2. Central Verification HNC/D AIT Graded Units June 2006

3. Graded Unit 1 (Examination) June 2006

4. Verification Activity  24 centres selected for external verification  Team of 5 moderators over 3 days  Individual verification reports  No holds  Various approaches to marking and verification  Some good practice

5. Assessment Exemplars  Revised exemplars addressed some of the difficulties experienced last session  Questions more demanding in revised assessment exemplars – still not demanding enough for the level  Headroom for better answers needs addressing through the unit specification

6. Marking and Verification  Good practice identified at Graded Unit Workshops had been incorporated in marking and verification —good evidence of prior verification and expanded marking schemes —Clearer indication of marks within questions  Action points from previous year had been addressed, where applicable.

7. Suggestions  Continued development opportunities for centres (dissemination of good practice and networking)  Clearer guidance on central verification (dates, material to be provided, checklist of material submitted)  Amended unit specification and exemplar material

8. Graded Unit 2 (Examination) June 2006

9. Verification Activity  6 centres selected for external verification  Team of 5 moderators over 2 days  Late submissions addressed by postal verification  Individual verification reports  One hold  Various approaches to marking and verification  Some good practice

10. Assessment Exemplars  Demanding papers  Marking scheme very prescriptive  Value of the case scenario? —Marks were not awarded for referencing case scenario  Did not allow the range of grades expected

11. Marking and Verification  Good evidence of prior and post-delivery verification  Marking scheme amended to allow answers well below that expected at SCQF Level 8.

12. Suggestions  Continued development opportunities for centres (events to focus on delivery and marking of HND AIT graded units)  Clearer guidance on central verification (dates, material to be provided, checklist of material submitted)

13. Graded Unit 3 (Project) June 2006

14. Verification Activity  6 centres selected for external verification  Team of 5 moderators over 2 days  Late submissions addressed by postal verification and visiting verification (one postal and one visiting)  Individual verification reports  No holds  Various approaches to marking and verification  Some good practice

15. Assessment Exemplars  Inconsistencies between unit specification and exemplars  Poor guidance on making an assessment decision  Scenario presented in Exemplar 1 was flawed and was open to misinterpretation  Did not allow the range of grades expected

16. Marking and Verification  Good evidence of prior, ongoing and delivery verification, together with expanded marking schemes and marking checklists  Good evidence of support given to students and feedback  Need to reinforce independent working

17. Suggestions  Withdrawal of Exemplar 1  Continued development opportunities for centres (events to focus on delivery and marking of HND AIT graded units)  Clearer guidance on central verification (dates, material to be provided, checklist of material submitted)