training for marking was very welcome.

Memo discussion meetings Areas of concern: The time between the examination dates and

the memo discussions was generally far too short to allow pre-marking to take place. This was reported in several subjects, and seriously compromised the validity of the process, as meaningful discussion depends on the pre-marking of scripts.

Some provinces sent only one representative or none at all to the memo discussions.

Centralised & on-site marking verification

Areas of good practice: Many external moderators expressed the

opinion that the accuracy of marking had improved slightly.

External moderators unanimous in appreciation of the impact that thorough training at the memo discussion meetings had on the quality of marking.

Centralised & on-site marking verification Areas of concern: Markers still experience problems with regard to interpreting answers to open-ended and higher order questionsUse of rubrics continues to be a serious concern e.g. the inappropriateness of the rubrics used for P3 of HL and FAL: the descriptors do not facilitate good marking. There are still markers marking literature questions, who do not have a thorough knowledge of the stories/dramas/novels/poems they are marking.


Areas of good practice: The DBE exam was generally administered in line with

policy. No major concerns were reported. One can see growth in the administration and conduct of the exams by PDEs.

No of exam centres No of exam centers monitored by Umalusi

No of Umalusi monitors per province

6699 159 36

Examination Irregularities The majority of irregularities were of a technical

nature and these were reported to Umalusi according to the established channels.

Some irregularities were as a result of registration-related problems, e.g. candidates nor appearing on mark sheets, some registered for incorrect subjects.

Umalusi represented on NEIC


STANDARDISATION PROCESS

Why Umalusi standardises results, and how

Provision of GENFETQA – Council may adjust raw marks.

International practice – large scale assessment systems

Standardisation – process used to mitigate the effect of factors other than learners knowledge and aptitude on the learners performance.

Sources of variability – difficulty in question paper, undetected errors, learner interpretation of questions

Objectives for Standardisation To ensure that a cohort of learners is not

advantaged or disadvantaged by extraneous factors other than their knowledge of the subject, abilities and their aptitude.

To achieve comparability and consistency from one year to the next.

Why Umalusi standardises results & how

Assumptions – for large populations the distribution of aptitude and intelligence does not change appreciably

Process of standardisation Moderation of question papers Review of learner performance against historical

performance of candidates in each subject. Historical average (norm) constructed using past 3 to 5

years data. Pairs analyses provides further comparisons of raw

means Statistical moderation of Internal assessment

Why Umalusi standardises results & how Qualitative input meetings Reports (Moderator, Chief Marker and Internal

Moderator) Umalusi research (maintaining standards & post

exam analysis) Responsibility of Assessment Standards

Committee Committee of Council Responsible for setting and maintaining

assessment standards Observers (SAQA, HESA, Teacher Unions)

Process for Standardisation Continuation of JMB and SAFCERT model Assessment Standards Committee Qualitative Reports Pre-standardisation and Standardisation

meetings Standardisation booklets (data) – subject raw

mark distributions (external written component only) of entire cohort.

Subjects are standardised individually, in a linear and non-iterative manner

Principles applied in the standardisation of

examination marks In general no adjustment should exceed 10% or

the historical average In the case of the individual candidate, the

adjustment effected should not exceed 50%of the raw mark obtained by the candidate

If the distribution of the raw marks is below the historical average, the marks may be adjusted upwards subject to the limitations

Statistical moderation

Scope of standardisation 2013 59 standardised Raw marks accepted: 38 subjects Moderated upward : 5 subjects Moderated downward : 16 subjects


STANDARDISATION DECISIONSDBE NSC 2013

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Life Sciences½ CA = 0 at 0, scaled to -6 at 87, block -6 up to 162, scaled to 0 at 281, scaled to -3 at 300

Physical Sciences Raw

Mathematics 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block -6 from 96 to 246, scale to 0 at 300

Mathematical Literacy0 at 0, raw to 180, scale 0 to +6 from 180 to 234, scale to 0 at 300

Mathematics: Probability; Data Handling

½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -15 at 57, block -15 up to 260, scaled to 0 at 300

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Geography 0 at 0, scale to -12 at 102, block -12 from 102 to 268, scale to 0 at 300

History RawReligion Studies RawLife Orientation Raw

Hospitality Studies0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block -6 from 96 to 257, scale to 0 at 300

Tourism½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -6 at 47 scaled to 0 at 119, scaled to +11 at 241, scaled to 0 at 300

Consumer Studies Raw

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Agricultural Science Raw

Agricultural Management Practices RawAgricultural Technology RawMusic RawDance Studies Raw

DesignRaw

Dramatic Arts Raw

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENTVisual Arts Raw

Information Technology Raw

Computer Applications Technology

½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -12 at 50, scaled to 0 at 269, raw up to 300

Civil Technology ½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -14 at 129, scaled to -7 at 300

Electrical TechnologyRaw

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Mechanical Technology0 at 0, scale to -6 at 126, block -6 from 126 to 246, scale to 0 at 300

Engineering Graphics and Design

Raw

Accounting Raw

Business Studies0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block -6 from 96 to 246, scale to 0 at 300

EconomicsRaw

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENTAfrikaans HL block -7

English HL RawIsiNdebele HL CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -13 at

90, scaled to +11 up to 163, scaled to +16 at 218, scaled to 0 at 300

IsiZulu HL Raw

Setswana HL Block -6

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Siswati HL

½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -10 at 93, scaled to 0 at 154,, scaled to +9 at 258 , scaled to 0 at 300

IsiXhosa HL Raw

Xitsonga HL0 at 0, scale to -12 at 73, block of -12 from 73 to 232, scale to 0 at 300.

Tshivenda HL0 at 0, scale to -10 at 30, block of -10 from 30 to 245, scale to 0 at 300.

Sepedi HL½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -13 at 98, block -13 up to 159, scaled to +5 at 276, scaled to 0 at 300

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Sesotho HL0 at 0, scale to -6 at 126, block of -6 from 126 to 233, scale to 0 at 300.

Afrikaans FAL RawEnglish FAL RawIsiNdebele FAL RawIsiZulu FAL Raw

Setswana FAL

CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -30 at 60, block -30 up to 222. scaled to -10 at 259, scaled to -30 at 300

Siswati FAL RawIsiXhosa FAL RawXitsonga FAL Raw

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENT

Tshivenda FALRaw

Sepedi FAL½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -15 at 99, scaled to -5 at 142, block -5 up to 269, scaled to -15 at 300

Sesotho FALRaw

Afrikaans SAL Raw

English SAL Raw

IsiNdebele SAL Raw

IsiZulu SAL Raw

SUBJECT ADJUSTMENTSiswati SAL RawIsiXhosa SAL Raw

Sepedi SAL Raw

Sesotho SAL Raw

Quality Assurance of the IEB 2013 National Senior Certificate

ExaminationEmmanuel Sibanda – Acting Sen. Manager :

Quality Assurance of Assessments


Areas of Good Practice :Percentage of question papers and

memoranda approved after first and second moderation ( Nov 2013- 95% Mar 2014 – 100%)


Term 4 moderation- focus on learner evidence and

teacher files. IEB Subjects Mathematics, Maths Lit, Life Sciences, Geography,Physical Sciences, Accounting, English HL, History, Life Orientation, Business Studies, Economics, Afrikaans FAL,

Moderation of Internal AssessmentFindings: Areas of Good Practice IEB has very good systems and processes in place for SBA

implementation and support of their educators. This is borne out by the generally good quality of tasks

set by the IEB educators.Findings: Areas of Concern The main challenge is how rubrics are developed: there is

some element of vagueness and subjectivity – this leads to differences in interpretation by educators, resulting in differences in allocation of marks

Moderation at school level can also be improved


Scope:No of exam centres No of exam centers

monitored by UmalusiNo of Umalusi deployed for IEB monitoring

187 22 09

Monitoring of the writing phaseFindings: Management of the examinations: Generally examinations conducted in line with policy There is good and ongoing communication between

the IEB and their chief invigilators who control the writing phase competently and professionally

Isolated instances of non-compliance (candidate identification)

Monitoring of centres occurs but it should be done in a more visible onsite and regular basis

Monitoring of the marking phase

Scope:No of marking centres

No of marking centers monitored by Umalusi

No of Umalusi deployed for IEB monitoring

03 03 01

Verification of markingFocus: Memo discussion and on-site marking

verification

Scope: Accounting, Business Studies, Economics,

English HL, English FAL, Afrikaans FAL, History, Geography, Life Sciences, Mathematical Literacy, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences

Verification of marking Findings:The IEB conducts memo discussions in the presence of sub-examiners/Senior markers who are responsible for groups of markers during marking. The sub-examiners/Senior markers then train markers thoroughly on day 2Additions made to the final memo are ratified by the internal moderator and chief examiner. Commendable – IEB is a small system

Verification of marking (cont)Findings:Marking was found to be fair, valid and reliable: attributed to the continuous feedback sessions between the chief examiner, senior sub-examiners, and sub-examinersThe practice of double marking and therefore verification is highly commendableAttention should be paid to instances where it was indicated that moderation doesn’t always involve full moderation of a script but sampled questions

Statistical moderation

Scope of standardisation 2013:

62 subjects standardised

Raw marks accepted: 47 subjects

Moderated upward : 2 subjects

Moderated downward : 13 subjects