New Zealand Diploma in Business National External Moderation Reports Tertiary Assessment & Moderation

National External Moderation Report Summary comments Section A – Submission of Material Section B – Assessment Materials Section C – Assessor Decisions

Summary Comments Moderation results:  The submission met the national standard or  The submission did not meet the national standard. An overview of the content of the moderation report Recommendations

Summary Comments Cont Example 1 The national standard has not been met.  Topics 1 and 3 are under assessed while topics 2 and 4 are over assessed (see Section B3).  Some marking schedules were missing. Recommendations: Suggest combining test 1 and test 2 into one, resulting in three assessments instead of four.

A.Submission of Material List of specific materials not submitted for moderation. Example 2  Suggested solution and marking schedule for Assignment one not provided.  Suggested solution and marking schedule for Assessment two Q 1a and 1b not provided.

B1.Are all the learning outcomes assessed?  All learning outcomes have to be assessed to meet the national standard.  Assessment criteria provide the minimum evidence required for achieving learning outcomes.  Example 3 Example 3

B1.Cont Example 3 Learning outcome three was not sufficiently assessed:  Key assessment criteria 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 were not assessed. Example 4

B2. Do the assessment activities assess the learning outcomes at an appropriate level as specified in the prescription? 100 level prescriptions require assessment of students’ knowledge and comprehension of material. Example 5 The assessment activities are not at the required level. Some of the calculation type questions need to be replaced with ‘explain’ and ‘compare and contrast’ questions to meet the prescription requirements.

B2 Cont. 200 level prescriptions require assessment of students’ ability to analyse, evaluate and apply processes and procedures. Example 6 The assignment/case studies are merely a collection of calculation exercises. Student samples should provide evidence that the student is able to satisfactorily answer questions that require independent thinking.

B3.Are the prescription’s weightings adhered to? Example 7 Learning outcome three has been weighted higher (14%) than required in the prescription (7 to 12 %), and learning outcome four has been weighted too low (19%) compared with the required 25 to 35 per cent.

B4. Are the assessment conditions and instructions clear and appropriate? Example 8 No marking criteria were given to students in Part B of assignment 1 and for assignment 2. Failure to indicate the mark allocations to students could create confusion as to degree of work required.

B6.Do the marking schedules allow for a range of appropriate student responses? Example 9 Both exam marking guides have pre- determined answers which do not appear to allow for a range of responses. Solutions were overly prescriptive.

B7. Is the way in which marks are awarded sufficiently detailed to enable consistent marking? Example 10 For Assignments 3, 4 and Final Exam, the marking schemes do not provide detailed allocation of marks. The marks that are assigned for each section of the essays do not allow for objective evaluation. For example, both essays allocate 40 marks to the discussion but there is no guidance on how to allocate these marks.

B8. Are the marking schedules consistent with the requirements of the prescription and assessment materials? Example 11 Not for exam:  Final exam: Q5 – marking schedule does not cover implications as per instructions to students.  Final exam Q8 – no answer is given.

B9. Was the candidates’ work marked consistently according to the marking schedule? Example 12 Marking is neither correct nor consistent:  Upper quartile student has two figures incorrect and has been given 7 out of 8.  Median student has all the correct figures (albeit not as per the marking schedule and layout is not exact) and has been given 4 out of 8.  Lower quartile student has most of the figures correct, layout is not exact and is incomplete and has been given 1 out of 8.

Moderation results Clarify Appeal details available at: tertqual/dipbus/appeals.html tertqual/dipbus/appeals.html