2. Understanding Standards: Environmental Science Event
Environmental Science (Higher)

3. Aims of the Day?
To support Teachers, Lecturers and Assessors in their understanding of national standards by:
reviewing candidate evidence
discussing this evidence and associated marking instructions with colleagues
asking questions and seeking clarification about national standards
considering what additional information you would pass on to your students

4. Priorities for today?
Networking! A problem shared is a problem halved…
Are there specific areas of the Course content that you have had difficulty interpreting?
Are there specific areas of the Assignment brief and/or Marking Instructions that you have had difficulty interpreting?
Are there specific areas of the Question Paper and/or Marking Instructions that you have had difficulty interpreting?

5. Candidate numbers 18 new centres presenting candidates
Year
2015
2016
No of centres 9 27
No of entries 83
384
18 new centres presenting candidates
wide variation between centres in number of candidates entered
some new centres entering large numbers of candidates
 cannot read too much into the stats for a few more years yet.

6. %age of candidates by stage
Year
Entries S5 S6
FE colleges
Other
2015 83
29.3%
69.5% -
1.2%
2016
384
23.0%
59.8%
16.4%
0.8%
Progression
Year
Entries
Int2 N5
Higher
CfE Higher
No previous record
2015 83
1.2% 0%
3.7% -
95.1%
2016
384
3.4%
6.3%
0.8%
0.3%
89.3%

7. Grade distributions Year 2015 2016 No of centres 9 27 No of entries 83
384
Grades awarded
% of candidates
Lowest mark* A
13.3 81
8.2 82 B
21.7 69
19.6 70 C
30.1 57
32.9 58 D
12.5 51
9.9 52
No award
20.5
29.3
% A-C
65.1
60.7
* Maximum mark: 120

8. Achievement by component
Year
Mean mark
Assignment
(/20)
Q Paper
(/100)
2015
8.4
53.9
2016
11.3
48.8
A significant improvement in mean assignment mark, and overall quality of the reports has also improved.
A noticeable drop in mean Question Paper mark.

9. Today’s activities Two 1.5-hour workshops Morning: Assignments
Afternoon: Question Papers
You will have a go at marking candidate evidence – on your own to start with, then have a group discussion about marks awarded.
At the end of the event, you will be provided with marker commentary about why marks were/were not awarded.

10. Understanding Standards: Higher Event Environmental Science
Assignment

11. Workshop 1A/2A (Assignment)
Materials:
Copy of the Assignment General Assessment Information (includes Marking Instructions)
Candidate evidence
Workshop prompts
Sheets for recording your thoughts about the evidence
Sheets for recording questions/comments about the assignment – will be collated and discussed in feedback session

12. Aims of the session
To support teachers, lecturers and assessors in their understanding of national standards by:
discussing approaches adopted to candidate support, time allocations, and supervision of research and communication stages
reviewing candidate evidence in ‘tricky’ areas
discussing this evidence and associated Marking Instructions with colleagues
asking questions and seeking clarification about national standards

13. General Considerations 1
At what point in course is Assignment undertaken?
How are candidates prepared?
Candidate guide – ‘Instructions to candidates’?
Marking instructions?
Practice report – developing skills needed?
Support pack?
Free choice of topic / seeds / data handouts?

14. General Considerations 2
“It is recommended that no more than eight hours is spent on the whole assignment”.
easonable assistance may be provided prior to “Reasonable assistance may be given on a generic basis to a class or group of candidates. The term ‘reasonable assistance’ is used to try to balance the need for support with the need to avoid giving too much assistance.”

15. Research Stage 1
“The research stage involves gathering information/data from the internet, books, newspapers, journals, experiment/practical activity or any other appropriate source. Candidates must select, use and record their referenced sources.”
Where is the research done?
How much time is allocated?
How much teacher supervision is appropriate?
Should teacher provide references / sources / data?

16. Research Stage 2 Reasonable assistance may include:
- directing candidates to the Instructions for Candidates
- clarifying instructions/requirements of the task
- advising candidates on the choice of the topic or issue

17. Research Stage 3
Assessors (supervisors) should put in place mechanisms to authenticate that the research is the candidate’s own work. For example:
- regular checkpoint/progress meetings with candidates
- short spot-check personal interviews
- checklists which record activity/progress
- photographs, film or audio evidence
- checking candidate lab books/blogs

18. Communication Stage 1
The communication stage will be conducted under a high degree of supervision. This means:
- candidates must be in direct sight of the assessor (or other responsible person) during the period of the assessment
- candidates must not discuss their work with each other
If the report is done over a number of sessions, then the assessor must retain the candidate’s work between sessions.

19. Communication Stage 2 Reasonable assistance may include:
- directing candidates to the Instructions for Candidates
- clarifying instructions/requirements of the task
At any stage, reasonable assistance does not include:
- providing model answers
- providing feedback on drafts

20. Communication Stage 3 Course Report 2016 Key Points
Candidates should include a clear and achievable aim, and then keep referring back to it while writing up the report to ensure relevance of discussion.
The underlying environmental science is one of the most important elements of the assignment (worth 20% of the marks) and therefore is worthy of considerable attention, though the emphasis should be on quality rather than quantity of discussion.

21. Marking Candidate Evidence 1
Aim (1 mark)
Stated separately from title
Must include a cause and an effect
Underlying Science, data and conclusions must relate to the aim
Much more important than the 1 mark it gains, as it should permeate the whole report

22. Marking Candidate Evidence 2
Apply knowledge and understanding of environmental science (5 marks)
Comprehensive – covers the topic without any glaring omissions
Information correctly interpreted
Written in candidate’s own words
Acknowledged quotes may be included
Quotes and sources of information preferably referenced in text as well as at end

23. Marking Candidate Evidence 3
Selecting Information (2 marks) I
Data from two sources which is sufficient and relevant.
This could include raw data from experiments/practical activities, extracted tables, graphs, diagrams and text. It might include, for example, statistical, graphical, numerical or experimental data; data/information from the internet; published articles or extracts; notes taken from a visit or talk; notes taken from a written or audio-visual source.

24. Marking Candidate Evidence 4
Selecting Information (2 marks) II
It is essential that candidates clearly distinguish between the data included here, the sources from which it comes, and the processed data for the next section.
The raw data/information must be included in the report.

25. Marking Candidate Evidence 5
Processing and presenting data/information I (4 marks)
If either processing or presenting is not included then no marks can be awarded for this section.
Processing can include, for example: performing calculations, summarising referenced text — although the marks are awarded for processing, it must be clear where the raw or extracted data/information came from.

26. Marking Candidate Evidence 6
Processing and presenting data/information II (4 marks)
Presenting processed data/information in appropriate formats from: summary, graph, table, chart or diagram (one must be).
In all cases, sufficient detail should be included to convey the data/information and the source of the original data should be clearly referenced.

27. Marking Candidate Evidence 7
Processing and presenting data/information III (4 marks)
In practice the four marks are awarded as follows:
Appropriate Format (graph, table, chart, diagram)
Axes, headings (variables, units, scales)
Calculations, extraction of data
Cross referencing (associated with information)

28. Marking Candidate Evidence 8
Analyse data/information (2 marks)
Analysis will include interpreting data/information included in the report (which may/may not have been processed by the candidate) to identify relationships.
This may include further calculations.

29. Marking Candidate Evidence 9
Conclusion (1 mark)
Although the conclusion may relate to the aim,
it must be supported by information in their report otherwise the conclusion mark cannot be awarded.

30. Marking Candidate Evidence 10
Evaluation (3marks) I
1 mark for each valid, evaluative comment based on relevant criteria. Must be 3 different comments.
The criteria may include the following:
robustness of findings
validity of sources
reliability of data/information
evaluation of (experimental) procedure

31. Marking Candidate Evidence 11
Evaluation (3marks) II
Robustness — findings are supported by other reputable sources.
Validity of sources — explanation of why a source might be considered to be biased/unbiased, key variables controlled.
Reliability of data/information — from a scientific journal OR sample size, repeated results.

32. Marking Candidate Evidence 12
Evaluation (3marks) III
Evaluation of procedures — could cover all stages of the investigation undertaken, including preparing for the investigation, analysis of the investigation, and the results.
The evaluation could include supporting argument in:
effectiveness of investigation procedures/method
limitations of range and/or balance of sources used limitations of equipment
possible sources of error
possible improvements

33. Marking Candidate Evidence 13
Presentation (2 marks) I
appropriate title – the title should give a clear indication of the content, so not ‘Sewage’ but ‘The effect of sewage on stream communities’.
appropriate structure – although the Marking Instructions do not require that the layout described in the Candidates’ Guide be followed, something very similar should be used. The more clearly laid out, the more easily marked.

34. Marking Candidate Evidence 14
Presentation (2 marks) II
References (to at least two sources) – must be given in sufficient detail to allow them to be retrieved by a third party.
Websites must have full URL (but not a Google reference).
Note the detail required for references to books and journals.

35. Workshop: Assignment

36. Question Paper – general feedback
Statistics indicate the Question Paper performed largely as intended by the writers. An adjustment of 2 marks was made for two questions in the Question Paper.
Some high quality responses were prepared by candidates, reflecting both breadth and depth of knowledge.
Marker & candidate feedback was that it was a fair paper, and that they liked the cross-unit approach and use of ‘suggest’ questions.

37. Question Paper marker feedback (1)
Differing interpretation between subjects of ‘describe the trend’. Note: a range of responses was accepted.
Poor knowledge of basic definitions listed as mandatory content.
Very few candidates were able to discuss the role of the Coriolis effect on atmospheric circulation – lots to say on the tri-cellular model instead.
Very heartening to see that most candidates completed both extended response Questions – this is a marked improvement on last year.

38. Question Paper marker feedback (2)
Candidates are still troubled by calculations calculations were not considered to be challenging other than some involved large values.
Graph production also continues to be challenging – in both Question Paper and Assignment. Basic errors in scale selection and plotting points. Note: markers see black and white scanned copies of Question Papers, so use of colours on graphs could disadvantage the candidate.
Use of bullet points in extended response Questions: depends on the Question, but candidates should be discouraged from using them. List points and then discuss each in more detail is acceptable; lists without wider discussion is not.