Portfolio Committee on Basic Education Report on the Quality Assurance of the NSC 18 February 2014 Dr Mafu S Rakometsi

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE NSC RESULTS? Introduction to context, principles, approaches and processes Dr Mafu Rakometsi - CEO of Umalusi

Regulatory Framework Quality Assurance of Assessment NQF Act Section 27 (h) The QC must develop and implement policy and criteria for assessment for the qualifications on its sub-framework.

Section17 of the GENFETQA Act (5) The Council must, with the concurrence of the Director-General and after consultation with the relevant assessment body or education institution, approve the publication of the results of learners if the Council is satisfied that the assessment body or education institution has— (i) conducted the assessment free from any irregularity that may jeopardise the integrity of the assessment or its outcomes; (ii) complied with the requirements prescribed by the Council for conducting assessments; (iii) applied the standards prescribed by the Council which a learner is required to comply with in order to obtain a certificate; and (iv) complied with every other condition determined by the Council.

Framework for QA of Learner Achievement  Based on established and existing practices in assessment for certification  Prescribed components of external assessment (examinations) and Site-based/ internal / continuous assessment  Use of systems, processes, and procedures to evaluate, inspect, monitor and report on examination systems, processes and procedures of public and private assessment bodies.

Framework for Quality Assurance of Assessment  Evaluation and /or accreditation of assessment bodies  Periodic inspection of assessment systems  Ongoing monitoring of assessment systems  Quality assurance of external examinations through: Moderation of examination question papers Monitoring and moderation of SBA Monitoring the conduct of examinations Moderation of marking Standardization of assessment outcomes

Approval for the release of Results Approval is based on the following requirements:  The examinations are conducted compliant to the applicable policies regulating the conduct and administration of the examinations  At the time of approval, there is no serious irregularity which could undermine the credibility of the examinations.

Quality Assurance of the DBE 2013 National Senior Certificate Examination Emmanuel 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 papers Criteria:  Technical criteria  Internal moderation  Content coverage  Text selection, types and quality of questions  Predictability  Cognitive skills  Marking memorandum/guidelines  Language and bias

Moderation of the question papers Findings: Areas of Good Practice  Percentage of question papers and memoranda approved after first and second moderation ( Nov % ; Mar 14 – 78%)  Simultaneous moderation of final and supplementary question papers

Moderation of the 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 ( cont.)

Moderation of Internal Assessment Approach 1 (June/July 2013)- verifying the DBE SBA moderation PROVINCIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Subjects AllMathematics, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences Accounting, English FAL, History, Geography, Life Orientation,

Moderation of Internal Assessment Approach 2 (June/July 2013)- Umalusi independent moderation (own sample) PROVINCIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Subjects AllEconomics, Business Studies, Mathematical Literacy, Music, (Practical subjects) Mechanical Technology, Electrical Technology

Moderation of Internal Assessment Areas of good practice:  DBE conducted a very rigorous moderation and provided useful verbal feedback to PED at the end of each moderation session  Certain pockets of improvement wrt SBA implementation although far and wide  General adherence to policy in terms of number of tasks done, and presentation of learner evidence/portfolios.

Moderation of Internal Assessment Areas of concern:  While internal moderation is being done in most schools, much of the focus is on compliance (monitoring) and not on the quality of assessment (actual moderation)  Teachers are still unable to develop tasks pitched at appropriate cognitive levels: focus is more on lower cognitive level  Assessment of practical investigations, research projects, assignments and simulations still a major problem  The use and development of rubrics is problematic: descriptors are unrealisable and vague

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 place Of concern:  In certain PDE’s closer monitoring of printing of question papers needs attention  Inefficient or lack of proper 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 centresNo of exam centers monitored by Umalusi No of Umalusi monitors per province

Monitoring of the marking phase Number of marking centres No of marking centers monitored by Umalusi Total11877

Monitoring of marking phase: Findings:  Marking centres were generally well organised and suitable for the task  Inadequate and inexperienced security 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 with 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 verification Memo discussion meetings: Areas of good practice:  The memo discussions for the approval of final memoranda went relatively well in Provision of an extra day of training in marking was very welcome

Memo discussion meetings (cont) Areas of concern:  Not all representatives did pre-marking. Provincial representatives often experienced problems accessing a sample of scripts to pre-mark before coming for memo discussion meetings  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 and consistency depends on the pre-marking of scripts

Memo discussion meetings (cont) Areas of concern:  Some provinces sent only one representative or none at all to the memo discussions.  The fact that the memo discussions for African languages, HL, SAL and FAL took place in the same time slot caused problems because there was only one internal and external moderator for these levels in some languages.

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 were unanimous in their appreciation of the positive impact that the thorough training at the memo discussion meetings had had on the quality of marking.

Centralised & on-site marking verification (cont) Areas of concern:  Markers still experience problems with regard to interpreting answers to open-ended and higher order questions  Use of rubrics continues to be a serious concern in particular the inappropriateness of the rubrics used for P3 of HL and FAL: the descriptors did facilitate good marking. This needs revisiting by the DBE as it has a bearing on the marks allocated  There are still markers marking literature questions, who do not have a thorough knowledge of the stories/dramas/novels/poems they are marking

Monitoring of the writing phase. 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 in PDEs. No of exam centresNo of exam centers monitored by Umalusi Total number of Umalusi monitors

Standardisation and verification of resulting  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

Statistical moderation Scope of standardisation 2013:  59 standardised  Raw marks accepted: 38 subjects  Moderated Upward : 5 subjects  Moderated Downward : 16 subjects

Verification of the Resulting Process PlannedStatus Subject structuresSubject structures verified. Candidate registrationSystem verified during state of readiness visits. Generation of mark SheetsMonitored Capturing of MarksMonitored Standardisation data & Booklets Data sets received and verified Capturing of adjustmentsVerified Statistical moderation & resulting Verified

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

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE NSC RESULTS? STANDARDISATION DECISIONS DBE NSC 2013

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Life Sciences ½ 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 Literacy 0 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

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Geography 0 at 0, scale to -12 at 102, block -12 from 102 to 268, scale to 0 at 300 HistoryRaw Religion Studies Raw Life Orientation Raw Hospitality Studies 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block -6 from 96 to 257, scale to 0 at 300 Tourism ½ 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

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Agricultural Science Raw Agricultural Management PracticesRaw Agricultural Technology Raw Music Raw Dance StudiesRaw Design Raw Dramatic Arts Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Visual ArtsRaw 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 Technology Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Mechanical Technology 0 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 Studies 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block - 6 from 96 to 246, scale to 0 at 300 Economics Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Afrikaans HL block -7 English HLRaw IsiNdebele HLCA = 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 HLRaw Setswana HLBlock -6

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT 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 HL 0 at 0, scale to -12 at 73, block of -12 from 73 to 232, scale to 0 at 300. Tshivenda HL 0 at 0, scale to -10 at 30, block of -10 from 30 to 245, scale to 0 at 300. Sepedi HL ½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -13 at 98, block -13 up to 159, scaled to +5 at 276, scaled to 0 at 300

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Sesotho HL 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 126, block of -6 from 126 to 233, scale to 0 at 300. Afrikaans FALRaw English FALRaw IsiNdebele FALRaw IsiZulu FALRaw 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 FALRaw IsiXhosa FALRaw Xitsonga FALRaw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Tshivenda FAL Raw Sepedi FAL ½ 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 FAL Raw Afrikaans SAL Raw English SAL Raw IsiNdebele SAL Raw IsiZulu SAL Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Siswati SAL Raw IsiXhosa SALRaw Sepedi SAL Raw Sesotho SALRaw

Quality Assurance of the IEB 2013 National Senior Certificate Examination Emmanuel Sibanda – Sen. Manager : Quality Assurance of Assessments

Moderation of the question papers Areas of Good Practice:  Percentage of question papers and memoranda approved after first and second moderation ( Nov % Mar 2014 – 100%)  Examining panels must be acknowledged for their favourable response to the External Moderator’s requests for changes and recommendations made

Moderation of Internal Assessment Term 4 moderation- focus on learner evidence and teacher files IEBSubjects Mathematics, Maths Lit, Life Sciences, Geography, Physical Sciences, Accounting, English HL, History, Life Orientation, Business Studies, Economics, Afrikaans FAL,

Moderation of Internal Assessment Findings: 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 of criteria – this leads to differences in interpretation by educators, resulting in differences in allocation of marks.  Moderation at school level can also be improved.

Monitoring of the writing phase. Scope: No of exam centresNo of exam centers monitored by Umalusi No of Umalusi deployed for IEB monitoring

Monitoring of the writing phase. Findings: Management of the examinations:  Generally examinations conducted in line with policy  There is good and ongoing communication between the IEB and their chief invigilator controlled 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 markingphase. Scope: No of marking centresNo of marking centers monitored by Umalusi No of Umalusi deployed for IEB monitoring 03 01

Verification of marking Focus:  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 (cont) 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 2.  Additions made to the final memo are ratified by the internal moderator and chief examiner. Commendable – IEB is a small system.  Marking was found to be fair, valid and reliable: attributed to the continuous feedback sessions between the chief examiner, senior sub-examiners, and sub- examiners.  The practice of double marking and therefore verification is highly commendable.  Attention should be paid to instances where 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

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Life Sciences ½ 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 Literacy 0 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

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Geography 0 at 0, scale to -12 at 102, block -12 from 102 to 268, scale to 0 at 300 HistoryRaw Religion Studies Raw Life Orientation Raw Hospitality Studies 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block -6 from 96 to 257, scale to 0 at 300 Tourism ½ 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

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Agricultural Science Raw Agricultural Management PracticesRaw Agricultural Technology Raw Music Raw Dance StudiesRaw Design Raw Dramatic Arts Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Visual ArtsRaw 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 Technology Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Mechanical Technology 0 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 Studies 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 96, block - 6 from 96 to 246, scale to 0 at 300 Economics Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Afrikaans HL block -7 English HLRaw IsiNdebele HLCA = 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 HLRaw Setswana HLBlock -6

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT 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 HL 0 at 0, scale to -12 at 73, block of -12 from 73 to 232, scale to 0 at 300. Tshivenda HL 0 at 0, scale to -10 at 30, block of -10 from 30 to 245, scale to 0 at 300. Sepedi HL ½ CA = 0 at 0 scaled to -13 at 98, block -13 up to 159, scaled to +5 at 276, scaled to 0 at 300

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Sesotho HL 0 at 0, scale to -6 at 126, block of -6 from 126 to 233, scale to 0 at 300. Afrikaans FALRaw English FALRaw IsiNdebele FALRaw IsiZulu FALRaw 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 FALRaw IsiXhosa FALRaw Xitsonga FALRaw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Tshivenda FAL Raw Sepedi FAL ½ 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 FAL Raw Afrikaans SAL Raw English SAL Raw IsiNdebele SAL Raw IsiZulu SAL Raw

SUBJECTADJUSTMENT Siswati SAL Raw IsiXhosa SALRaw Sepedi SAL Raw Sesotho SALRaw

Annexure to Approval Letter to DBE Specific concerns regarding the quality assurance of the NSC examination and assessment:  There has been some improvement with regard to adherence to timeframes. However, there are subjects where improvements must be made. 25 November and 25 March question papers were submitted in May/June 2013 for first moderation. It is important to note that for the credibility of the NSC examination it is vitally important that every effort is made to adhere to agreed deadlines for setting and moderation of question papers. Any delays affect Umalusi in its quality assurance exercise.

Annexure to Approval Letter to DBE There have also been some improvements made pertaining to administration of SBA and presentation of learner evidence of performance. Having said this, the following issues were found to be problematic:  Internal moderation reports are generally not available.  Lack of constructive feedback given back to learners after moderation.  Teachers are still challenged regarding the development of tasks pitched at appropriate cognitive levels: focus is more on lower cognitive level.  Assessment of Practical investigations, Research projects, Assignments and simulations still remains a major problem.

Annexure to Approval Letter to DBE  The use and development of rubrics is problematic: descriptors are unrealisable and vague.  Assessment of the Physical Education Task (PET) in Life Orientation continues to be a problem – inflation of marks.  A number of problems were reported with regard to the standard and quality of marking and these clearly hinge on the calibre of people appointed as markers. DBE is urged to look closely into the appointment of markers.

Annexure to Approval Letter to IEB Specific concerns that require remediation:  The quality of question papers submitted at first moderation. 58% of the question papers were not compliant with regard to Umalusi criterion that looks into the technical aspects or the face validity of the question paper. It should be borne in mind that question papers submitted to Umalusi must be in their print-ready form.  The quality of the memoranda submitted for moderation should be looked into.

Annexure to Approval Letter to IEB  The issue of rubrics used for assessment of learner work in SBA needs to be looked into. As Umalusi we strongly believe that rubrics are meant to facilitate marking, and should therefore leave no room for ambiguity on the part of educators who are meant to use these.  It was again observed that in Life Orientation there was a kink at the 80% level. The IEB was requested in 2012 to address this matter. Having noted this, the IEB is again urged to ensure the bulging of marks at the 80% level does not recur. If this problem persists in 2014 Umalusi would have no choice but to take appropriate corrective measures.

Conclusion  The findings of the quality assurance processes are a clear indication of a maturing system that has, on the one hand, made positive strides towards improvement in certain areas of assessment and examination, but, on the other hand, still has a few challenges that need to be addressed.  The quality assurance of each of these processes presented above was conducted based on Umalusi criteria. Umalusi uses criteria that are subjected to constant review and refinement, to ensure that they are in line with current trends in assessment and examinations.

Conclusion…  In general Umalusi is pleased with the manner in which the 2013 NSC examination was administered.  Umalusi acknowledges that a number of technical irregularities were reported, but these were addressed in a fitting manner.  Umalusi takes this opportunity to express appreciation to the national & provincial departments of education for their concerted effort in ensuring a credible examination.  Umalusi expresses appreciation also to all the relevant stakeholders for the necessary support given in line with Umalusi quality assurance initiatives.

Thank you!