Exam iners’ Report /

Principal Exam iner Feedback

June 2011

History

Cont rolled Assessm ent

5HA04 01 / 5HB04 01

Edexcel is one of the leading exam ining and awarding bodies in the UK and

throughout the world. We provide a wide range of qualificat ions including

academ ic, vocat ional, occupat ional and specific program m es for em ployers.

Through a network of UK and overseas offices, Edexcel’s cent res receive the

support they need to help them deliver their educat ion and t raining

program m es to learners.

For further inform at ion, please call our GCE line on 0844 576 0025, our

GCSE team on 0844 576 0027, or visit our website at www.edexcel.com .

I f you have any subject specific quest ions about the content of this

Exam iners’ Report that require the help of a subject specialist , you m ay find

our Ask The Expert em ail service helpful.

Ask The Expert can be accessed online at the following link:

ht tp: / / www.edexcel.com / Aboutus/ contact -us/

Alternat ively, you can contact our History Advisor direct ly by sending an

em ail to Mark Bat tye on HistorySubjectAdvisor@EdexcelExperts.co.uk.

You can also telephone 0844 576 0034 to speak to a m em ber of our subject

advisor team .

June 2011

Publicat ions Code UGO28188

All the m ater ial in this publicat ion is copyright

© Edexcel Ltd 2011

PM Report on CA 2 0 1 1

Cent res are rem inded that an E9 report has been writ ten by the person who

m oderated their work, which provides feedback specifically on the

perform ance of their own candidates. This can be accessed via

www.edexcelonline.co.uk and all exam inat ions officers in schools and

colleges will have the necessary login and password details. These individual

reports should be read in conjunct ion with this Report , which will also

highlight st rengths and weaknesses of the work seen this sum m er and offer

som e guidance for schools as their next cohort undertakes this unit .

General Com m ents

Work from approxim ately 67,000 students, subm it ted by 1244 cent res, was

m oderated this sum m er. The m ost popular choices were CA5 on Vietnam ;

CA8 on policing; CA11 on Britain 1955-1975 and CA6 on protest in the USA.

There were also a num ber of cent res who did CA9 on Northern I reland;

CA10 on the I m pact of War; CA4 on China under Mao; CA1 on Germ any

1918-39; CA2 on Russia 1917-39 and CA 3 on the USA 1919-41. Few

cent res chose to do CA7 on I ndia, CA12 on Britain 1970-90 or CA13, a local

study. However, when cent res did choose to do one of the less popular

tasks it was often well prepared, perhaps reflect ing the enthusiasm of the

teacher or the special relevance of the topic for the students.

The efforts m ade by the teachers involved to check the requirem ents of this

unit , to prepare their students appropriately and to m ark accurately, were

great ly appreciated by the m oderat ing team . The vast m ajor ity of the work

we saw from candidates m ade a genuine effort to engage with the dem ands

of the new specificat ion and did credit to both students and teachers. The

adm inist rat ion and presentat ion of the work was also usually thorough and

diligent and this m ade the m oderat ion process very st raight forward in m ost

cases.

Nevertheless, som e problem s did ar ise from a m isunderstanding of the

regulat ions. Most of these issues will be dealt with at the appropriate point

in this report . However, the fact that at any point there are 2 sets of tasks

available, did lead to som e cent res adopt ing a ‘pick ‘n’ m ix’ approach. I t

m ust be st ressed that Part A and Part B MUST be from the sam e task. I t is

also ant icipated that next year som e cent res m ay not realise that the first

set of tasks will no longer be valid. I t is vita l that centres ensure the

tasks com pleted w ill st ill be valid at the point w hen they are

subm it ted.

Part A

Although every task had four bullet points in Part A, providing the

opportunity for different students to answer different enquiry tasks, m ost

schools chose to prepare their students for a single enquiry focus. The

candidates were usually clear that this was an enquiry, requir ing an

invest igat ion and weighing of the evidence, rather than a sim ple descr ipt ion

of the situat ion. Som e cent res reworded the bullet point into a quest ion, to

provide a focus for their students’ analysis which is ent irely appropriate for

m any candidates.

I t should be noted that the enquiry focus heading should be used in

conjunct ion with the bullet point . Thus, for CA3 (2009-2011) the first

enquiry focus was ‘Problem s in Am erican society in the 1 9 2 0 s’ and

the choice of bullet points within that focus was The im pact of prohibit ion

and organised cr im e OR The extent of racism . These could be rephrased in

various ways, for exam ple, ‘To what extent did prohibit ion and organised

cr im e cause problem s within Am erican society in the 1920s?’ or ‘What was

the im pact of prohibit ion and organised cr im e on Am erican society in the

1920s?’ Students were expected to weigh the evidence for and against the

idea that the im pact of prohibit ion and organised cr im e caused problem s in

Am erican society but they were not expected to cover m ore than one bullet

point or to suggest alternat ive causes of problem s.

Where the enquiry focus is on the extent of change or significance of an

event , Level 4 requires evaluat ion from the candidate. An analysis of what

changed or a com parison of before and after does not have the necessary

elem ent of weighing up different aspects in order to reach a judgem ent for

Level 4 m arks. Sim ilar ly, in CA8, the enquiry focus was on Changes in

policing and the m ost popular bullet point was A com parison of the

invest igat ive m ethods used in the cases of Jack the Ripper (1888) and the

Yorkshire Ripper (1975–81) . Answers here needed to m ake com parisons

between the invest igat ion m ethods used in the two cases in order to show

changes in policing. The task was not sim ply an analysis of each case or

even a com parison of the two cases.

Cent res should also ensure that candidates address the key points of the

enquiry focus and do not see it as an opportunity to write everything they

know. CA1 covers Germ any from 1918-39, it does not cover the period of

the Second World War, so com m ents about the success of the Nazis in

solving econom ic problem s should not focus on what happened after 1939.

Furtherm ore, the bullet point on the role of Hit ler in the r ise of the Nazis is

specifically on the per iod 1925-32, so answers which focused on the

Versailles Treaty and Munich Putsch cannot be highly rewarded. CA10 on

the I m pact of War covers the period up to 1950 and thus answers on the

changing role of wom en should include changes after the war as well as

during the war.

Therefore the focus often provides an indicat ion of the expected approach

( the extent of .. , turning points, the success of …, the im pact of ..) and the

bullet point narrows the enquiry within a specific date range, specific

policy, or a group of society. Students should not at tem pt to cover m ore

than one bullet point or to provide a general overview. I nstead they should

offer a focused analysis and evaluat ion – how far did the situat ion change,

was an event a turning point , were these policies successful, what was the

role of a factor, what were the effects, which cause was m ost im portant etc.

This is intended as a focused analysis and relat ively short pieces often

scored highly while lengthy descript ions or analyt ical pieces which aim ed to

cover all aspects, were less highly rewarded. Moderators expressed

surprise at the am ount som e students were able to write in 1 hour but they

noted that the high scoring pieces were often based on concise and well

ordered notes whereas candidates who t r ied to cram too m any details into

their notes often produced unst ructured essays which failed to establish an

argum ent . Cent res are also rem inded that notes should be in the form at of

m ind m aps, bullets points, short phrases etc but should not const itute the

basis of a draft answer.

Students generally seem ed com fortable with this style of assignm ent and

work was seen across the full range of the m ark schem e. Teachers were

also confident in dist inguishing between descript ion and the provision of

relevant inform at ion at Level 2, analysis which focused on the quest ion at

Level 3, and sustained analysis and evaluat ion at Level 4. I t was

part icular ly helpful where the work was annotated to indicate where the

various qualit ies were displayed that just ified the final m ark awarded.

Underlining of phrases such as ‘The effect of this was …’, and ‘This was very

effect ive because …’, or m arginal annotat ion such as ‘L2 narrat ive’, ‘L3

analysis’, and ‘good evaluat ion of effect iveness’ was very valuable for

m oderators, rather than the use of t icks.

The following exam ple shows good pract ice in m arking and assessm ent

through the use of com m ents such as : L3 analysis; accurate support ing

info; judgem ent .

I t is acceptable for teachers to help their students prepare for this work and

it is expected that class discussions will consider a range of points on the

issue in quest ion. Teachers m ay also discuss how to plan an essay –

possibly using one of the alternat ive bullet points as an exam ple. However,

students are expected to plan their own essays. I n a sm all num ber of

cases, the students m ade basically the sam e com m ents, in the sam e order.

I n such cases, the m oderator looked at the notes and plans of each student

to see if it seem ed as though a tem plate had been used. Moderators

queried several occasions where students all produced ext rem ely sim ilar

essays and where undue support seem ed to have been offered. Som e

students who seem ed to have basic literacy suddenly included polysyllabic

phrases or students who had apparent ly writ ten their work without any

notes or plan, st ill m anaged to include specific dates, figures, and even

quotat ions.

I n the early stages of a new assessm ent teachers are som et im es unsure

about the level of assistance that is perm issible and this results in varying

levels of guidance being given. This clar ificat ion is offered both to reassure

teachers that som e support is perm issible and to define the point at which

such guidance should stop. Discussion of individual details and general

advice about planning and st ructur ing an essay are both acceptable but

specific advice about the plan to be followed or the detail to be included in

the assessed work, should not be given.

One aspect of Part A that did cause anxiety am ong teachers and som e

difficulty for m oderators, was the st rand within the m ark schem e for

rewarding the ident ificat ion and use of sources. Students are not required

to reference their sources through footnotes (although this is obviously

acceptable) but they should m ake it clear that they are select ing and

deploying inform at ion from a range of sources. This m ight be done through

direct com m ent in the text , for exam ple ‘as Leonard and Whit tock say’ or

‘the picture on page xx of Waugh and Wright ’. Since they can prepare a

bibliography to br ing into the write up session, som e students num bered

the item s on their bibliography and then put the num ber of the relevant

work in the m argin or in brackets in the essay, as in the exam ple below. I f

the student did not indicate the sources in som e way, it was also possible

for the teacher to annotate the work to show which sources have been used

to provide the details being used.

I n what is for m any students and teachers, their first Cont rolled

Assessm ent , this was not always done very clearly. There were a num ber

of quest ions at inset sessions or through the website to say that the

im portance of sources being explicit ly indicated had not been realised. I n

each case, the teachers were reassured that students would not be

penalised if there was som e indicat ion by the teacher that a range of

sources had been consulted. However, this is an elem ent of the m ark

schem e at all levels and centres should be aw are that high m arks w ill

not be possible in the future w ithout a clear indicat ion of this

personal elem ent of enquiry and select ion and deploym ent of

inform at ion and it should also be possible for the m oderator to see this in

the student ’s notes.

I n order to m eet the requirem ent to use a range of sources, students are

expected to use 5 or m ore different sources of inform at ion. There are no

rest r ict ions on the type of sources to be used – they can be textbooks, work

by histor ians, books for the general public, websites, m edia sources etc.

However, the expectat ion is that ‘sources’ here m eans sources of

inform at ion ( i.e. works of som e kind) rather than short ext racts or im ages

which are used as sources in Unit 3. I f students wish to have quotat ions,

ext racts from prim ary sources or exam ples of propaganda with them in the

write up session, these m ust form part of the perm it ted 2 pages of notes,

they cannot be in addit ion to their notes.

Since students are rewarded for ident ifying and select ing m aterial from

appropriate sources, they should not be provided with a standard set of

sources and told how to use them in the essay. I t is recognised that

schools with large cohorts m ay have problem s resourcing this aspect of the

enquiry and it is perfect ly acceptable to m ake a core set of texts and list of

websites available to students for them to consult and m ake their own

select ion of detail. I n the sam e way, all the class will have access to the

sam e source if a film clip is used or a visit to a m useum is organised but

individual students will m ake different use of these sources. Therefore the

candidates’ bibliographies m ay be sim ilar but m oderators would expect to

see m arked differences in the notes m ade, and the use m ade of these

sources. A single bibliography used by all students is not appropriate.

I t was also part icular ly helpful where cent res had provided som e indicat ion

of how students had been prepared for this assessm ent , for exam ple

explaining that som e texts had been provided for all the class and the

hom ework was then to study and select the sect ions they wanted to use, or

explaining that students had been given a list of suitable internet sites but

they had m ade their own select ion of m aterial.

Part B

I n both Bi and Bii a problem arose when students t reated the work on the

representat ions in the sam e way as they would t reat sources in a Unit 3

quest ion. The quest ions in Bi and Bii were not asking about how reliable or

how useful the representat ions were and therefore an approach which

focused on issues such as nature, origin and purpose, often did not score

highly.

Students need to appreciate that representat ions give an overall im pression

or interpretat ion and their discussion of the representat ions needed to

include an understanding that this port rayal has been created through the

select ion, om ission and t reatm ent of details.

Som e answers included descript ions or explanat ions of the representat ions,

especially where one representat ion was visual. This was unnecessary and

som et im es st rayed into a descr ipt ion or explanat ion of the policies or events

being represented rather than focusing on the representat ion itself.

Many students used charts or m ind m aps for their notes in Part B, often

colour coding sim ilar it ies/ differences in Bi or the different cr iter ia in Bii.

This approach often led to focused and well st ructured answers.

Part Bi

The quest ion Bi sim ply asks ‘How different ’ two representat ions are. The

vast m ajor ity of the answers were at Level 2: they could ident ify sim ilar it ies

and/ or differences in detail but did not com pare the overall port rayal. Som e

students gave lengthy descript ions of their content , often only m aking any

points of com parison at the end, while others assessed them for reliabilit y

or discussed them in term s of the cr iter ia that would be used in Bii – both of

these approaches are inappropriate for this quest ion and could not score

highly. Som e students m oved away from the focus of this quest ion when

they began to explain why the representat ions differed – this quest ion just

asked how m uch they differed.

I t was noted that m any students began by discussing each representat ion in

turn and then drawing out sim ilar it ies and differences in a third paragraph.

While it is possible for such an approach to reach Level 3 once the answer

begins to com pare representat ions, if a paragraph is only about one

representat ion, it should not be annotated as Level 3. I t was also com m on

for answers to juxtapose an analysis of each representat ion and the only

elem ent of com parison cam e from the use of words such as ‘whereas’,

‘however’ and ‘but ’. Students should be rem inded to m ake explicit their

judgem ent on the nature, extent or significance of the differences.

The m ost successful approach was where students began their answer by

ident ifying and com paring the overall im pression created in each

representat ion and then used the detail of each representat ion to support

their analysis. The following exam ple began by ident ifying sim ilar ity and

then difference in port rayal (as noted in the annotat ion) and then went on

to show how sim ilar it y or differences in detail created differ ing levels of

sim ilar ity and difference.

There were som e ext rem ely im pressive answers which highlighted subt le

nuances of difference in apparent ly sim ilar representat ions, or which

showed that despite different details, the overall port rayal was sim ilar.

Good preparat ion was often seen here, with notes in the form of a Venn

diagram , a m ind m ap, a chart etc and often the use of colour coding.

Part Bii

This was the quest ion where the biggest reduct ion in m arks occurred and it

was m ainly because of an unbalanced approach to the m ark schem e.

Students had clearly understood that they were to apply various cr iter ia to

these three representat ions but m any of them t reated this as a source

evaluat ion exercise. Therefore there were m any answers which assessed

reliabilit y and discussed bias within the representat ions but which relied on

an analysis of the representat ion alone. Com m ents about object ivit y or

accuracy were often based on reasoning from the nature / or igin / purpose

of the representat ions rather than a close analysis of the content and the

use of addit ional contextual knowledge. Others t reated this as a cross

referencing exercise point ing out that one representat ion did not include the

sam e aspects as appeared in another. However, the m ark schem e clearly

has a bullet point in each level about the use of inform at ion about the

period and this should be given equal weight with the bullet point requir ing

the analysis of the representat ions.

This problem was part icular ly m arked at the higher levels. I t is not enough

at Levels 3 and 4 to assert ‘These details are accurate because I know this

did happen’, or to say ‘This coverage is not com plete because it does not

m ent ion XX’. Candidates’ ow n know ledge needs to be used to

support any com m ent about accuracy or to explain w hy it is

significant that som ething has been om it ted. Com m ents about

com prehensiveness should also take account of the focus of the

representat ion, for exam ple if the focus of a representat ion is on the

student protest m ovem ent , the com m ent that it does not cover civil r ights

protests, should not be highly rewarded. Even where addit ional own

knowledge was present in the answer, it was som et im es used to explain the

representat ion or the context rather than to test and evaluate the accuracy

/ com prehensiveness of the representat ions. However, it was also

not iceable in Bii that som e students seem ed to have lim ited knowledge of

the overall context , possibly because cent res had focused their teaching on

the bullet point focus for Part A.

The num ber of students whose m ark for this piece was reduced, m any of

them very able students, suggests that this aspect of the m ark schem e had

not been fully st ressed by teachers when preparing students for this task.

Cent res should note that this point has already been m ade in the Principal

Moderator ’s Report of 2010:

To access the higher levels it is necessary to use som e contextual

knowledge about the topic/ period in order to aid their judgem ent .

Moderators noted that som e students were put into the Level 3/ 4 m ark

bands but had not supported their judgem ents with som e contextual

knowledge.

This point has also been m ade very clear ly in the support m aterial for each

CA and the exem plificat ion m aterial on the Edexcel website, for exam ple,

the m oderator ’s com m ent on page 35 of the CA8 support docum ent states:

This ext ract suggests a response in level two. A key feature of source 3 is

selected – the accuracy of its port rayal of im provem ents in policing. The

judgm ent is supported from the content of source 3 which is m atched to the

student ’s own knowledge of developm ents in the CI D. However there is lit t le

developed explorat ion of how far the reorganizat ion of the detect ive branch

did actually im prove policing. I nstead the student describes the reorganized

force. The student refers to im provem ents, using source 3, but there is no

linkage of that to own knowledge as part of reaching a judgm ent about the

accuracy of the port rayal.

To som e extent , these issues have been taken into account this year.

How ever, this is som ething w hich teachers need to address urgent ly

so that their students are able to access the higher m arks next

year.

Most students used the cr iter ia suggested within the m ark schem e but

teachers are rem inded that , while other valid cr iter ia m ay be used, the

focus should be on the overall representat ion. I ndividual details obviously

cont r ibute to the overall im pression but students should not get bogged

down in a m inute exam inat ion of individual details. They should be thinking

about which representat ion is ‘best ’ because it is m ost accurate or m ost

com plete presentat ion of the overall issue; they m ight want to consider

whether the ‘best ’ port rayal is one that is very factual or totally object ive, or

whether one which conveys the em ot ion of the period is ‘best ’. Purpose

here is not an aspect of reliabilit y but whether the author intended to

produce an in-depth analysis or an overall int roduct ion, whether they

wanted to sum m arise the situat ion or to challenge the stereotype, since this

will obviously affect the type of representat ion they produce. Another

possible cr iter ion is the focus of the author – whether a detailed port rayal of

one aspect of the issue is ‘bet ter ’ than a wide, overall port rayal.

There is no preferred approach here – som e students st ructured their

answer around the cr iter ia while others t reated each representat ion in turn

and both approaches are perfect ly acceptable. However, students should

m ake clear which cr iter ion is being applied. Som et im es a paragraph began

by stat ing that accuracy would be assessed but actually assessed the extent

of coverage. Som et im es answers blurred from accuracy into purpose,

especially if they t reated accuracy as m eaning reliabilit y. For Level 3 and

Level 4 m arks to be awarded, each of the cr iter ia m ust be seen to be

applied.

I n m any cases, students assessed the representat ions as sources and

discussed whether the purpose or bias of the author affected reliabilit y or

how the representat ion would be used as a source. Som et im es the answer

was phrased in term s of st rengths and weaknesses of the representat ions or

students wrote about what they could learn or infer from the

representat ion. Candidates should be clear that in Bii they are assessing

how the range of detail, the t reatm ent of the m aterial, and the author ’s

purpose or his object ivity affects the quality of the representat ion. I t m ight

help them to grasp this concept if they prepare for the task by thinking

about the decisions m ade in com piling a souvenir m agazine or creat ing a

t im e capsule – if there is only space for one representat ion, which one

would best convey the specified issue?

I t is understandable that teachers will discuss with their students the best

way to approach this quest ion and the support m ater ial for each CA on the

Edexcel website includes som e student support m aterial which exem plifies

for students the way the m ark schem e is applied to the two representat ions

in the worked answers. However, these support pages should not be used

in the cont rolled condit ions write-up sessions and the third representat ion

should not be one of the representat ions used in this sect ion of the support

m aterial.

Students also need to be aware of the precise focus on the issue in Part B.

For exam ple, in CA6 the focus is the im pact of m ass protests, so the

representat ions need to be assessed in term s of their port rayal of that

im pact ; m any students becam e confused by the fact that Representat ion 1

was a Bob Dylan song and they often discussed what im pact the song had

on society at the t im e. A sim ilar situat ion occurred in CA5 on Vietnam

where Part B is about the port rayal of ways that people reacted to the war

but som e students discussed the way the newspaper which was

Representat ion 1, influenced people’s at t itudes towards the war.

The select ion of a third representat ion needs to be done with care. I n som e

cases where a pr im ary source was used there was often lit t le sense of

overall port rayal and students tended to evaluate it for reliabilit y or ut ilit y.

Other representat ions were very br ief, offer ing lit t le opportunity for

students to apply cr iter ia such as object iv ity or accuracy. There were

excellent exam ples of the use of film , television or song as the third

representat ion, often producing very thought ful responses from students.

Where a film or television program m e is used, cent res should provide

students with a br ief synopsis of the content for their use in the write up

session and this should be sent to the m oderator, there is no need to send

the actual DVD.

Cent res are rem inded that in the support m aterial on the website som e of

the representat ions are used in the sam ple worked answers and in the

sect ion where the m ark schem e levels are exem plified, and these m ay not

be used as the third representat ion . However, any of the three

representat ions in Sect ion 6, ‘Addit ional representat ion sources’ m ay be

used and cent res are now also free to use one of the representat ions set by

Edexcel in the tasks valid from 2009-2011.

Adm inist rat ion

On the whole, the adm inist rat ion of the Cont rolled Assessm ent was correct

and the work was well presented. However, delay was som et im es caused

by the failure to include a copy of the third representat ion. I ndeed, when

there are two valid sets of tasks and a choice of bullet points within each

Part A, it is desirable for the cent re to include a copy of the com plete CA.

There is a checklist on the Edexcel website of the m aterial to be sent to the

m oderator and this will be updated before next year. Cent res are also

rem inded that som e Cont rolled Assessm ent topics are a forbidden

com binat ion with certain exam ined units.

The following points are all problem s which occurred this year and which

should be avoided next year:

There were som e occasions when the m ark on the Optem s or

Coursework Authent ificat ion Sheet did not m atch the m ark on the

work. This caused unnecessary delays since the m oderator had to

return the m aterial to the school for verificat ion. The final,

m oderated m ark should be entered on all docum ents and clearly

indicated on the work.

Cent res are rem inded that in addit ion to the sam ple ident ified on the

Optem s, the work of the highest and lowest scoring candidates

should be included, and clearly indicated, either on the Optem s or on

the work.

I f the student who received the lowest m ark did not com plete all

three parts of the task, it would be helpful to also receive the work of

the candidate who did com plete all three pieces and received the

lowest m ark.

All the work included a Candidate Authent ificat ion Sheet but various

different form ats were used; cent res are asked to use the latest

version, available to download from the Edexcel website.

I t is essent ial that the com plete Cont rolled Assessm ent task is

subm it ted with the work. This is the only way m oderators can know

what was used as the third representat ion in Bii but also, since two

sets of tasks are valid at any one t im e, m oderators need to be certain

which task is being com pleted.

Candidates should write the enquiry focus t it le on their work – this is

especially im portant if the candidates have not all done the sam e

focus.

I t is helpful to have the work packaged either in the order listed on

the Optem s or in rank order. I deally the Bibliography, plan and notes

for Part A will be packaged with Part A, the plan and notes for Bi with

the Bi work, and the plan and notes for Bii with the Bii work, so that

m oderators can easily refer to the notes and check that they are

appropriate. I t is not necessary to package each student ’s work in

folders or plast ic wallets and staple or t reasury tags are perfect ly

adequate but paperclips are not ideal as they often com e loose. I t is

also essent ial that each piece of paper is clearly nam ed – including

the plans and notes; m oderators said that when packages cam e loose

in the post it was difficult and t im e consum ing to m atch up the

answers and notes from individual students.

Where there is m ore than one teaching group or year group, internal

m oderat ion m ust be carr ied out and the final total clearly indicated –

it is especially im portant to ident ify it clearly if the m oderated m ark is

different from the or iginal m ark. Som et im es 2 m arks were present

on a piece with no indicat ion of which was the final m ark; even where

it was clear that adjustm ent had taken place there was often no

explanat ion and it sim ply seem ed that the higher m ark was adopted.

Even if different teaching groups have com pleted different Cont rolled

Assessm ent tasks, the m arks m ust be internally standardised since

any adjustm ents m ade to the m arks by the m oderator will be applied

to the whole cohort .

Although it is not required, m oderators find it ext rem ely helpful to

see indicat ions on the body of the work showing where the various

levels have been reached. Ticks or com m ents such as ‘good’ are not

as helpful as br ief annotat ions which help the m oderator to

understand not only the level that has been awarded but the

rat ionale for the m ark within that level. Since the m ark schem es for

all 3 tasks have m ore than one elem ent to be rewarded at each level,

m oderators need to be sure that the m ark is appropriate. Most

annotat ions were clearly related to the m ark schem e but they m ust

be carefully applied. Level 4 requires sustained perform ance – an

annotat ion of L4 against the first paragraph cannot be just ified.

However, m oderators noted that accurate m arking often seem ed to

be cent res which also annotated the work carefully.

Many cent res also gave som e indicat ion of how the different parts of

the Cont rolled Assessm ent had been undertaken. Once again, this is

not required but m oderators found it helpful to know whether

candidates had com pleted each task in a single session, what

resources the cent re had provided for the Part A enquiry, whether

candidates had been directed to produce their notes in a specific

format etc.

Cent res are rem inded that candidates are allowed 1 side A4 for a plan

for each task and then 2 sides A4 notes for Part A and Bii and 1 side

A4 for Part Bi. This does not m ean 3 pages of notes or 2 pages of

notes plus som e photocopied pictures. The regulat ions also state

clear ly that the notes should not const itute a draft answer. Cent res

should collect in the notes and check that they are suitable before the

write-up session, allowing t im e for students to produce a fresh set of

notes if necessary. The notes should be bullet points or m ind m aps

but nothing approaching sentences or a draft answer. Moderators

often refer to the notes to see the use of sources in Part A or the

addit ional own knowledge in Bii. I f the candidate has not used any

notes or plan, it is helpful to have this clearly stated, especially if the

answer contains specific details, such as quotat ions, stat ist ics,

specific dates or individuals, so that the m oderator knows they have

received the full subm ission of work for that candidate.

Conclusion

I t is appreciated that this new style of task and the use of cont rolled

condit ions was a t im e of anxiety for both teachers and students but there

was a huge am ount of im pressive work seen. At the highest level there was

m uch work that dem onst rated A Level qualit ies and both students and

teachers can be just ly proud of the outstanding standard achieved. There

were also m any Level 2 and Level 3 pieces which showed careful

preparat ion, genuine understanding and thought ful com m ents. At Level 1

candidates were less able to focus their work on the dem ands of the

individual tasks but even so, there was often a conscient ious effort to write

about the topic.

Moderators were also im pressed by the care and at tent ion dem onst rated by

teachers. The high standard of work from m any cent res reflected thorough

engagem ent with the tasks and appropriate preparat ion. Marking

annotat ions showed the m ark schem es being carefully applied, with a good

sense of what different iated one level from another. Although the m ajority

of m ark changes were reduct ions, som e cent res applied the m ark schem es

too st r ict ly and in som e cases m arks were raised. Cent res should pay

careful at tent ion to any indicat ion in the E9 that there was evidence of

severity or generosity and adjust their m arking accordingly. Even if m arks

were not reduced this year, com m ents on the E9 should be t reated with due

at tent ion since they signal the possibilit y that changes m ay be m ade in

future years. When adjustm ents to m arks were recom m ended, and so

regression of the whole cent re was likely to occur, it is im portant to note

that such work was always escalated to a senior m oderator. Thus every

centre w here this happened had the judgem ent of their or iginal

m oderator confirm ed by a second m oderat ion of the w ork by either

a team leader or the pr incipal m oderator.

Cent res where teachers and/ or students found a task diff icult , or where

m arks have been altered, should note that there is a great am ount of

support available. Support m aterial was placed on the website in

Septem ber 2009 and further m aterial has becom e available since then,

including a podcast and exem plificat ion of m arking as well as inset

m eet ings. While new textbooks have not been produced for all Cont rolled

Assessm ent opt ions, there are som e generic pages on how to conduct an

enquiry and how to assess representat ions, that teachers m ight st ill f ind

useful to read even if the content is not the sam e as the CA they have

chosen to study.

Further copies of this publicat ion are available from

Edexcel Publicat ions, Adam sway, Mansfield, Not ts, NG18 4FN

Telephone 01623 467467

Fax 01623 450481

Email publicat ion.orders@edexcel.com

Order Code UGO28188 June 2011

For more informat ion on Edexcel qualificat ions, please v isit

www.edexcel.com / quals

Pearson Educat ion Lim ited. Registered com pany number 872828

with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE